Independence Day approaches, and we’re in the danger zone of overinflated patriotism. Can one be too patriotic? This post and comment exchange at Peach Pundit lead me to conclude that indeed, one can love one’s country too much.
The article concerns a Mike Luckovich cartoon depicting American soldiers training Al Qaeda members to torture. The cartoon was–in an unfortunate and hurtful editing decision the paper should apologize for–printed on the same page as a photo showing two American soldiers brutally killed in Iraq. The printing of the cartoon itself has drawn outrage from some on the right, who insist the paper should be reprimanded for allowing such content–and not surprisingly, due to its being highlighted on right-wing RedState, the cartoon received an unlikely number of negative votes.
The cartoon brings some questions and issues to light:
- Can one be patriotic and also critical of his country’s strategy?
- What limits–if any–should define American reaction to terrorism?
- What limits–if any–should there be on free speech?
- What’s the goal of the “war” on terror? And is the fight against terror really a war?
Americans are fighting what the government calls a “war” on terror–a fight which, as you may rightfully conclude from my enlcosing the word in quotes, I do not believe to really be a war. Military action, sure–not a war. President Bush described the enemy on September 20, 2001:
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
This explanation ignores history and distorts the truth about our enemy. No-one should take Osama Bin Laden as an unintelligent or uneducated man–and his letter to America in 2002 states the truth clearly within the context of history. It begins–begins!!–with a profoundly simple statement:
“Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us. a) You attacked us in Palestine…The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals.”
Though the letter expresses many other concerns, the first three reasons listed in this letter concern Israel–and for Americans to ignore that many Muslims resent America’s involvement in the creation of the state of Israel is equivalent to burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what we do not wish to hear. If one attempts to reconcile the statements of Bush and Bin Laden, one could conclude:
- America is exercising its freedoms in its support of Israel;
- Muslims do not believe America has the right to interfere in Palestine on behalf of the Israelis;
- therefore, Muslims are fighting against American freedom.
This presents a serious problem, as both sides of the fight see the other as the instigator. The truth is, suggesting as the administration does that “9/11 changed everything” is misleading. 9/11 was a reaction to American foreign policy. It’s encouraging to see the possibility of an agreement between Palestine and Israel, as a two-state solution is probably the only thing which could potentially quiet the storm. Sadly, considering the reality of the situation, our current strategy of aggressively attacking terrorists is only perceived as continued instigation by our enemy.
The fact is that we CAN NOT win this war of ideology *against terrorism* while our leadership fights AGAINST restrictions on interrogation methods such as waterboarding, as well as against restrictions on renditions. We must be beyond reproach in this war–and if it weren’t for freaks like Cheney arguing that we shouldn’t limit our methods, maybe people’s impression of incidents like Abu Gharib or (the alleged) Haditha would BE as an Exception, rather than as policy approved from above.
If we are going to continue blatantly ignoring the fact that our enemy considers the creation of Israel as the starting point of the conflict, the best we can do is to make it clear that we’ll only go after those who are actively attacking our citizens. A “pre-emptive war” strategy only increases the degree to which we’re seen as instigators, and that strategy is therefore outside the limits we must set for ourselves if we are to ever “win” this conflict.
It is within that framework that the freedom of Americans to question their nation’s strategy becomes obvious. First, if we are truly fighting for Freedom, it is hypocritical to suggest that those who disagree should be silenced. Second, the strategy by which we fight terror–and the goal of such a fight–is precisely what needs to be collectively determined. Leadership is naiive to think that they can set a strategy and expect everyone to follow behind in suit just because they’re “supposed to.” When people define patriotism as mindless support of one’s country, and criticize as traitors anyone who dissents, what they’re really doing is confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Nationalism–in this context–is the view that one country is superior to another. Many forms of this viewpoint exist in America–from simply ignoring the other side’s perspective and framing it only from one’s own perspective, to a view of exceptionalism or even “manifest Destiny.” For us to position ourselves as the morally superior culture–and the only ones standing up for what is “right,” much like Christianity and Islam both claim to be the only true faith–amounts to a nationalistic view that encourages fanatical viewpoints such as support for a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.
Putting boundaries on the degree to which one can disagree with his country–or what a newspaper may print or report–is a betrayal of freedom, ironic in a fight against what we obscure as “the enemies of freedom.” The free press that reports what government does in the people’s name–remembering that in America, the government derives its power from the people–encourages Americans to actively set the boundaries its government can work within in the name of the people. Those who print provocative cartoons also encourage people to consider to what ends we are willing to go in our quest to fight terror. In both cases, arguments to silence these voices are entirely counter-productive.
