Rant 6 October 4, 2008

I was thinking the other day about the War on Terror, Bush, Obama, America’s role in the world and John Wayne.  A couple of things got me going in this direction.  One was a speech by Obama where he said he wanted to reestablish America’s global leadership.  He was talking about our moral leadership, about standing for freedom and doing the right thing.  He thought we had lost it and wanted it back.

Obama’s goal of recapturing our moral authority is a nice sounding phrase.  After all Superman fought for truth, justice and American way.  What American boy of my generation has not worn a Superman costume at some point in their life?

The other thing that got me thinking was a recent episode o the British TV series, “Spooks”, known here as “MI-5”.  For a video plot review go to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/series4_ep9.shtml

In this story, tensions with Iran are at a breaking point and MI-5 are dealing with CIA attempts to stop what is purportedly an Iranian plot to attack an airliner over London.  It turns out that the plot is a sham and the real goal is a CIA led effort to bring the Brits into a war with Iran.  “Factions” of the US government are desirous of starting the war but feel relationships with allies; strained as a result of the fiasco in Iraq are such that the US may have to go it alone.  If the Iranians can be blamed for killing a large number of people in the UK, it is felt this will bring the Brits into the war on the US side. 

Given that at least fictionally, some Americans were being accused of willingness to kill hundreds of innocent people in order to shape British policy, I had to ask myself; did America ever really have the moral leadership Obama was talking about?  Could it be reclaimed?  And what would it mean if we did?

Morality has always troubled me.  Even though my Grandfather was a Methodist Minister, I have never been a particularly religious person.  I have always been suspicious of those who claimed God’s authority in proclaiming what was right.  I still am.  Arguments about how I know better what is right for you have the ring of polemics to me rather than revealed truth.  I may have had doubts about morality in my early years but I never had much question about what was right.

To my boyhood eyes everyone knew what was right.  A boy scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave, clean and reverent.  Thrifty may be in there as well but if so, I never really got that one.  (Eagle Scout, 1958)  The FBI caught the criminals and hunted the godless communists.  My father and uncles had all fought in the Big War to make the world safe for democracy.  The bad guys were Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.  The good guys were Roosevelt, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Churchill, and Patton.  Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson founded the nation and overcame tyranny.  Lincoln freed the slaves. There were plenty of fictional heroes too. Buck Rogers defeated Ming.  Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett tamed the west.  John Wayne and Randolph Scott wore the white hats and beat the bad guys with the black hats.  Who knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men?  The Shadow did.  Superman, Batman and the Green Hornet all fought and triumphed over evil.  Evil never pays and the good guys always win.

Yes, it was clear what was right.   Right was honesty, fairness and commitment to principal, regardless of cost.  Sacrifice has always been a major part of America’s morality play.  Patrick Henry, a relation according to my Mother, said in eighteenth century Virginia; “give me liberty or give me death”.  Franklin said; “we must all hang together or we will all hang separately”.  Davey Crockett chose to die fighting for freedom at the Alamo rather than abandon his comrades.  The western hero had to be willing to shoot it out with the bad guy: mano a mano.  Lincoln praised those who gave; “the last full measure of their devotion” by dying at Gettysburg in the defense of the Union.  Like many American families, I have relatives that fought on both sides of the Civil War but the words of the victors are generally better remembered.  Donn Wonnell can most likely provide equally compelling quotes for the bravery of those on the Southern side.

But growing up the sacrifices were even closer to home.  My family was lucky and none of my uncles died in the war, although my father’s brother was in Merrill’s Marauders.  His unit was lost behind enemy lines in the jungles of Thailand, Burma and Malaysia for 18 months.  He returned a broken man, let his alcoholism take him and eventually killed himself.  But everyone I grew up with knew someone who had died in the big war.

So what did non-Americans think about all this?  At the time, I did not have a clue.  I cannot remember when I first met a foreigner, but being from Middle America, I suspect it was probably not until I was in High School.  I did not take my first trip out of the country until 1971 when I took my wife and 2-year-old son to Europe. 

By 1971 Martin Luther King, Jack and Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated, there had been race riots in LA and other US cities, Lyndon Johnson had been hounded from office with taunts of, “hey hey LBJ how may kids did you kill today?”.  Nixon was elected, the Black Panthers were active across the country, anti-Vietnam War actions were extensive and the US National Guard had killed four un-armed student protestors at Kent State in Ohio.  Although I did not find out until much later, the FBI had already identified me as a “potentially dangerous anti-war agitator” as a result of one speech I made at a student strike against the Kent State killings. 

As a complete aside, I met Johnson at the White House when I was 15.  What I remember most is the charisma of the man, his presence seemed to fill the room and you could not help being drawn to him.  I have met Presidents and Prime Ministers since but still have not experienced the same intensity of feeling.  Some of that is certainly my age at the time but the man had something unusual.  One of the things I like most about Obama is his unwillingness to demonize his opponent.  He went out of his way in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention to draw the line at calling McCain a bad man.  He did the exact opposite and said he was to be honored and respected for the sacrifices he has made on behalf of the county.  Obama made it clear that it was possible for a good man to have bad ideas and still be deserving of respect.  I always felt that was the case with Johnson.  I hope this level of civility and respect can finally become once again a part of our political process and we can have debates about the merits of ideas and not simply ad hominems against opponents.  I have to admit however, that it is rather hard for me to get that same perspective on Nixon. 

Obama thinks ideals are important and need to be talked about and acted upon.

I went to Europe that first time because I was having a tough time learning German at college.  I had the fantasy of reading the great German philosophers in the original language.  I have always found languages difficult and still only understand a little German, Spanish and French.  The reading fantasy persisted until I actually sat down and tried to translate some Hegel and came upon my first 250-word sentence.  After that, I decided translations were good enough for me.  At the time however, the plan was to live in Freiburg im Breisgau and let the osmosis method work on my understanding of the language.  We settled into an apartment house for students at the University of Freiburg.  The house we were in was comprised mostly of non-German students but all spoke better German than I and most had a good grasp of English as well.

I certainly would not have considered myself naïve in those days.  But I was accused of it.  His name was Hassan.  He was a Muslim medical student from Azerbaijan and he had very definite opinions about the American CIA. Hassan was a confident and highly intelligent individual, I expect he is either in jail or running his country by now.  He recounted the numerous attempts where according to him; the Agency had undertaken or attempted assassination and bribery to influence and control events.   I was shocked that he should even suggest that we Americans would try something underhanded.  We argued for days and days and in the end we left it that he did not change his mind but acknowledged he accepted that the average American (me) would be outraged if they thought their government was involved in anything like what he alleged.  He had assessed me, as just what he always thought Americans would be, extremely naive but good-hearted and wanting to do the right thing.  What my encounter with Hassan showed clearly was that, even in the face of the turmoil in the US and the anti-war activities against the government, I had retained my boyhood beliefs in the absolute nature of right and the good.

Hassan was correct, of course.  As it subsequently came out, Eisenhower had approved the assassination of Patrice Lumumba as early as the late 1950’s although other factions had him killed before Ike’s order could be carried out.  The CIA made numerous attempts on Castro and was heavily involved in skullduggery in Latin and South America and elsewhere.

So much for global moral leadership. 

But even in the face of those self-serving behaviors, my experience is that most of the world remained willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt and believe that while we might be un-sophisticated and even a bit bumbling we for the most part were still acting out of pure motives.  We might not be doing the right thing but we were trying to.  Whether this is because that was the way things actually were or that the rest of the world was just responding to the same Hollywood image of Americans that helped shape our own view of ourselves really doesn’t matter.  We were at least credited with trying to do the right thing.

I think all that ended with Iraq.  In hindsight, it is clear that Bush2 wanted to punish Saddam for putting a contract out on his father.  I think Cheney also told him he could get his hands on Iraq’s oil at the same time.  When we arrogantly told the UN and our allies that they either joined us or ran the risk of becoming irrelevant, we added insult to an already serious injury.  It was clear to the world that the US was not employing its military force out of a belief in what was right but acting simply because we could.  We were acting out of vengeance and greed.  This and our subsequent actions have put the death notice to the world’s willingness to give us the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives.

My friend Graeme Lynch says that it will take generations to repair the damage that Bush has caused to America’s perception internationally.  I fear he is absolutely right.  I guess that is how you get to the point were a TV series plot line that says the US is willing to kill hundreds of innocent citizens of its allies becomes credible.  I was willing to make a stand on this in 1971: but today?  I don’t believe it but I would not be willing to bet my life on it not being possible.

So what does this matter?  And what does any of this have to do with the war on terror?

I was reviewing a book on terrorism by Noam Chomsky that I had read some time ago.  In it he covers the historical uses of terror.  He concludes that terrorism almost never is successful and that the only cases where terrorists were victorious occurred when the societies attacked responded against their opponents with the same terrorist tactics and same disregard for the civilian victims of the conflict.  Chomsky’s thesis is that terrorists will ultimately fail because the cultures, which support them, will eventually become disgusted with their tactics and withdraw their support.  I have to believe he is right in this.  And unfortunately I think the US is very close to making this historical mistake.  If we are willing to accept 100,000 innocent Muslim deaths in order to kill Osama bin Laden, then we will never “win” the war on terror.

The war in Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.  I do not see any significant outrage over this in the US.  Most people would say we are not the cause but that it is locals and the terrorists who are to blame.  But the fact is that our actions were the proximate cause if not the direct one.  I think that the view of most of the moderate Muslim populations throughout the world would say we share the blame and it is this moderate majority that has to be our audience if we are to reduce the threat of terrorism in our societies.

Do we need to establish global moral leadership to address this group?  No, but we do need to begin to act responsibly and morally. 

It is only by getting those in the global Muslim community who are supporting terrorism by providing food, shelter, financial and psychological support to believe we in the West are mostly innocent victims and not appropriately targeted oppressors can we slowly begin to make it more difficult for the terrorists to operate.  I wish it were otherwise; that we could just bomb the right cave and the threat would be over.  I just do not believe that is the way it is.

If we can once again establish our credentials as a responsible nation and one that acts from good and not base motives, I think over time we can reduce the support for extremism within the moderate Muslim communities.    In my travels, I have met many Muslims and besides being more devout than most people I know they were mostly just like us.  Worried about how to build a better life for themselves and their families.  I have to believe that in the long run we have more in common with them than they have with the Jihadists.

So while I do not think Obama is right about global leadership, I do think he is right about once again highlighting our idealism.  America has to begin to act more in line with its ideals if we are going to build a better world for ourselves and our children.  This election will be an interesting test on how the majority of Americans respond to an appeal to our better natures.