Pro-American

smallflag.jpgPro-American
: There has been much discussion, many attacks, and many links and comments around the post below on my defense of Americans in the face of attacks.

And so I want to bring this up to the top of the heap, I want to be loud and I want to be clear, and so I will repeat what I say below:

Pardon me, but I’m going to take a very dangerous and contrarian and by some views shrill, right-wing, illiberal stance and I’ll take your barbs and the Guardian’s with pride:

I’m pro-American.

Let me say that again, because I am one and because I was attacked and damned near killed because I am one (and yes, that matters):

I am pro-American.

What a shocking statement, eh?

Well, I’ll admit that I wouldn’t have said that so readily 30 years ago. But when people attack my countrymen so readily, as if it is the accepted wisdom of the age, I have no choice but to defend myself, my countrymen, my country’s ideals, and the only heritage I know.

I’ve had it with America-bashing and American-bashing.

So let me say it one more time just for the grandstanding shock value of it:

I’m pro-American.

: Let me add this: I don’t make my point about September 11th lightly or for the sake of rhetorical oneupsmanship. I make the point because it needs to be made:

Anti-anybody is dangerous.

Anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust.

Muslims attacked us but we are not allowed to be anti-Muslim — nor should we be. That would be a ridiculous, offensive, unproductive, dangerous generalization. Right?

Yet anti-American is suddenly OK. And to go after those who are anti-American is suddenly “right-wing” or “illiberal” or “shrill” or “extremist.”

I’ve had my fill of that attitude. It is dangerous — tangibly dangerous.

Let’s be very clear: Just as anti-Semitism led directly to the Holocaust, anti-Americanism led directly to September 11th.

Demonizing the people of this country made it acceptable to some and a goal for some to see fanatics murder thousands of us, just as demonizing Jews made it acceptable for fanatics to murder millions of them.

I’m not making a politically correct argument. You can criticize any policy or action of this country or of Israel and you’re not by any means anti-American or anti-Semitic.

But once you generalize — as the two American writers in question did do — and start calling all Americans stupid and ignorant — Moore’s charges — and amoral — the Newsweek guy’s assertion — you only play into the blind and finally murderous hatred of armed anti-Americans like the ones who came within a few hundred yards of killing me on September 11th.

This is a very serious point. It’s not a troll for traffic. It’s not a politically correct screed. It’s not a pathetic pitch for sympathy. (I’ll beat you to all your own punches.)

It is a warning:

Keep attacking America and Americans — not just American policy — and beware of the hands into which you play.

That is why I will defend us as a people against attacks such as the ones cited in this discussion. That is why I will, more positively, repeat:

I am pro-American.

: And beware what you are doing to the state of democracy and human rights in the world. Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds quoted David Aaronovitch’s piece in the Observer (and yes, I do admire its sibling the Guardian greatly for printing both sides of an argument more than any other publication I know — it is the closest thing to the blogosphere that exists anywhere in print). I will quote other parts about what happens when you attack Americans:

There is, I think, a widely shared fantasy which you might call the No-America Dream. In this happy place we have somehow done away with the economic and military superpower. We watch sophisticated French films or Ealing studio reruns, our thin citizens dine out on organic Brie, there is no Israel to over-excite the populations of the Middle East, and everyone signs up to stop climate change. If only the Yanks would go home. If only we could stop Bush.

The degree to which America is held uniquely responsible for the sins of the world is remarkable….

The slogan ‘Yanks Go Home’ has always had more potency than, say, ‘Romanian murderer go home’. And the danger has always been the same – that the protesters might get the thing they asked for. The fact is that many in the States harbour the same dream; but for them it is the dream of isolation. In an election year, when the sitting President is involved in a costly foreign exercise, the cries of the opposition tend not to be for more involvement but for far less. And for higher steel tariffs….

[The 1990s] They started as the decade of failed intervention, and progressed as the decade of non-intervention. The retreat after Somalia in 1993 showed us that the dream of no-America was a nightmare: Bosnia, Rwanda, the failure of Oslo, Milosevic rampant, bin Laden gathering strength….

I don’t want the Americans to go home. In fact I am terrified of what would happen if they did. Their going home in the past has often meant suffering for others….

Beware what you wish for and against when you attack Americans. Beware those who may join you in attacking us. Beware what happens to the rest of the world when we say, fine, we will retreat into our well-appointed shell. This isn’t about sport and fun. This is about responsibility. If you attack me and my neighbors, you must take the full responsibility for it. And I will call you on that.

I am pro-American.

: UPDATE: Harry and I may be sparring over words but it’s clear that we agree on substance. Here is his reaction to Aaronovitch’s essay in anticipation of George Bush’s visit to Britain:

The real enemy is this fascism, not George Bush. In fact, hard as it may be for some to stomach, Bush has been at the forefront of the fight against the fascism of our age.

Those who march against Bush next week should think what message their protests send to those in the frontline of the fight against modern fascism around the world. But they won’t.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves, these protestors who oppose Starbucks but not death squads, don’t care about fascism anymore and they don’t care about international solidarity.

And they have the cheek to accuse the pro-war left of abandoning our principles.

40 responses to “Pro-American”

  1. Mithras Avatar

    Hit count down, Jeff?

  2. Dann Avatar

    Jeff-
    And that is one of many reasons why I come here. Being liberal and pro-American ought not be mutually exclusive positions.
    Boy do I have some acquaintances to whom I would like to introduce you.
    -Regards

  3. Dishman Avatar

    If Michael Moore can dish out the insults, it’s fair to assume that he can take ’em. If he can’t, maybe he should think twice before spraying his slobber.

  4. hugh macleod Avatar

    What the Europeans haven’t figured out yet is exactly how prepared America is to fight for what they feel is important. And they’d rather not have to think about it. They just wish some illustrious, unelected, body of internationalists would go ahead and solve the problems for them.

  5. g wiz Avatar

    I’m pro-American too. I guess I’m just too darn ignorant to know any better.

  6. Alan Macomber Avatar
    Alan Macomber

    Count me in…I’m pro-American too, and a former liberal in my college days- anti-vietnam war etc- but I’m totally fed up with the America bashing BS. I’ve had it!

  7. PJF Avatar

    I’m pro-American too. As a Brit, I’m pro-American for the reasons David Aaronovitch states so eloquently, and also for my own ‘sentimental’ admiration of the American ‘experiment’ begun by the Founders. I’m a forty-two year old cynical grouch of a male, and I cried on Sept 11 2001.
    There will always be a ‘superpower’ in civilisation. Nothing benefits current times more than our superpower (and I use “our” deliberately) being the United States of America.
    I will find some small way of countering the profound shame that is about to befall my country in its vastly popular unwelcoming reaction to the leader of the free world paying a visit. I won’t regard myself as a “cultural traitor” for doing so.

  8. Jeremy Avatar

    Well, bear in mind, for many people, “right wing” simply means not hating your country (or liking it).
    The Nazis are frequently called “Right Wing”, simply based on their nationalism (never minding that Nazi was a contraction of National Socialist Worker’s Party…)

  9. hugh macleod Avatar

    PJF, British anti-Americanism is easy to explain.
    As long as America succeeds, European Socialism cannot. The Brits have a lot of socialists (especially in Scotland, oi vey)…
    Whatever America does will be viewed as a hinderance to this supposed socialist destiny, therefore America needs to be demonified. And there is ZERO acknowledgement from the British Left about this.
    I’ve said it before- growing up in Scotland, these were the same people telling me that the Soviet Union was a pretty nice place, compared to fat, greedy, evil, racist America.

  10. Patti Avatar

    I also am Pro-American Up until 9/11 i didnt realize what a great country we have…I will not hang my head in shame anymore because others in this world think we r the great satan.I am proud of r President Bush and so thankful that America had him after 9/11. I want him for another 4 years no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

  11. Chris Galdieri Avatar

    Mr. Jarvis,
    Once again you’ve articulated feelings very close to my own more eloquently and gracefully than I’ve been able. Many thanks.

  12. Bill Herbert Avatar

    Jeff –
    There’s nothing “pro-American” about a term like “cultural traitor.” In fact, there’s a certain anti-Americanism about it. This country was built by “cultural traitors.”
    And you continue to demonstrate that you’re completely missing Harry’s point. Moore is an ass, and I agree with you that the Newsweek editor is as well. But to question their patriotism in the way you did doesn’t really say that. In fact, it makes no distinction between criticisms against one’s country that are valid and those that aren’t.
    Guys like Moore and Gore Vidal fancy themselves as sort of modern day American versions of Spanish Republicans who hung out in Paris where they could express themselves more freely than under Franco.
    They aren’t, of course. They’re just ignorant, pretentious poseurs who mistake stupidity for courage. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were right. Suppose we really were on some downward spiral toward fascism. In that case, history would remember them as quite noble, just as it will remember the reformist Muslims who come to the West — because they have to — and speak out against the intolerance and cultural destruction by the jihadist strands of Islam back home.
    I say again, “cultural traitor” makes no distinction between the two.

  13. Captain Ed Avatar

    Jeff,
    Well put. Thank you.

  14. linden Avatar

    “This country was built by “cultural traitors.” “
    Actually, that’s not true. In fact, the Founders believed that the UK had become the “cultural traitor”. They believed they were standing up for particularly British values.

  15. button Avatar

    But, I have to say, the Salman Rushdie riots in the streets of NYC in which they demanded their fatwa against him be fulfilled is welded inextricably in my mind to the jumbo jets slamming into the two office buildings further downtown.
    My first reaction upon while watching the second plane go into the office building was: they’re declaring war on us; this is a declaration of war.
    My second thought was: who is this who is declaring war against us? And the first answer that came into my mind was: this must be the Salman Rushdie fatwa crowd.
    Well, maybe not exactly, as it turned out. But I wasn’t TOO far from wrong!
    We cannot retreat and disengage from the rest of the world.
    At first, naively, they may have thought that once you secure your Freedom of Expression, more or less, that was the end of your problems with the issue. No, that’s just the end of that set of problems. Now you’ll have a new set of problems to deal with, but at least nobody’s going to drag you out of your house and put a bullet in your head.
    How sad that Salam Pax wants to demonstrate to “stop Bush,” since it is only because of Bush that he is able to travel around and spout his opinion without the State Security Police threatening to disembowel him. SIGH!

  16. anon Avatar

    >How sad that Salam Pax wants to demonstrate to “stop Bush,”

  17. Charlie Avatar

    I, too, am pro-American. I was to some extent during the Viet Nam war, in which I recognized (unlike many of my high-school cohort) that whatever we might think about the government of the South, Communism would be worse. (And yet, within the last few days I read someone say “We predicted a bloodbath is Southeast Asia if we pulled out, and that didn’t happen.”)
    After I’d lived in Europe for a year or so, I realized that although I love Europe, and see certain things about Europe as very desirable, the fact is that there was a good reason we or our ancestors got the hell out; we’re still the only country that establishes freedom of speech as an absolute — even if we have to fight for it — rather than something you get if and when the government lets you have it.
    And now, after 9/11 and with the Bush Doctrine andthe recent speech about fighting fore liberty througout the world, I’ve even more pro-American, and I say to people like Moore “you don’t like it here? Get out.” Not “love it or leave it,” just “if you hate it here, leave. We’ll let you.”
    We’ve got the closest thing to a morally just state there is in the world. I’m tired of people insulting it.

  18. M. Simon Avatar

    I am an American of the Jacksonian tradition. We will take a lot of guff to be left alone.
    But 9/11 was too much. All during the Clinton years we ran away with the hope that the idiots of the world would leave us the hell alone. Clinton did what he did with American’s approval. Somalia, the Cole, The Twin Towers 93 etc. And the fools of the world saw it not as indifference but retreat.
    Well post 9/11 I’ve had enough retreat. Which bastards want their right arms cut off and then be beaten with it? We have identified some of the SOBs. We will find more. And we intend to beat the bastards bloody until they submit or die.
    Oriana Fallaci (spelling?) is a true European who understands the plebes of America.
    Get used to it.
    Because as long as the bastards of the world want a war so do we.
    It would be better for the world to work on reforming the bastards. Because Americans can be the worst sons of bitches in the world when sufficiently aroused. We bombed the Japs and if the fascist of this century don’t demure they will get some too.

  19. hey Avatar

    these people are so literally idiotic
    they want less american involvement in the world, so rather than help make the world safe for america, they make it more dangerous and support those who make direct attacks against america and its interests
    tojo was right (at least apocryphally if not actually) pearl harbour woke a sleeping giant
    these people not only woke the giant on 9/11, they continue to prod and enrage it, and it is their stated aim… as armed liberal says, no one wants this war. the people who will win will have to do too many horrible things, destroy too much of the world, and possibly end up killing hundreds of millions if not a billion relative innocents (they currently support the losing side, but have minimal input and are only passive supporters). and it won’t be the us that loses
    more attacks, especially on states or territories, are a very bad idea. attacks “over there” are not overly likely to necessitate the jacksonian/fdr victory conditions, but al quaeda’s promised attacks against continental us is a bad situation
    leftists/liberals need to get people to sit down and shut up. not encourage/apologise for further violence…

  20. PooperScooper Avatar
    PooperScooper

    Suppose we really were on some downward spiral toward fascism. In that case, history would remember them as quite noble…
    If Moore is right that all Americans are fat, ignorant, galumphing idiots grinding the world on their Wheel of Arrogance — then of course history will record he was a Courageous Hero, a Speaker of Truth, and all that.
    Rather more likely is that he’ll go down in history as the fat, ignorant, galumphing American who duped those oh-so-sophisticated Europeans out of their rapidly-diminishing welfare-state checks.

  21. M. Simon Avatar

    hey,
    It was Yammamoto. Otherwise right on bro.

  22. button Avatar

    I just read the Aaronovitch essay and thought it was good. I hadn’t paid much attention to the Stryker McGuire essay because it seemed too diffused and not very focussed– I generally skip pieces like that.
    I hope The Guardian is not going to try to put out a daily edition on this side of the pond. I don’t think it would work. I was thinking that they could find a niche in the weekly world with The NY Observer, The New Yorker, and the NY Review of Books, although that is fortnightly.
    Even though this seems like an argument, it still seems to demonstrate that there does exist an Anglosphere, maybe a bit strained at the moment.

  23. Jennifer Martinez Avatar

    HOOAH Mr. Jarvis! Well said. I salute you.
    Jennifer Martinez sends

  24. Mark L Avatar

    Mr. Jarvis:
    I am as conservative as you are liberal, and just as proud of my conservatism as you are of your liberalism. As with you (and unlike some other liberals) I have never equated liberalism with anti-Americanism.
    If more liberals were willing to speak with clarity supporting America in the manner that you do I would worry a lot less about politics. As it is, I see the Democrats of 2004 playing the Whigs of 1852, ready to implode under their own negativism. But one-party governance is always unhealthy, whether it is by your side *or* mine. The conservative in me worries that unless more liberals are willing to ditch the multinationalism, special-interest politics, and anti-Americanism that infects the Democrats that in a few years there will be no counterbalance to keep the Republicans honest.
    Right now, in Texas (where I live) the Republicans are the cleaner party. That is right now, however, and it is due to two things: 1. For years you had to be a Democrat to get elected, so the opportunists out for a fast buck tended to run as Democrats; 2. A crooked Republican was much more likely to have his (or her) illicit affairs exposed by the press than a crooked Democrat. It wasn’t that there were no crooked Republicans, it was that their malfeasances were publicized and they were quickly flushed from the system (Drew Nixon, my former State Senator comes to mind).
    Nowadays however, the toadish pol type is beginning to join the Republicans because it is easier to get elected that way. Then too, if the Democrats are not viable because of crackpot views, even publicity may become insufficient to flush crooked Republicans out of office.
    I wish you well. If every Republican faced an opponent as principled as you, it would be a better country, regardless of who wins.

  25. Pele Avatar

    Don’t take it too personaly when you see the massive protests we will stage against Bush when he arrives in England. Yes all the normal Anti-American slogans will be used by some but the main thing people in this country want is for him to know we think he’s f***ed up in Iraq. Most of us can’t understand why he get’s the honor of a state visit and he’s made a bad mistake if he thinks he’s going to use us as a means of getting elected again.

  26. Austin Fusilier Avatar

    Pele – [note: throughout this comment, capitals = emphasis, as opposed to raised voices]
    Ah, I see. So we shouldn’t ‘take it personally’ that you (collective) are going to use anti-American rhetoric to get your point across. Well. That just makes it all okay, then. Sure.
    I wonder, sir, if you would turn to your Jewish neighbor and say the same? ‘Don’t worry, Mordecai, and don’t take it personally when we use anti-Semitic language. We don’t mean YOU when we call Jewish people ‘k***s.’ What about your black neighbors? ‘Don’t worry Jamal – I don’t mean YOU when I refer to Africans as ‘ni****s.’
    I certainly hope you wouldn’t, and I hope you understand WHY you wouldn’t. The reason is: the ‘excuse’ you give is completely unacceptable. If you don’t want us to take your anti-American protests personally, then don’t make them anti-American. Otherwise we don’t have a lot of choice. The problem here is NOT Bush, is NOT America, is NOT Americans. The problem here is you (individual AND collective), friend.
    If you are really concerned about Iraq and the governance thereof, let’s here a reasonable and practical solution to the critiques you and your friends are going to level. There’s not any need WHATSOEVER for anti-American rhetoric. If you want to be taken seriously, if you want your POSITION to be taken seriously, then you (and your friends) are going to have to 1) refrain from anti-American sloganism and 2) restrain your compatriots from doing the same.
    If you can’t accomplish these two requirements, then I’m afraid we’re going to discount everything you say. Worse, you’ll be directly and personally contributing (assuming you take part) in the growth of an ‘anti’ism no different from the plagues of anti-Semitism, anti-Africanism (aka racial bigotry), anti-Muslimism, among others. The trumpet call here is for you. Here’s hoping you wake up.

  27. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > I say again, “cultural traitor” makes no distinction between the two.
    Actually, it does. Moore doesn’t like America and doesn’t love America. He’s not trying to help it succeed.
    Jarvis and I probably disagree about lots of things, some may even be fairly fundamental, but we’re both on the same side. Moore isn’t.
    We’re not saying that Moore has some obligation to be pro-American. We’re merely pointing out that he’s anti-American.
    Why are you so intent on arguing that he isn’t?

  28. Eric Deamer Avatar

    Bill Herbert:
    I recognize the distinction you’re trying to draw, but your reasoning only makes sense if we’re operating in some sort of postmodern vacuum, devoid of morals and ideas.
    You’re right that Moore, Vidal et al fancy themselves that way, but here’s the real mindblower. They’re wrong. If you’re coming from the perspective of one who actually is pro-American. that means that you positively think that America is a good place, better than other places, and that such broad-sweeping criticisms of all Americans are unfounded and unfair.
    Now, French neoconservative intellectuals who are willing to admit that their country is in a state of decline, succumbing to anti-Semitism and moral rot, are, in my opinion, right. In fact, they have a duty to speak out against these things. If that makes them, and me, anti-French, then so be it. I have no investment in the answer to that question since I’m not French. Being pro-American I generally think that the American economic system, culture, and Foreign Policy are superior to those of France.
    So, someone who is publicly lambasting a people, culture, and country which I admire and identify with as an American, is a completely different case than someone lambasting a country or government that deserves it. Jacques Chirac deserves it. A people who won’t leave the beach to see if their grandmothers have died of heat storke deserve it. We don’t. That is the distinction.
    You’re “for the sake of argument” turns your post into a meaningless thought experiment. As Rudy Giuliani said before the UN “We’re right. They’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.”

  29. 1972 Avatar

    Wonderful post, dear Jeff.
    I completely agree with you: “Let’s be very clear: Just as anti-Semitism led directly to the Holocaust, anti-Americanism led directly to September 11th”.
    Of course. Thank you.
    Enzo

  30. Sandy P. Avatar

    Pele-I know why he gets a state visit, and I’m an ignorant American. I learned it in a documentary on Elizabeth.
    EVERY American president gets invited to Buckingham palace once during his term of office.
    Think about it, the American president comes to visit the head of England more than the head of England comes to visit the former colony.
    I can still see her face, sitting for a portrait, when she was told she’s going to a baseball game as they were going over her itinerary.

  31. Lola Avatar

    So, if Michael Moore hates America so much, why doesn’t he give up his citizenship and move all his belongings away from the US soil? Maybe he should apply to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, if they’ll let him, that is.

  32. Greg Avatar

    I’d like to see another superpower rise after the U.S.’s fall that is MORE compassionate, and not totalitarian. I could imagine many worse outcomes for world powers (Worldwide Communism, Nazi Facism, Monarchy, etc.) and even with the United State’s many faults, I am glad to be American. Glad to be at the forefront of anti-facism.

  33. Phil Avatar

    > We’ve got the closest thing to a morally just
    > state there is in the world.
    USA morally just? You guys are on some great crack, where can I get some?
    > EVERY American president gets invited to
    > Buckingham palace once during his term of office.
    Wrong moron, this is the first since 1918.
    > anti-Americanism led directly to September 11th
    No it didn’t fools. You propped up Osama to fight Russia in Afghanistan, and he turned on you. Much like Saddam, who you tooled up for fighting Iran. After September 11, USA had lots of goodwill throughout the world. Everyone was saddened. But Dubya pissed it all away in 2 years.
    Bush apologists are so fucking ignorant.

  34. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > > We’ve got the closest thing to a morally just
    > > state there is in the world.
    > USA morally just? You guys are on some great crack, where can I get some?
    Phil should learn to read. The claim is not that the US is good, it is that it is better than the alternatives.
    Feel free to disagree, but be sure to provide examples. For instance, what country is more morally just than the US? (The incapable need not apply.)

  35. Austin Fusilier Avatar

    Hey, Phil –
    Just gotta pipe in here. You might want to make sure your facts are straight before you start levelling accusations of ignorance. Oh, and I think it would help you out in the future if you abstained from the vulgar. No one likes to talk to someone who swears all the time.
    Here’s the link for the ‘Osama’ myth (copy/paste):
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9998
    Here’s another link for the ‘Sympathy’ myth (copy/paste):
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031117-538977,00.html
    Again, this stuff is out there for anyone to read. Both articles were available (at some point) in an ‘actual’ print publication (Front Page Magazine and Time respectively), as well as on the ‘Net, so there’s no reason for anyone to have missed them; unless, of course, you couldn’t be troubled to look up sources. Which, of course, says more about you than your opponents or your issues.

  36. Pele Avatar

    Austin Fusilier: What about when I turn to my American neighbour and say “Beavis, don’t take it personally when I call you a butthead”!!!
    (Sorry his Mordecai and Jamal thing made me laugh)

  37. Austin Fusilier Avatar

    Pele –
    If the closest you’ve come to understanding and interacting with Americans can be encapsulated in an episode of ‘Beavis and Butthead’ then you really have some catching up to do.
    As far as the ‘ethnic’ names go, I’m a writer, and part of writing includes making an attempt to evoke an immediate image in your mind. If I’m talking about a man down on a southern farm, I’ll probably call him Otis, Gus, or (heaven forbid) Jim-Bob. If I’m talking about a well-to-do socialite, I’ll probably name him Thomas Rutherford, III, or something similar. The point is to quickly have you envision a human being with all his traits, so that I can make my point more realistic and concrete.
    But honestly, if all you took from my post is that I used ethnic names to talk about specific races, then I think I’m wasting my time.

  38. Pele Avatar

    Austin, you come across as a nice fella and I’m sorry for having a laugh there in my last post. The thing is what I was said in my post was…
    “Yes all the normal Anti-American slogans will be used BY SOME..” I’m not a writer mate so maybe I should have structured the sentence so there was more emphasis on the ‘some’ bit. The way these things normally go is the ‘some’ are the ones picked up by the media and used to distort the real issue. We don’t hate Americans, we like Americans on the whole. We want to protest about the way Bush is going about things.

  39. J.V. Avatar

    Pele wrote:
    “We don’t hate Americans, we like Americans on the whole. We want to protest about the way Bush is going about things.”
    Why?
    Because you care about British soldiers in the Middle East? If that’s the case, why aren’t you protesting the way *Blair* and the British government are going about things? They’re accountable to you, after all.
    Because you care about the Iraqis? If so, that would be a first, because I don’t recall any anti-Saddam rallies over the last couple of decades–in Britain or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter.
    Because you and the other sign-wavers in Trafalgar Square believe in a nuanced approach to terrorism? If that’s the case, why don’t I remember huge demonstrations in London on behalf of suspected IRA terrorists who disappeared into the British prison system thanks to harsh anti-terrorism laws?
    Pele, you’re a fashionable objector. Being anti-Bush and anti-America are trendy, and thus you march.
    …but when you march, just don’t forget that the number of marchers in London last week is still smaller than the number of people who died in Iraqi torture chambers or whose corpses are being unearthed in mass graves. For the sake of the world, please discard your dangerous myopia.

  40. jeff Avatar

    the pro-war liberal stance is an interesting one. but if it is dangerous to be anti-anything, which implies a certain pacifism, then why is it ok or even necessary to be pro-war?
    it is suggested that a retreat of the US would be worse for the world than engagement, and that may be true. but why does engagement have to mean militarism?
    i was in Prague on 9-11 and watched the virulent anti-americanism there switch on a dime. the vigil in the city center moved me to tears. the US suddenly had a huge cache of international sympathy. i think a very aggressive campaign of international influence would have been more effective at that point than a military response (outside of Afghanistan, which i’m not ready to claim was unnecessary).
    we could have brought our McDemocracy to the farthest, most anti-American corners of the globe with the full cooperation of almost every nation, sweeping the world in an outbreak of Western-style political transformation, and probably at almost no cost to us.
    that sympathy credit has now been converted into a monumental debt which might never be repaid, because of our inability to step outside the momentum of militarist strategy.