I really don't want to say much today. Too many
others are saying things better. But I am struck by reading the the editorials
from around the world
posted on the guardian.
And conservatgive pundits like andrew sullivan also fall prey to some of
the same faults. Or not quite faults, but biases. It is a dangerougs (but
perhaps unavoidable) to ascribe why, rather than what, to people's actions.
To Andrew Sullivan and others, we were attacked not because of any particular
actions, but because of who we are. People seem to think that we were either
attacked because of reprehensible policies we have had, or because of what
we represent. My guess is both. Hatred, like most emotions has many levels.
There is most likely a fundamental opposition to who we are, as a secular
society. Our liberal democracy is antithetical in many ways to other civilizations.
But we are not the only "godless" civlizations. Sinic society is just as
different to Islamic society as we are. Our differences probably don't cause
great amounts of hatred, but they allow for very little empathy. Add to
the mix our actions, which enflame many others. We are responsible for many
reprehensible acts (I for one find it inexcusable to support Saudi Arabia,
and don't forget we supported Huseein heavily), and are reluctant to admit
them, while quickly pointing out the faults of others.. In addition, the
simple fact that the big dog wears the big target. You can also add in relative
militancy. I. know many Muslims are peaceful, and it is not pc to say so,
but simple statistical evidence will show a correlation between violent actions
around the globe and Islamist insurgents, that far exceed that of other groups.
There can be many reasons for this, but the fact that it is so can't really
be disputed (though it probably will be). The point is there are many,
many reasons that we are in conflict. And I think it right to examine all
of these causes, but the simplistic view that there is one cause annoys me.
There are many. And moreover, there are so many, that there is little chance
that we won't be fighting conflicts for a long, long time. But the
complexity of our conflict also drives home the point for me that we should
be careful about the terms which we use to debate Iraq. There are many moral
reaons for doing so, and probably more moral reasons for not doing so. But
we won't be able to get to the center of these, or at least we won't be able
to win an argument about the moral clarity of the issue with others decisively.
The debate should be in simple terms, the risks of action (cornering a
rabid dog, and that dogs reaction; dramatic increase in instability in the
region; being outcasts from the internanional "order") vs. inaction (the
risk of many of our citiziens being fried to a crisp.)That being
said, I sure as hell am proud to be an American. I love the freedom to debate
and the openess of our society. My favourite quote from Winston Churchill.
And I'm probably slaughtering it here. "Democracy is the worst system in
the world. Except for everything else".
