Complacency
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2002 in
Ruminations
This is not a war weblog. It never has been and never will be. But, it is a place for me to work through my thoughts on issues important to me, as well as play, and came into being partly because of the depth of feelings I had following 11Sep. What follows is something that’s been brewing in the back of my mind now for a few weeks.
If anything will result in the demise of America, our way of life, and freedom, it will be complacency. Complacency is a feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger, trouble, or controversy. The lack of concern on the part of American citizens, and our leaders, led up to the acts of 11Sep. For that matter, the same lack of concern allowed the impending attack on Pearl Harbor in 7Dec1941 to go unimpeded. As a result, we must accept some responsibility for 11Sep. If we had acted sooner in response to escalating attacks against us, Americans, we may have averted this tragedy.
Charles pointed me to a Commentary article by Norman Podhertz earlier this week. This carefully documented piece provides an overview of the chronology of terror attacks against America, our soldiers, and American citizens over the last 30 years.
Yes, terror attacks against Americans for the last 30 years. Furthermore, these attacks went without significant reprisal, fostering a sense that America, that is we, American citizens, was weak and would not respond to attacks against us. It is no wonder that bin Laden thought we would fold up, die, and blow away if hit hard in our homeland.
Osama bin Laden, and others, say that the west, and particularly America, is in a religious war against Islam. There may be Americans who believe this too. I don’t, and expect that most thoughtful Americans don’t believe it either. What we war against is the same attitude that attempts to wrap Christianity around hate crimes promoted against minorities. The adoption of religion to justify the harm of another human being grates and denies the tenets of the world’s major religions.
It is critical, therefore, to realize that what we are at war against right now, is not Islam, but a militant trapping of Islam used used to justify the murder of innocent people. Furthermore, we must use every means at our disposal, not only overt military actions, but also covert and diplomatic actions, to respond to our attackers. The murder of American citizens, military and non-military, must not be allowed to occur without response. I am convinced that we must not present the appearance of weakness, never, ever, never.
I do not promote random retaliation. We must use the resources of the military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities to determine the place and degree of response to attacks against us. We should never stoop to the same level that our enemies do, but respond in a deliberate and planned fashion. This requires a cold, calculating approach that I find distasteful to the extreme, but desperately necessary.
As I read the news, I see that, already, we are headed back toward the status quo. The implements of political correctness are being picked up again. As the immediacy of 11Sep fades behind us, I see us returning to the cynical self-centeredness that characterized Americans before 11Sep. If we do, then we will find ourselves under attack here at home again. (And again, and again….) We must not allow this to happen. We must remember 11Sep, not to dwell on the anguish of lost loved ones, but to remember that we have enemies both abroad and amongst us.
- I don't know what happened to America. Complacency has been around a long time. Was in Europe several times in the 70's and 80's. You could pick an American out of the crowd at a restaurant. They were usually the nastiest to the waiter. Demands, demands. We are looked at as pink, overweight smug capitalists.
Today I read Colin Powell said it was time that Suddam was out of power, and a new government took over. What does this mean? Is it another reason why we are still in Afghanistan? What would Americans do if another country told us it was time to get rid of the Bushmeister? It just doesn't make sense..
On Sept.11, my husband was right at the twin towers. He has yet to get over it. We are no better than anyone else and maybe it was time that we all knew it. The signs have been around way too long. Complacency just hid them from us.
— toxiclabrat 7 February 2002, 04:47 #
- I should probably make a smart-aleck remark about using my name's suffix in vain, but...
I was stunned by Powell's remarks. If there is anything calculated to further negative opinion about this country, it's a bald statement to legislators that the leader of a foreign nation should be removed from power. This is not the Holy Roman Empire, for Pete's sake. Just goes to show that the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle axis of unilateralism has defeated the voices of moderation, of which Powell was the most visible proponent. Had I not been frightened of these people before, I sure would be now. Paraphrasing Conrad, "The arrogance, the arrogance."
— Linkmeister 7 February 2002, 08:52 #
- I love comments and the way that dialogue commences in this venue. I bop back over to blogs where I've left my pawprint to see what comes next. I also love a good arguement. Not a quarrel, not simple negation, but an open expression and discussion of ideas and events. I find that I always learn something and, sometimes, am even forced to modify my position. (Shocked?)
I went hunting for Powell's remarks before responding, so I would know what he said (or at least what was reported). Regardless of what I believe about the Iraqi government, it was a disaster to make such a statement. The meister is correct --- Powell's statement will only foster additional negative opinion of this country. You would think that we should be building our international standing and not undermining it. I hope that this was one of those unfortunate offhanded remarks and not a planned position statement, at least at this time. We'll see.
Toxic: I used to be a pink, overweight, smug capitalist. Now I'm just a capitalist. (Just kidding! :) I understand that we have a reputation for being the ugly American and hope that, someday, I might be able to go abroad and do my part to dispell that misconception.
I would like to address the Bushmeister comment (with apologies to Linkmeister in advance :). We (America) did not invade Kuwait, murder the Kurds, lob scuds at Israel in an attempt to destabilize the region, and destroy the Kuwaiti oilfields. I see that as the primary difference between Hussein and any recent American president. Therefore, I view Iraq's statements and policy with significant scepticism. Powell's statement may be in poor taste and untimely, but is not in the same league as calling for the removal of the Bushmeister, at least in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't know that Iraq was involved in 11Sep, but it's one of those things that wouldn't surprise me. It is possible that evidence will be forthcoming that, indeed, Iraq was involved. If that's the case, then some clear response is required.
Finally, despite having my own strong feelings about 11Sep, I'm sure I cannot understand what you and your husband must feel. I'm surprised that I'm this close to someone who was there. Please accept my thoughts and prayers for healing. If you're so inclined, I'd love to hear the story sometime.
Linkmeister: Goodness I should hope we're not the Holy Roman Empire! :) I'm right with you that Powell at least committed a faux paus. Furthermore, significant scrutiny of his position is required. The question I have is: What does he know that we don't? I'm not presupposing here, I just want to see the facts that he has that we don't, if there are any. If there are no facts and it's political monotribe, then his statements can be dismissed as ignorant and ill-timed. If there are facts, let's look at them, and then we can construct a thought-out response and act accordingly.
It's not like we (America) have never made poor foreign policy decisions or actions. We are an imperfect people and live in an imperfect world. I wish we could live in peace without ever having to fight. But we all know what wishing will get us.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
— ruminator 7 February 2002, 19:16 #
- From the time I was very young, I poured over the graphic photos in the WWII books that my dad kept in his dresser. As an 8 year old, I cried over the dead animals lying on the streets of France.At this young age, I never realized that the torn and soiled sheets on the streets were covering dead human bodies. This photo journal is my earliest memory of war---a war that was far away; both in time and miles.
One of the biggest fears in my life had been war on American soil. I feared the dead horses that might someday be on the streets in the United States.
On Sept. 11, 2002 my fear was realized
— tina 8 February 2002, 02:42 #
- Wishing only to provoke discussion, and not to indicate a stand one way or the other, I'd like to throw out a few observations on history that may relate to Powell's statements.
For thousands of years, the overt purpose of engaging in warfare was to depose the leadership of the antagonist and replace it with something more favorable. If we consider just the history of twentieth century wars in which we have been involved, the big ones are WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Panama, and the Gulf War. Of these, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War resulted in "negotiated peace" and continuing unrest. WWII, the Cold War, and Panama resulted in replacement of the antagonistic governments, and thus resolved the situations in question with some certainty. Granted, the Cold War had a completely different look to it, but the result was the same. So, there is historical precedent for Powell's contention.
The wisdom of saying something like that openly, however, is a completely different matter....
— Dazed&Confused 8 February 2002, 03:00 #
- I think most of the world, even the Gulf states (maybe especially the Gulf states), would be delighted to see Saddam gone. I have no problem with that being an unstated wish of our government. Where I do have a problem is in making a public statement of that wish to a body which has the authority to declare war. Remember Reagan and his open-mike remark "the missiles are on the way"?? That could be sluffed off as a lousy stupid joke; Powell's declaration was in a public arena, in the course of testimony or a speech, which has entirely different connotations, particularly to the rest of the world. That's what startles and alarms me.
"If there are no facts and it's political monotribe, then his statements can be dismissed as ignorant and ill-timed." Well, no. Americans can dismiss, but allies and enemies will not. Our allies will be alarmed; our enemies will make more hay about our antagonistic behavior. In my view, Powell made a mistake.
— Linkmeister 8 February 2002, 12:04 #
- Tina: Some years ago I began reading the history of WWII. I was interested in small-unit tactics of that time period. What I found was that the stories of the individuals involved in the conflict, at every level, were absolutely fascinating. They saw things that ranged from horrifying to inspiring. The more I read, the more meaningful their stories became to me.
Photographs of war zones from the Civil War on are gruesome reminders of the reality of war. When I was young, I thought little about the cost of war. As I aged and developed the depth of perspective that normally comes with age (I won't call it wisdom, yet... :) and had a family, I realized that, not only does war impose serious sanctions on the protagonists from an economic perspective, but also it imposes a serious human cost (both civilian and military). Every time I examine those photographs, I'm reminded of that in a personal, emotional, and intellectual way.
Dazed: Stated succinctly, as usual.
Linkmeister: We're probably the elders in this group. How many times have we seen stupid off-handed remarks? I don't think I can count! And surely most of the Gulf states would welcome a reprieve from the implied threat that Hussein represents.
I was just hunting around for the protocol for invocation of the War Powers Act. I'm curious if Congress can act unilateraly or if the request must come from the President. Do you know? I believe this has some bearing on the discussion.
On the other hand, saber-rattling is an old ploy used to unsettle a potential opponent. I would point out the ongoing effort to place arms inspectors into Iraq. Our allies may be alarmed, but I tend to think they are probably better informed than we are by reading news on the net or watching the talking heads on CNN. I don't want to read more into a single event than is deserved.
My opinion is that our enemies will make hay of whatever our leaders say, or fail to say. Spin doctors live and work everywhere and almost any statement can be twisted to fit the needs of propaganda. (How's that for a loaded word?) I'm also not being dismissive; I question the wisdom of Powell's statement. It's just that I see potential layers of intent. I could see the statement as calculated to put Hussein on notice that we are preparing to act should he continue to refuse access to weapons inspectors (for example). I would also point out that we aren't privy to all communications between the executive and the legislative bodies. It may be that there's more to be seen.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. But I know that political maneuvering sometimes involves twists and feints and the principal means is through language.
Finally, I respect your view.
— ruminator 8 February 2002, 22:46 #