It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
Ok, but who really believes the 9/11 hijackers were going after the military target?
Still, I think Churchill it vocalizing some things that need to be vocalized. 9/11 was the result of our foreign policy, not an intrinsic hatred for "freedom". People don't like thinking about that. People also don't like thinking that deaths of swarthy-folk count as much as American deaths. Conservative blogs have commented outright that they do not. That needs to be countered. (Though Churchy does go too far)
People not only don't like thinking about the disconnect between our foreign policy and what we like to think our foreign policy is, they'll launch into active denial when confronted with actual examples. Even otherwise intelligent people engage in this sort of willful ignorance.
Did the 9/11 hijackers hate our freedom? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes tend to dislike liberal cultures, even if they live in one. (Falwell, anyone?) But the more important factor is that we exert our power overseas in a way that is so out of alignment with our cultural ideals that many Americans of all political stripes simply cannot believe that we do what we do. And we're shocked when it comes home to roost.
I generally agree with the thrust of the above comments, but there's a subtle way in which I would clarify the way in which I agree.
"And we're shocked when it comes home to roost"
At least as far as 9/11 is concerned, these things came home to roost in the form of unintended (or arrogantly ignored potential) consequences; of helping to make people feel hopeless and powerless enough to start believing in and doing kooky things. They did not come home to roost in terms of "getting back as good as we give" morality.
If the Vietnemese, for instance, had perpetrated the crime, it would be closer to the latter. But Bin Laden and his crew are examples of the former. Their beefs are largely about trivial things (presence of troops on holy soil, infidel status, swelled head from Soviet expulsion. Israel is of course a real beef, but they tacked that on only when it became expedient to do so). Were they in power, they'd be forcefully engaged in exactly the types of behavior that we on the left see as the dark side of America's policies, and worse.
I just don't see them as good poster children for the "blowback" from the immorality of American foreign policy.
To the post at hand, I thought Burke's essay was fantastic. It's not the content of what Churchill said that's a big deal, it's how stupid and shallow his thinking about it is.
In a strange way it IS the content of what Churchill said that's his downfall; it's led to a deeper examination of who this person is and an investigation into his provenance which appears to be fraudulent. He is a career con artist, not even an Indian but a fake Indian whose qualifactions are based on a PR promotion for 'Honorary Indian' of a Cherokee tribe. Now we find out his degrees are from a University no one has ever heard of, Sangaman State U. ??? The point is, what he SAID has led to his exposure because of what he IS!
It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
Ok, but who really believes the 9/11 hijackers were going after the military target?
Still, I think Churchill it vocalizing some things that need to be vocalized. 9/11 was the result of our foreign policy, not an intrinsic hatred for "freedom". People don't like thinking about that. People also don't like thinking that deaths of swarthy-folk count as much as American deaths. Conservative blogs have commented outright that they do not. That needs to be countered. (Though Churchy does go too far)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 02- 5-05 12:00 PM
People not only don't like thinking about the disconnect between our foreign policy and what we like to think our foreign policy is, they'll launch into active denial when confronted with actual examples. Even otherwise intelligent people engage in this sort of willful ignorance.
Did the 9/11 hijackers hate our freedom? Maybe, maybe not. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes tend to dislike liberal cultures, even if they live in one. (Falwell, anyone?) But the more important factor is that we exert our power overseas in a way that is so out of alignment with our cultural ideals that many Americans of all political stripes simply cannot believe that we do what we do. And we're shocked when it comes home to roost.
Posted by LarryB | Link to this comment | 02- 5-05 12:15 PM
I generally agree with the thrust of the above comments, but there's a subtle way in which I would clarify the way in which I agree.
"And we're shocked when it comes home to roost"
At least as far as 9/11 is concerned, these things came home to roost in the form of unintended (or arrogantly ignored potential) consequences; of helping to make people feel hopeless and powerless enough to start believing in and doing kooky things. They did not come home to roost in terms of "getting back as good as we give" morality.
If the Vietnemese, for instance, had perpetrated the crime, it would be closer to the latter. But Bin Laden and his crew are examples of the former. Their beefs are largely about trivial things (presence of troops on holy soil, infidel status, swelled head from Soviet expulsion. Israel is of course a real beef, but they tacked that on only when it became expedient to do so). Were they in power, they'd be forcefully engaged in exactly the types of behavior that we on the left see as the dark side of America's policies, and worse.
I just don't see them as good poster children for the "blowback" from the immorality of American foreign policy.
To the post at hand, I thought Burke's essay was fantastic. It's not the content of what Churchill said that's a big deal, it's how stupid and shallow his thinking about it is.
Posted by rufus | Link to this comment | 02- 6-05 1:18 PM
In a strange way it IS the content of what Churchill said that's his downfall; it's led to a deeper examination of who this person is and an investigation into his provenance which appears to be fraudulent. He is a career con artist, not even an Indian but a fake Indian whose qualifactions are based on a PR promotion for 'Honorary Indian' of a Cherokee tribe. Now we find out his degrees are from a University no one has ever heard of, Sangaman State U. ??? The point is, what he SAID has led to his exposure because of what he IS!
Posted by foreign devil | Link to this comment | 02- 6-05 9:28 PM
Larry B,
The Churchill essay cribs from Susan Sontag's famous post- 9/11 short essay:
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/susan.htm
It even includes the same dubious Iraq analogy.
What Churchill adds is his own batshit insane musings about "little eichmans" and how the US deseved 9/11.
It is true that Churchill's essay includes new and important points, but the important points aren't new and the new points are just retarded.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 02- 8-05 11:19 AM