The Sheila Variations

I disagree with Da Goddess (I've posted a comment at her site). Apologies can weaken us. If we hadn't indulged in remorse and self-doubt over Abu Ghraib, if we hadn't demanded and received apologies from our leaders, would Nick Berg be dead now? I have no idea and no way to know, but the question is worth asking.

I see what you're saying, I do. But I think we split hairs on this one at our peril.

This has been a propaganda disaster for us. A disaster. I don't know if we can recover.

And also, I disagree with what you say about "indulging in remorse". We needed to be remorseful about that, and we need to have a little bit of self-doubt, if THAT is what is going on behind the scenes.

I'm defending THAT??

It doesn't matter at all if there are thousands of people in the service who do not behave like that. I know that this is the case, but it doesn't matter to the world.

Oops, I meant to write: I disagree with the use of the word "indulgence".

I don't see that we indulged in remorse. I see that we took responsibility - we ate crow - (not enough, in my opinion).

I have higher standards for my country. Because we were built on ideals, we were created because of a belief, that we were to be a "city on a hill".

Call me corny, whatever. But I believe that shit.

And a "city on a hill" can afford to be honest with itself, and to come clean about its sins.

I know what you mean, too, and I want to agree that it's a semantic difference, but I'm not sure I can. Yes, Abu Ghraib has been a propaganda disaster, and that's my problem with it. We should feel fury, because those soldiers betrayed us. We shouldn't feel shame, because they don't represent us, any more than a spy does, or a serial killer. Why does Old Europe love Michael Moore? Because they think that the Columbine murderers are the U. S. in miniature, or they pretend to think so, and he agrees, or at least pretends to. But we know they aren't, and so we don't feel ashamed of them, we hate them. For whatever reason -- bad characters, bad experiences, bad training, bad supervision -- those Coalition soldiers did some reprehensible things. But they don't shame me or our military, they shame themselves.

I hadn't read your last comment before posting my last comment, so if I seem not to have taken it into account, that's why. I have to learn to write faster.

Agreed. With your comment about the shame.

I'm really talking about the damage that was done world-wide to our image - to people who already despise us.

It makes me afraid. Afraid for us.

Oh, and I don't think it is a semantic difference, actually. I have no interest in a soggy "wallowing" in or "indulging" in remorse. I think we need to be civilized about it. We need to be men, and not little boys. If that makes sense.

I guess I think we need to strive to be BETTER, because the spotlight is on us.

I am outraged that Abu Gharib was even allowed to happen. I'm sorry, Michael, I know that people won't like this when I say this - but I think it was very arrogant of the leadership to not take the utmost precautions against that stuff. Like: we have to fully understand the depth of the world's hatred for us and try to be BETTER.

And on that note, forgive me, but I have got to leave my office because it;s pouring rain and thundering.

To be continued tomorrow? :)

I can't promise to continue this tomorrow because between now and then you're likely to post, as you tend to do, an intriguing observation on some other subject that I'll feel impelled to weigh in on. Anyway, I doubt I have much to add, because this exchange has clarified my own thoughts for me. What are your usual rates for therapy?

Well, we could put it in terms Old Europe ought to be able to understand, to wit: If we really were morally equivalent to the cowards who hid behind masks and killed Nick Berg, by this time tomorrow they'd be referring to some little town in Iraq as "the new Lidice."

Arab News finally got around to reporting the story today. I guess they had to wait for permission. It was reported without comment.

Outrage at that atrocity will likely be limited to US and British news sources.

One last thing and then I'll shut up:

I do see that "they" (as in our military) represent us. I don't feel I can have it both ways. Like: I am so proud of them when they behave well, and then I wash my hands of them when they mess up. They ARE us, in the eyes of the world. We fucked up here.

And please, I am NOT SAYING WE ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT to the savages who beheaded Nick Berg. I am talking about something else here.

Probably not very well, but it's only 8 am.

Sorry, red, I didn't mean to imply that. I was commenting (obliquely) on the Arab commentary.

I'm glad we're better than that. I have to confess, though, that in my darkest moments I think about things like this, "You want a monster? I'll show you a monster."

Ken:

Damn, I know just what you mean.

In theory, that is what is greatest about us. Our restraint. People look at me like I'm nuts when I say that, but they're just ... well, brainwashed.

A less restrained society would have erupted into civil war after the constitutional crisis during the election of 2000. The military would have marched into the Oval Office and shot the new President. Whatever. There are millions of examples of the miracle of what we do NOT do, of how we hold ourselves back.

When a new President is elected, we don't change all the street signs.

We hold ourselves back from shit like that. I'm proud of that aspect of our government and our society.

Although there are many times that I feel like, to quote the immortal words of Eminem, breaking out the "can of whupass".

Dearest: there is nothing in the photos that even approximate fraternity hazing, Russ Limbaugh to the contrary. love, dad

I hate Rush Limbaugh. Did he say that?

I still think there's a world of difference between beheading someone and making naked men leap into a pile. But I think it's disgusting and horrible, nonetheless.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was not appropriate, but it does not deserve the outrage that has been shown by many people. A handful of soldiers got carried away. A handful out of the 150,000 or so there and the ones that were there last year. My anger over what happened at the prison was mostly based on the fact that it would be used for propaganda by our enemies. Muslim sensibilities were offended. Fine. I can accept that, but I find it very telling that Muslim sensibilities are limited to shame about nudity, women’s underwear and glow sticks. Interesting that Muslim sensibilities do not include being offended by the sawing off a man’s head. This is the point at which the very limited concern I have for Muslim sensibilities begins to slip away. The whole culture is upside down. I’ve had it with that part of the world. I think most people would rather have panties on their head and a glow stick up their ass than have their head sawed off by a bunch of freaking maniacs.

Again, my point here is that you cannot have it both ways. (And it seems like a lot of people out there want to have it both ways.)

You cannot be all teary-eyed with sentimentality and pride when the army does something you are proud of, because in that case they represent the best of us, and then turn around and say, "Well, those soldiers were a small minority and they don't represent us." when they do something bad.

And it doesn't really matter if we have "had it with that part of the world", Patrick, with all due respect. We are THERE now, we can't have "had it" with them. We have to be BETTER, we have to be vigilant on this, we cannot ignore that the world is watching.

I've had it with blinkered patriotism, frankly.

Not saying that you're showing "blinkered patriotism", by the way. That wasn't my point.

I wrote this post after reading a lot of posts of other bloggers who seemed blinded to their own hypocrisy, and who wanted to have it both ways. And I've had it with that.

"You cannot be all teary-eyed with sentimentality and pride when the army does something you are proud of, because in that case they represent the best of us, and then turn around and say, 'Well, those soldiers were a small minority and they don't represent us.' when they do something bad."

I disagree, Sheila. I think we can say they don't represent us. It's like a child who a parent is proud of, but then goes bad. The parent might still love the child, but he can surely disown the child and publicly state that this is not how they raised him to behave. Similarly if one child in a family goes bad, that child can be disowned and the others still be praised. This "bad" child might be a source of embarassment or shame for the family, but that doesn't mean he represents the family. I know that the Arab and Muslim world likely sees things differently, but it doesn't surprise me. The honor/shame culture dominates there.

When I stated that I've "had it" with that part of the world I was expressing my frutsration not a belief that we should either completely bail or nuke the place. In fact I am now even more convinced that we need to stay there and try to accomplish something.

Patrick, I totally get that analogy but I think it is inappropriate. I am really talking about the eyes of the world - to them the US Armed Forces IS us - and I actually agree.

That was one of the reasons why I was so pissed off at the conservative witch-hunt against Clinton - regardless of how I felt about Clinton - because I felt that those witch-hunters did not care that they were making us ALL look ridiculous to the world.

I really do not feel like arguing that point, because I know you won't agree - and I am far more liberal than 80% of my readers.

Anyone who has any position in the government or the military should consider the fact that they ARE us.

If we are going to judge most of Muslim culture because of the behavior of the few, then we have to suck it up and accept that "the few" also represent us on our side.

I don't know - I am not going to wallow in shame and wear a hairshirt for 10 years - No. I just think we should validly accept some responsibility for those boneheads.

The Clinton thing came up for me because I saw a sticker this morning on the side of a wall, with a picture of Bush, and the words: "NOT MY PRESIDENT".

I totally disagree with this. And the conservatives were guilty of it on the opposite side when Clinton was in office.

Whoever is in office is "my" president, regardless of whether I voted for him or not.

The office is bigger than the man.

For example, I didn't vote for Bush. But he most certainly is "my" President.

I'm an American before I'm a member of any stupid party.

Sheila, I have a feeling we probably agree, but I am admittedly sensitive about such things. It's one of the things that contributes to my greatness.

This "not my president" thing is b.s. He might not be your candidate, but he's definitley your president.

Patrick,

I am always cognizant of your greatness, even when we disagree.

I'm sensitive too. Go figure.