Peace movement blames America

Just as America must fight a "new kind of war," so it must deal with a new kind of peace movement, one that blames American foreign policy for the recent terrorist attack. Blame the hateful mass murderers seeking martyrdom in their radical holy war against America? Not the new peace movement -- it's a part of a global war against America.

Those who opposed U.S. military action in the past questioned the right of America to protect its interests in other countries. That questioning centered on two issues: the definition of American interests and our right to impose our interests on others. These have always been reasonable questions, whatever one's view in particular cases.

The new peace movement has nothing to do with reasonable questions. "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?" So asks Susan Sontag in The New Yorker.

Never before have so many Americans been killed on American soil. But the new self-proclaimed peaceniks are anti-American cultural warriors willing to sink to unimaginable moral equivalencies.

Whereas the old peace movement questioned America's right to kill people in other countries when no attack on American soil had occurred, the new peace movement defends the brutal killing of thousands of Americans on the grounds that America got what it had coming.

The new peace movement doubtless recalls the old. The latter began with communist sympathizers who excused the Soviet Union its innumerable crimes against humanity, seeing capitalism as the world's great evil. Having adjusted to the end of the Cold War, the new peace movement hates America for being the world's sole remaining superpower. And it wants that power eviscerated.

Unmoved to anger against the perpetrators of the atrocious violence of September 11th, the new peaceniks merely heat up their longstanding anger against America.

Deplorably, they turn the death of thousands of innocent lives into an opportunity to point a cold ideological finger at America.

In its extremism, the new peace movement has something in common with Jerry Falwell: the refusal to blame those responsible for the September 11th atrocity, choosing instead to blame America.

Falwell blames America for harboring heretics. The peaceniks blame America for harboring Americans. Put the two together and you get the holy war of Osama bin Laden, the jihad declared against the U.S. by the Taliban.

So far the percentage of Americans who blame America is small. But those who do blame America congregate in places that shape the future of American culture: our nation's college and university campuses.

Anyone who thought that the loss of more than 6,000 lives on American soil might have led to unanimous patriotic compassion even at America's campuses was too hopeful. The Sontag sentiment is highly audible on campus.

The day after the September 11th attack, one of my Columbia students voiced this representative reaction: "I hope it will cause America to examine its foreign policy decisions."

Like the old one, the new peace movement is rooted in our universities. Thus, it is ruled by political correctness, which, after expunging America's virtues and exaggerating its crimes, credits America's most vicious enemies with political and moral validity.

As part of its anti-American campaign, political correctness teaches young Americans to identify their country as a global oppressor and to regard the rest of the world as blameless victims.

It not only urges identification with such victims but also encourages students to see themselves as victims too.

Thus they can simultaneously identify with the victims of the September 11th attack and blame the oppressive U.S.

Off campus, Americans are united, and their present unity is a beauty to behold. A New York Times/CBS poll shows 85 percent supporting military action against whoever is responsible for the recent attacks.

But once America starts fighting, opposition will grow. The same poll shows there is already less support for a protracted war than for a short one. And this "new kind of war" is likely to be a very long one.

If we are to win this long war against terrorism, the next generation will have to be another great generation. Lines at recruitment offices for America's armed forces suggest it just might be exactly that.

But courageous, patriotic young Americans will find their peers using the cloak of a new "peace" movement to make a war against them.

Annalex,

> Don't you think that taking sides in others' conflict may be unwise, but is not necessarily an act of aggression?

A government (using this term rather than country in the interest of maintaining consistence within my argument) may take a side and not become involved in aggression, but only if this "taking of sides" is done through diplomatic channels; i.e. verbally. Once government "A" takes a side in someone else's conflict, and devotes resources to ensure the success of "their side," then government "A" is engaging in aggression. It cannot be any other way. If a government is not defending its own borders, then it is involved in aggression.

> Imagine yourself a US diplomat in a country that is on the brink of a civil war or revolution. Civilians will die on both sides with or without US involvement, but you see the national interest in supporting one side. Why is that necessarily wrong?

It is wrong for several reasons, I'll list a couple:

1. In order for the U.S. to become involved in a conflict, it must have funding. Under our current system, the U.S. must first engage in aggression against its own citizens in order to be able to fund its intervention.

2. The U.S. Government's role is to protect our borders. Its role is not to ensure the success of private enterprise overseas. If private enterprise goes overseas and loses its assets due to nationalization, too bad. That was the risk, hope they had good insurance.

Our policy in the Middle East tended to be in support of stability, and so in support of the established regimes, no matter how undemocratic. I don't see it as a priori wrong, although it could be unwise.

In my 1953 Iranian example, our policy was to subvert the wishes of the local population who had expressed their wishes for a government via the ballot box. This is not only clearly unwise, but was also wrong.

That may be too theoretical for this long thread, but this is what I think, in brief:

It is generally rightful to come to forceful defence of an innocent party against aggression. Although the rescuer initiates violence nominally, it is rightful. That extends to governments when they have a proper popular mandate.

It is generally rightful to protect life or property regardless of jurisdiction. Thus a government acting in defense of its citizen's property on foreign soil is acting rightfully if it has the mandate to spend the resource.

A government with a proper mandate can be proactive in preempting aggression before there is a tangible threat, short of initiating aggression. For example, a government anticipating a future threat from country X may take steps that strengthen country Y because Y is an adversary of X.

A distinction should be made between dealing with a country that can be expected to act in accordance with international law (e.g. that subscribes to non-aggression principles similar to what I outlined), and a rogue country. Preemptive aggression against a rogue country can be justified under some circumstances.

I realize that these theses can easily fill multiple threads, and I fully intend to present them under Defense of Liberty label at some point.

Annalex,

> That may be too theoretical for this long thread, but this is what I think, in brief:

Yes, this is a very complex issue which requires a far deeper examination than it has received.

> It is generally rightful to come to forceful defence of an innocent party against aggression. Although the rescuer initiates violence nominally, it is rightful. That extends to governments when they have a proper popular mandate.

And this is the rub as far as I am concerned. I am not sure that our government has the "proper popular mandate," which would involve the people voluntarily funding operations about which they have forthright information. Somehow I can't see the American public voluntarily approving and funding the Salvadorean death squads which the government took it upon itself to fund and train.

There is obviously much more to say on the subject. Suffice it to say that I am in agreement with you to a significant degree and there are areas in which we can probably clarify our thinking.

> I realize that these theses can easily fill multiple threads, and I fully intend to present them under Defense of Liberty label at some point.

I noticed in your DoL thread that you are looking for some assistance. I have some ideas which may or may not be of assistance, let me know if you'd like to discuss them.

John Deere: as I understand your position, it is as follows:

1. The United States has from time to time and in various parts of the world sought to assure the ascendancy of regimes favorably disposed to its policies and interests. In some cases this has involved the support of democratically elected (more or less) governments (Greece after WW2, El Salvador, Haiti, South Korea, Egypt in 1956, the war against the Axis Powers from 1941 to 1945, etc.). In some cases it has involved the subversion of such governments (Nicaragua, Iran, and South Vietnam come to mind).

2. In all of these cases the efforts of the United States resulted directly in, or abetted, the deaths of innocents.

3. The attack on the WTC involved the deaths of innocents.

4. Nothing excuses the killing of an innocent.

5. Therefore, American foreign policy since at least 1941 and the attack on the WTC are both abhorent, apparently equally so.

6. There "is a definite connection between our policies and the resultant terrorism."

In summary, you have stated in a more eloquent way than most that we, as a country, although not as individuals, and certainly not the individuals unfortunate enough to be in the WTC, had it coming.

With respect for your position, I believe that at least some of its premises are flawed and that your analysis is incomplete.

For example, the death of an innocent can on occasion be excused. Tens of thousands died at Hiroshima that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, might live. One man died at Golgotha that billions might live. War necessarily involves the deaths of innocents. On the other hand, our renunciation of war would inevitably result in many deaths as those whom our power has held in check availed themselves of the opportunities presented.

The embargo of Iraq has not been the primary cause of the destitution of its citizens. That has been the unfortunate result of the refusal of Saddam Hussein to forgo the development of weapons the principal purpose of which is the slaughter of large numbers of innocents. He could relieve the suffering of his people and end the embargo with a single act but refuses to do so. Were the United States to relent and lift the embargo now, we would in fact be abetting the killing of Israelis and Iranians when the first modified Scuds land in Tel Aviv and Tehran.

When the United States has acted to assure the retention of a favorable regime, the alternative has generally not been a pretty one from the perspective of the citizens of the country involved. Are the Iranians happier under the mullahs than they would have been under the Shah? Did most Greeks want to become a Soviet satellite after WW2? Did the Kuwaitis enjoy watching Iraqis barbecuing the occupants of the national zoo? Therefore, an activist foreign policy is not the primary cause of antipathy toward, and terrorism in, the United States.

I believe the antipathy toward us has several sources: envy, an unrelenting propoganda campaign against us, both at home and abroad and, on the part of those who bombed the WTC, a desire to force us to discontinue our support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Since it would be morally repugnant to abandon Israel and suicidal to abandon either Egypt or the Saudis, we have no choice but to follow the path our President has set us on: to diminish the capacities of our opponents to a point where they are no longer a threat to our citizens and friends.

p. henry,

Thank you for a reasoned and sober response.

John Deere: as I understand your position, it is as follows:

> In some cases it has involved the subversion of such [democratic] governments (Nicaragua, Iran, and South Vietnam come to mind).

Iran
Guatemala
Congo
Indonesia
Brazil
Dominican Republic
Vietnam
Chile
Zimbabwe
Nicaragua
Grenada

To name a few.

> In summary, you have stated in a more eloquent way than most that we, as a country, although not as individuals, and certainly not the individuals unfortunate enough to be in the WTC, had it coming.

"had it coming," is not the best description of what I am saying. "Predictable" is far more accurate. Just like a person who walks off the top of a 30 story building doesn't necessarily "have it coming," still the ensuing sudden stop is quite predictable.

> With respect for your position, I believe that at least some of its premises are flawed and that your analysis is incomplete.

> For example, the death of an innocent can on occasion be excused. Tens of thousands died at Hiroshima that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, might live.

I respectfully disagree with you on 2 counts:

1. It can be argued that the bombing of Hiroshima was not a tactical necessity since the Imperial Navy and the Japanese air force had basically been destroyed and could offer token resistance at most. In 1945, Kantaro Suzuki's government came to power with the express objective of ending a war that the Japanese already understood was lost. This was clearly evident from messages intercepted by U.S. Intelligence and by repeated peace overtures which were kept from the American public.

Rather than getting into all the details, I can tell you that available evidence shows that it is a myth that the atomic bomb caused Japan's surrender and was completely unnecessary. Here is a quote from General Douglas MacArthur concerning the use of the atomic bomb: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." General Curtis LeMay (one of the architects of precision bombing of Japan and Germany who later served as AF Chief of Staff) said: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war." This evidence also dispels the even larger myth that the atomic bombs "saved millions." 2. The death of the few for the survival of the many is quite an acceptable concept for me with one caveat; that the few give their lives up voluntarily. To conscript unwilling innocents and send them to their deaths "for the greater good," is an unimaginable evil to me. Akin to the idea that it is acceptable that a few innocents on death row be executed, since there are far more guilty individuals that deserve to be killed.

> One man died at Golgotha that billions might live.

By choice.

> War necessarily involves the deaths of innocents. On the other hand, our renunciation of war would inevitably result in many deaths as those whom our power has held in check availed themselves of the opportunities presented.

I view war as a necessary evil, too often engaged in for the economic gain of the few (backed up by ideological justification and propaganda) rather than self-defense. I am not against just war, I am completely against war born of greed and stupidity.

> The embargo of Iraq has not been the primary cause of the destitution of its citizens.

Yes it has. Since when do we hold victims hostage in order to try to effect a change in behavior on their tormentor? This is what I call "batter the battered wife foreign policy," and it does not cut it any way you look at it. Perhaps if we make the battered wife sufficiently thirsty, hungry, ill, and miserable, she will rise up and overthrow her batterer? This is inexcusable.

> When the United States has acted to assure the retention of a favorable regime, the alternative has generally not been a pretty one from the perspective of the citizens of the country involved. Are the Iranians happier under the mullahs than they would have been under the Shah?

The Iranians were ecstatic under the Sha's SAVAK. So ecstatic in fact that they overthrew him and in the process took American hostages for 444 days. The real question is, would Iranians have been happier under the government they elected and we overthrew? Would fundamentalist forces have had the popular support to take power if our Shah had not had one of the worst human rights records at the time?

> I believe the antipathy toward us has several sources:

You list a number of very valid reasons. Envy, which you list first, is probably not among the real reasons. I would venture to guess that the majority of people in the ME would love to have our standard of living. Unfortunately, in order for their standard of living to increase, we are afraid that our will drop. Hence we prop up undemocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (yes, Egypt is more akin to a dictatorship than a democracy).

By keeping down the forces of democracy in the ME, we definitely ensure our "interests" (translated: cheap oil, big SUVs) at the expense of the people of the ME. Is it any surprise that they are pissed off?

As for Israel, there is nothing immoral about withdrawing support in the way of taxpayer dollars. There is nothing to keep you and all other Israeli supporters from voluntarily sending your money there. What is immoral, is coercing American taxpayers into paying taxes which are then sent to Israel. I will repeat, anyone who wishes to support Israel should send them money. Those that do not wish to, should not be forced to.

Thanks again for your post.

Hello, John - I sympathize with you! No, not with your opinions and your rewrite of history. Rather, I feel sympathy for someone who shows all the symptoms of being a debilitated victim of a vicious disease known as "Modern American Liberal Arts Education." :-)

In 1953, we did not invade Iran (although the British seriously considered the option), instead we funded and fomented and managed the overthrow of a democratically elected government.

You conveniently leave out a lot of pertinent facts in order to twist this into a typical leftist anti-American history rewrite. First off, the instigator of this coup was Great Britain. Brits were the first to discover oil in Iran, they built the entire Iranian oil industry from scratch. The Iranian prime minister - Mossadegh - tried to nationalize it. Since it was a constitutional monarchy, both the Shah and Mossadegh shared power, with the relative balance of power between them shifting from time to time. Though most people supported Mossadegh, the Shah had supporters as well. The UK wanted to see the Shah restored to full power once more, hoping he would forever support British rights to run the oil fields. But they had a hard time convincing the US to back them in their support of a coup by the Shah, because Harry Truman's government didn't want to get involved for nothing more than an oil dispute between Britain and Iran.

But the Cold War WAS a big issue at that time to the US. The Tudeh (Iranian Communist Party) was very strong, and Mossadegh did not seem to be distancing himself from it. So the UK tried again - aiming to convince the US (by now it was the Eisenhower Admin), that Mossadegh was leaning toward the Communists. I don't know exactly how much he really was, but in any case the Brits no doubt exaggerated it to get the US to sign on. The CIA and its British cousin the MI6 helped the Shah and his friends in the Iranian army with their coup, mostly through contributing a lot of cash to pay a "rent-a-mob" who took to the streets of Tehran, picking up a lot of supporters as they went (there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the govt at that time due to the economy being in shambles as a result of the ongoing UK/Iran oil dispute). The mob eventually marched on Mossadegh's residence. The army acted. He was put into prison (and later house arrest) and the Shah took over.

Because of these actions, civilians were killed.

Oh, give me a break! The coup was over in hours. How many "civilians" died? Maybe 2 or 3 of Mossagedh's bodyguards? Get real. What you seem to be implying here is that - An Iranian coup *FIFTY* years ago by the Shah and army officers against Mossadegh, that was virtually bloodless, and happened to be supported primarily by the UK, secondarily by the US, can be used to "understand", and by extension, to even partially "justify" the WTC massacres as "civilian lives traded for civilian lives"!!

As part of our plan, we then installed the infamous Sha of Iran into power. Norman Schwartzkopf Sr. is even reputed to have helped the Sha develop his vicious SAVAK secret police.

And can you present any evidence at all that the SAVAK that Schwartzkopf knew at the time he was helping create it was identical in viciousness to the same SAVAK 25 years later?

This regime had one of the worst human rights records going at the time, and yet we continued to support the regime we created. Thousands were jailed, beaten and killed. Millions were coerced into acceptable behavior.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't argue that they were any better on human rights than other Middle East nations in those days. So what's your point?

When our buddy the Sha was overthrown, we again encouraged the killing of citizens by promoting war between Iraq and Iran. We set about arming and funding the Iraqi war machine. Millions were killed.

History rewrite alert!!! (Again.) We had NOTHING TO DO with the starting of this war. Saddam saw the turmoil in Iran, and the fact that it was fast becoming the pariah of the world, and saw what he thought was a golden opportunity to grab a slice of Iran while the getting was good. Khomeini had already done whatever he could to make us his enemy, so once the war did start, we sold weapons to Iraq and shared occasional satellite photos with him of Iranian positions/defenses/etc. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What's so despicable about selling arms and giving intelligence to a country engaged in a war with your enemy?

And when this Iraqi war machine we created did what we created it to do (engage in aggression against neighboring countries) we went about killing Iraqis to stop our own creation.

Argh! Typical Liberal Blame-America-First propaganda BS! Selling weapons to a country gets magically spun into "creating" their military! Where do you get this stuff from?? (And I see you conveniently forget about that little detail named "Kuwait" when you make a backhanded slap at our entry into the Gulf War)

Today we continue to kill Iraqis through sanctions (most reports put the figure at 5,000 Iraqi children killed per month).

BARF ALERT AGAIN!! The UN Sanctions in place since 1990 make an exception that allows Iraq to sell a certain amount of oil every year, with the proceeds SUPPOSEDLY to be earmarked by the Iraqi govt for buying food, medicine and similar "humanitarian" goods. Guess what Saddam spends it on?? Well, say a big "Duh" here! It gets spent on weapons, on making sure his "Republican Guard" bodyguards are pampered so as not to lose their loyalty, and on big donations to terror cells throught the MidEast. But yet, Saddam's cruel starvation of his own people gets spun by you into an accusation of the ***USA*** killing Iraqis!! What gall!

What's preventing you from going just one little teeny leap further than you have gone, and just stating that "The CIA killed the 5000+ in the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11." Fess up .... you DO believe that, don't you!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.