Comments on: US Reaction to 9/11 Just a ‘Massive Overreaction’? http://www.bloggernews.net/14263 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:21:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14263#comment-1340 peterbroady Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:16:29 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14263#comment-1340 I am not going to take the time to analyze Bell's arguments in detail, as you have attempted to do, but there is an air of plausibility to some of what he writes, I think. He needs to be more rigorous and detailed in his argument, however. One has to be honest and admit to a number of different things when putting 9/11 in context. The United States government played a role (the extent of which is, I suppose, open to debate) in training and funding early Islamic militants as part of Cold War strategies, and much terrorism and international hatred and mistrust of the U.S. is linked to these actions during the Cold War, as well as current policies. There seems to be some confusion here about what the reason for mentioning this is...it really has nothing to do with trying to characterize the U.S. as the "Great Satan" or whatever. I do not know of any analysts who try to put 9/11 and terrorism in context who would argue that the U.S. is wholly to blame. But it is pretty reasonable, if not trivial, to say that the U.S. shares some responsibility for such 'blowback' and for the predictable results of its foreign policies. Of course every person is basically responsible for their own actions, and so none of this absolves terrorists of their crimes, but I think it has been known for some time that strategic support of dictators and funding of terrorism (for which the U.S. was condemned by the World Court in 1983 in relation to Contra training in Nicaragua) was likely to have such consequences as we are seeing now with "Islamofascism" and the general unpopularity of the U.S., especially in regions badly effected by U.S. policies basically from the end of WWII onward (Latin America and the Middle East, primarily). There might actually be a positive reason for making U.S. crimes and U.S. flaws primary in our deliberations: We can more easily do something about our own imperfections than we can about those of others. This is pretty uncontroversial in personal matters, and is one of the cornerstones of the most successful personal therapies and psychological methods (Cognitive-behavioral and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy). We have very little control over the opinions or actions of others...indeed the two main methods of "control" in those areas are propaganda (or PR, perception management, etc.) and coercion (war, prison, etc.). It must be said that these are both ethically problematic, if not always unjustified, methods of control over others. Controlling ourselves is much easier, if we want to do it, and is actually recognized as the cornerstone of much of human religion and ethics. The great ethical and religious figures of history, like Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi, were very much about self-knowledge, self-control, and against the control of others in many ways. Many philosophers have applied similar understandings, to their and our benefit. So what I would suggest is that one could interpret the statements of those who mention in detail American crimes and imperfections in this way. Take Noam Chomsky, for instance, who David Horowitz has called "the ayatollah of anti-American hate". I wouldn't defend the tone or even the content of some of his statements and speeches, but he explicitly takes this position or something very much like it and expects other intellectuals and thoughtful citizens to do the same with their own country. If one looks at the totality of his political writing and speeches (which is massive in scope and content), one doesn't find "an ayatollah of anti-American hate", but a person who likes many aspects of their country and not others, and who indeed shows (understandable) frustration with many aspects of American foreign policy and the US Media. Anyway, something to think about, maybe. I am not going to take the time to analyze Bell’s arguments in detail, as you have attempted to do, but there is an air of plausibility to some of what he writes, I think. He needs to be more rigorous and detailed in his argument, however. One has to be honest and admit to a number of different things when putting 9/11 in context. The United States government played a role (the extent of which is, I suppose, open to debate) in training and funding early Islamic militants as part of Cold War strategies, and much terrorism and international hatred and mistrust of the U.S. is linked to these actions during the Cold War, as well as current policies. There seems to be some confusion here about what the reason for mentioning this is…it really has nothing to do with trying to characterize the U.S. as the “Great Satan” or whatever. I do not know of any analysts who try to put 9/11 and terrorism in context who would argue that the U.S. is wholly to blame. But it is pretty reasonable, if not trivial, to say that the U.S. shares some responsibility for such ‘blowback’ and for the predictable results of its foreign policies. Of course every person is basically responsible for their own actions, and so none of this absolves terrorists of their crimes, but I think it has been known for some time that strategic support of dictators and funding of terrorism (for which the U.S. was condemned by the World Court in 1983 in relation to Contra training in Nicaragua) was likely to have such consequences as we are seeing now with “Islamofascism” and the general unpopularity of the U.S., especially in regions badly effected by U.S. policies basically from the end of WWII onward (Latin America and the Middle East, primarily).

There might actually be a positive reason for making U.S. crimes and U.S. flaws primary in our deliberations: We can more easily do something about our own imperfections than we can about those of others. This is pretty uncontroversial in personal matters, and is one of the cornerstones of the most successful personal therapies and psychological methods (Cognitive-behavioral and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy). We have very little control over the opinions or actions of others…indeed the two main methods of “control” in those areas are propaganda (or PR, perception management, etc.) and coercion (war, prison, etc.). It must be said that these are both ethically problematic, if not always unjustified, methods of control over others. Controlling ourselves is much easier, if we want to do it, and is actually recognized as the cornerstone of much of human religion and ethics. The great ethical and religious figures of history, like Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi, were very much about self-knowledge, self-control, and against the control of others in many ways. Many philosophers have applied similar understandings, to their and our benefit. So what I would suggest is that one could interpret the statements of those who mention in detail American crimes and imperfections in this way. Take Noam Chomsky, for instance, who David Horowitz has called “the ayatollah of anti-American hate”. I wouldn’t defend the tone or even the content of some of his statements and speeches, but he explicitly takes this position or something very much like it and expects other intellectuals and thoughtful citizens to do the same with their own country. If one looks at the totality of his political writing and speeches (which is massive in scope and content), one doesn’t find “an ayatollah of anti-American hate”, but a person who likes many aspects of their country and not others, and who indeed shows (understandable) frustration with many aspects of American foreign policy and the US Media.

Anyway, something to think about, maybe.

]]>