Just a Little Despair
Like everyone, I'm very tired of that feeling that comes from turning on the TV and seeing another scene of carnage, hearing reporters talking once again about attacks and bombs and mass casualties, that feeling that the world has gone crazy.
I guess you learn to live with it, this idea that at any time someone or something you love could be destroyed by people who strike without warning and who don't really seem to want anything other than to cause chaos.
I guess you learn to live with it, because there is no other choice, but I haven't.
I have some questions I really want answered. And I want some answers right now, even though I know those answers aren't forthcoming.
Here they are anyway.
1. What the fuck do these assholes want? I know the easy answer is that they want nothing less than the destruction of the West. But I have to tell you, I don't believe that. I think they need a large enemy they can rail futilely against. Their cause seem to be only that they are against us. That's not something you can build a society around, so I have to say, I don't believe they want to "win" in a way that I understand winning. I don't think they want our complete destruction, because it would mean their obsolescence. Do they just want to sow chaos and destruction? Is that really what they want? Are we fighting a war against people who have no intention of winning? What then?
2. How do you fight a war against people who have no intention of winning? Who aren't afraid to lose spectacularly? Who are already willingly blowing themselves up? If they aren't afraid of death, what effective threat can we hold against them?
3. How do you fight a war against people who have little more in common than a hatred of us? There is no Terrorstan to invade, no citizens of Terrorstan we can subjugate. Anyone at any time could decide to strap a bomb to himself and walk into a subway station. How do you fight a war against an action? I know how you fight a war against a country or an ethnic group or even a religious group. I can see how you'd identify your adversary and go after him. But I still don't understand how we can ever win a war on terror. It seems to me that we've declared ourselves to be perpetually at war against potentially everyone.
4. Assuming Bush's foreign policy is right, that we have to change Arab hearts and minds in order to stop terrorism (though I'm really starting to think there are two levels of anti-Western sentiment--the madmen who sew chaos and the Arab people who don't mind that the madmen do, because it helps their political ends and that one might change one group, but never the other), is invading countries and setting up democracies and then ratcheting back our involvement the best way to go? What if they democratically elect people who hate us? How does that help us?
And why can't we talk about this shit? Why is it that, when it comes to the 'war on terror'--whatever that is--we act like the answers are so clear cut, that either we're doing everything right or everything wrong, and there's no room for difficult, nuanced discussion?
posted by Aunt B at 7/07/2005 05:11:00 PM
7 Comments:
Hello, Aunt B.
Lovely blog, interesting questions.
If I had the answers to your questions, I'd most likely have been nailed to a large piece of wood by now.
Anyway, if you haven't already, I suggest you read "Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi. Among other things, Ms. Satrapi illustrates how the mullahs and the religious thugs took over Iran. Basically, all the progressive elements in Iranian society-- those who might have constructed a reasonably peaceful, western-friendly democratic society-- were killed, jailed, or exiled by the West's well-heeled henchman, the Shah. See, what them there Western oil companies didn't want was a moderate, socialist democracy which would use Iran's oil profits to benefit its own people. That would have set a bad precedent, and might have led to us fat, greedy Westerners paying a fair price for the stuff (oil) our economic empire running.
I digress. After the shah got rid of all the progressive elements (and the commies, too), the only people willing and able to match his savagery and organizational skills were the religious extremists. These people weren't completely stupid, and they realized who had supported the shah (and who was bankrolling their colonial Middle Eastern nemesis, Israel). That's why they took our embassy.
Anyway, the kooks who took out the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11 were former clients of ours. We essentially hired them to do our dirty work against the commies in Afghanistan, then left them on their own. Blowback, anyone?
In short, most people "over there" are a lot like us (if poorer): they aren't looking to rock anyone's boat, especially there own. But when conditions breed poverty and despair, sometimes people who feel like they have no control over their lives do some pretty horrendous things.
Here in the über-wealthy States, we drown our despair in booze, heroin, crystal meth, and bad television. Over in places where reactionary violence has become part of the post-colonial societal tapestry, they sometimes form apocalyptic militant groups. An oversimplification, I know, but I've already taken up too much space with this nonsense...
Persepolis really is a very good book though it won't answer any of B's questions.
Elias
Hello, Church Secretary,
Glad to have you stop by.
You've written a thoughtful, truthful, heartfelt response and so I'm a little sorry to have to ask this, but I will anyway: So what?
Hmm. Maybe that's not exactly what I mean.
On the one hand, I firmly believe it's very important for us to understand how it is that we've gotten to this point.
On the other hand, I think it leads to a blurring of the distinction between "tit for tat" and "got what they deserved." I'm comfortable with a view of history that argues a kind of tit for tat version of events. Muslims insult our sense of self with their progressive attitudes towards science and math and women and their conquest of Jerusalem, so we attack them and try to run them out of the Holy City, so they conquer Spain, so Spain runs them out and sends Columbus here, and so there's a tea party, and the Barbary pirates and on and on and on from Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham with the resulting animosity between Isaac and Ishmael to Iago instigating Desdemona's murder at the hands of Othello to whatever little story we tell ourselves now to explain how things are.
But that's not the same thing as "because we did [blank] we deserve [insert crappy thing]." And I think that's an important distinction to make. There is no transcendant "deserve." You can't have a transcendant "deserve" in a multi-religious world, for one thing. You can't unexaminedly insist that there's one set of rules we all are playing by, and any implication that we "deserve" anything also implicitly means that there is some transcendant set of rules that we all adhere to, and clearly, that's bullshit.
And the other thing is that you can't repeatedly tell Westerners that they are individuals responsible only for themselves (which has been the transcendent and defining myth of, at least, the U.S. for as long as we've been a nation) and then insist that they understand how it is that they're responsible for actions of their government in which they have little or no real say.
(Maybe you could argue that part of the benefit of insisting that all Americans are individuals is that it makes them feel powerless to really effect change, and I would agree with you.)
The other problem with a rhetoric of "deserve" is that it implies that if we just stop doing whatever it is that's pissing folks off, they'll stop bombing us. It implies that they're rightfully punishing us for our bad behavior.
This is, for me, as a hippy liberal, a very comforting thought, that if only we could figure out what we were doing wrong, we could make them stop hurting us. It's also the same rhetoric abused women use, and, as such, I don't buy it.
If they're mad at the behavior of my government or Britain's government, then "punish" the government. But if they're punishing civilians, I can only assume that they have some problem with us.
And, if part of that problem with us is that I, with my big juicy cunt, have a job and drive a car and fuck who I want when I want (though maybe not as frequently as I want) and that I have my own money and my own name and can read and write and act all like a giant floozy if I want, then fuck them.
And not just Muslim Fundimentalists, but Christian Fundimentalists, and white supremacists, and whoever else thinks that blowing up buildings and the people in them is an acceptable way to express their anger and fear at my freedom.
But surely you can't both say that this isn't about our loose women and say that "they're killing these specific people because they are the cultural and economic backbone of a system that is, in some sense, inherently antagonistic to their preferred way of life"? I don't mean to be flip (okay, I do a little, just to lighten the mood), but what is, at heart, more culturally antagonistic to them than our whores, tramps, and hussys, our harlots?
I'm all for understanding, to some extent, but, as a feminist, I have to draw a line at just how understanding I'm going to be to people inherently hostile to me as a woman.
I wasn't actually proposing that terrorists target portions of our government as more "acceptable" targets. I think Tim McVeigh more than proved both that our government buildings are very susceptable to attack from determined whackjobs and that the cost of such targeting is unacceptably high. I was just saying that there are such targets available and, if terrorists choose not to try to hit them, then they must have a reason for choosing the targets that they do.
If it is, indeed, to be sure to get at people who represent our cultural and economic backbone, well, then, as someone who embodies a major cultural difference between their worldview and the majority (despite the intentions of our religious extremists) of ours, I'm going to be angry and take it personally.
As for the Iraqis, I don't hear anyone justifying civilian casualties. I think it's much worse than that. I've observed something more akin to "La, la, la, I can't hear you."
But we do export our harlots, up on the big screen and dancing around in their underwear while lipsyncing along to music constructed in a studio.
And so I don't believe that Falwell or Robertson or Santorum are purely domestic problems, since they are utterly in agreement with an ethos of the necessary male domination of women. Look who Robertson blamed for the September 11th attacks--feminists.
Also, I haven't given this much though--but I'm going to now--but is it a legitimate to assume that all cultures have the right to expect to be left alone to do their own thing and that, if they are not, some great wrong has taken place? When, in the course of human history, have cultures ever had the luxury of living unaffected by other cultures?
Why is living unmolested, then, seen as even a possible goal? When has that ever been possible?
I think what you're arguing for is self-determinacy--that everyone should be able to say for themselves what is right for them. And, on the surface that seems okay to me, but you don't have to look very deep to see that it rarely applies to us.
So, I'm suspicious of any rhetoric (aw, Cindy, you're corrupting me) that argues for a culture's right to self-determine how crappy they're going to treat women.
Do I think we Westerners have it absolutely right? That we have the Best way and therefore everyone should be forced to adopt it?
No I don't.
But I also think it's ridiculous to assume that there's some way that we can all live in little self-contained enclaves and have no effect on each other. How could that possibly work?
Howdy, Aunt B. and Taketoshi.
It appears, Aunt B., that we have a misunderstanding. I guess I must have written my thoughts down wrong, because I apparently gave the impression that I was casting my 'answers' to your questions as issues of "tit for tat" or people "getting what they deserve." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Consider this analogous question: Does the child who steps into the street without looking deserve to get killed by a speeding truck?
I would say no, but that isn't the point of admonishing children to look both ways before crossing. The point is that actions have consequences, so actions should (whenever possible) be considered carefully beforehand.
My point in mentioning the historical elements of Persepolis, and in referring to the anti-Soviet jihad blowback, isn't that the people who burned up in or jumped to their deaths from the Twin Towers 'deserved' to die for having some labyrinthine connection to the aforementioned events. Hell, many of the 9/11 victims weren't even US citizens. My point, if I had one, isn't that specific.
I guess-- and this is going to sound really cheesy-- I'm saying that nothing occurs in a vacuum, and we who claim to live in a democratic society really ought to pay attention to what our government is doing overseas (and why). Doing so in good conscience won't necessarily prevent homicidal lunatics from trying to blow up large numbers of strangers in our midst, but helping to dry up the well of anger would be a start.
I'm not suggesting that US foreign policy is the cause of all the murderous anger that is directed our way. However, my Christian upbringing teaches me that I must first ask my angered brother what I've done to make him angry enough to strike at me, then seek forgiveness, before I unleash Shock and Awe upon him and his collateral neighbors. It might sound to some like a candy-ass way of doing business, but I think it is a risk worth taking (at least as long as I'm sitting atop the world's biggest pile of cash and being protected by the world's most powerful military).
If I have taken up too much of your space with my nonsense, or have been otherwise insolent, then I am prepared to receive my spanking (rhetorically, of course).
Shit, Church Secretary, look around. Everyone is welcome here if they have smart things to say, don't take things too personally, and take up as much space as they need to make their point.
If people don't want to read it, they can use their scroll bar.
Anyway, all that is to say that I'm really glad you found your way here and I hope you pop in as often as you like. It's fun to have smart, thoughtful folks comment on the things that interest them.
Post a Comment
<< Home