But surely it is fair for an Arab to view America's actions in their totality in the region. We were indeed the good guys at Omaha Beach, Okinawa, etc., but I can't see why an Arab isn't perfectly justified in insisting that those other episodes have nothing to do with him.
And if J. Random Arab were to insist on viewing America's actions in the region as continuous with those of the UK, with whom the US has a uniquely intimate relation during the very era in question, then on what grounds could one possibly object?
On the general point of exceptionalism, I'd say that exaggerating our sins is indeed every bit as bad as insisting upon the magnanimous and disinterested nature of America's interactions in world affairs. But that's probably more of an argument for placing debates like these on a realist footing, and avoiding language that either idealizes or demonizes, than for or against any specific intervention.
this history of noble U.S. action (and America's unique image in the world)
WTF? Satire too subtle for me? What history of noble action? (I will concede the Marshall Plan.) What image apart from Hollywood? For many/most non-Americans Abu Ghraib is only surprising in that you were caught. Ask any Arab, most South Americans, a lot of South-East Asians: You are not the good guys. None of us is but no other nation's flag-wrapped national bullshit is so fucking dangerous to everybody else with the very recent and possible exceptions of Iran and North Korea. Usually I'm with you but this time I really think your head's up your arse.
yabartleby,
I think we had this discussion around the time Abu Ghraib came up too. I am Iranian born, and maybe my perspective is skewed by what I hear from my relatives back there: they are quite well acquainted with American perfidy, but (some of them) still see the U.S. as a force for good.
And noble actions don't just mean interventions, but holding the line (until recently, anyway), on human rights, the rights of women, etc. at the U.N.
All that said, I agree, people no longer see America as the good guy, and that's enormously sad.
son,
Agreed, all around.
Apologies for my earlier intemperance. In re.
what I hear from my relatives back there: they are quite well acquainted with American perfidy, but (some of them) still see the U.S. as a force for good.
Do you think this would remain true without what I call "Hollywood" (inc Britney, Nike, Friends)? I don't know how much of that stuff is available in Iran these days.
I wonder if you realise how alien the "force for good" thought can seem. I'm English and it recalls the white man's burden of nineteenth century Empire as I suspect it might to a French person. God knows how it seems to Swedes or Swiss. Hypernationalists like the Chinese/Turks/Serbs may think China/Turkey/Serbia is pretty fucking wonderful and plainly superior but might choke on "force for good".
And if you weren't "projecting force" into other nations, orientation to dark or light would be moot. Think of all the US interventions abroad, overt and covert, since WW2. Do you honestly think most of the world's people are better off for them?
"Apologies for my earlier intemperance" was me.
You know what, I'm being fuzzy, and you're right to call me on it. "Force for good" pretty much means, at least in the current climate, interventions, and I completely agree with you that those have, on balance, been harmful.
What I should have more carefully precised is that the U.S. has worked for good ends in the U.N., and that it does have (or did have, pre Abu Ghraib) an image as an extraordinary place, which serves as a point of aspiration and inspiration to a lot of people. (I just saw Control Room last night, and the very sharp news director for Al Jazeera said he planned to send his kids to study in the U.S.).
Also, just fyi, Iranian youth are totally plugged in to western pop culture.
I don't claim to be expert in US foreign policy of this century. That said, I suspect many American interventions that were bloody and imperfect were nonetheless better than the alternatives. Let me take three examples:
1. The Korean War
2. Counterbalancing Soviet influence in Europe
3. Helping the Columbians kill Pablo Escobar
So here you have three types of intervention: major war/garrisoning; cross-the boards political and military pressure, and a dirty, counter-insurgency war. All had their reverses, all had their detractors, #1 and #3 were certainly morally ambiguous. But all three seem to me unquestionably the right call, good for American, and good for the people in the effected country. Agree?
Frankly, I don't know enough about the Korean War to comment on that. I hesitate to endorse 3 because it was part of the inane "war on drugs."
2 of course, is the basis for any legitimate American pride in being a "force for good." But it's also the one that can least accurately be called an "intervention" of the type we've been discussing.
If there are more historically knowledgeable people who'd like to shed some light...
Ogged, I'm sure that Abu Ghraib was a real turning point for international perceptions of the US, but I it's my impression that our image had been eroding bit by bit since the fall of the USSR. Remember, the US was kicked off the UN human rights council a few years back, and the sanctions we enforced against Iraq really outraged some.
Anyway, the bigger problem to my eyes is pretending that Abu Ghraib isn't a big deal. It's precisely that those in power seem to assume that the US is a holy force of goodness, and actually incapable of doing anything morally wrong, therefore anything bad that happens is an anomaly, and perpetrated by a few bad apples. With that kind of mentality, how do you expect these problems to be rectified, and what's the insurance they won't happen against? With those questions in mind, it's exactly that mentality that needs to be pushed against, by baldly stating that the US can do wrong. It's seems you think that this is already a given understanding; I don't think it is. This administration, and many of its supporters, seem to be dangerously self-righteous.