On Monday night at around 10:30-11:00 EST, I learned that we have killed Osama bin Laden. Unlike everyone else, though, I was a bit ambivalent about his death.
There is no question in my mind that the SEAL team that stormed his compound did the right thing by ending it there and then, but to me this victory rings hollow in that Osama bin Laden accomplished more than simply the deaths of 3,000 innocent people.
Politicians profited immensely from the attack, and were able to pass legislation that would have normally been unpopular. President George W Bush passed the PATRIOT Act soon after the World Trade Center attack, which made us subject to sweeping and nearly Orwellian security measures. In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003, George W Bush and his administration, with the GOP institution following, made the erroneous case that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Queda. We, despite objections from the United Nations, preemptively invaded Iraq.
During the previous decade, despite cheerleading for the troops overseas, Americans consumed even more gas with bigger cars, and our domestic car manufacturers failed to create more efficient vehicles. With the focus on global climate change and the fabricated 'controversy' associated with it, few people saw petroleum consumption as a national security issue.
Socially, Americans became increasingly paranoid and suspicious of others (especially Muslims). Ten years later, a proposed Islamic Cultural Center in NYC has come under enormous fire, despite the fact that there are already a significant number of mosques in the area, as well as a large Muslim population. This backlash was motivated primarily by paranoia and suspicion. Many Americans claim that Osama bin Laden had taught them everything they need to know about Islam, and I already stated how unfair this is previously, when I asked whether or not it was fair to say that Jerry Falwell and the larger GOP taught me everything that I need to know about Christianity.
In response to Osama bin Laden America under George W Bush had a knee-jerk reaction that went far beyond trying to find him and began to erode its very democracy. In Guantanamo Bay, the United States held--and continues to hold--terror suspects outside the bounds of the Constitution. There, detainees are tortured psychologically and held indefinitely without charge. Unfortunately, Obama has thus far failed to close Guantanamo, but that is mostly in part because Americans are uneasy about holding terrorist suspects on American soil. Are we afraid that our Constitution is insufficient to protect us? Would it not be good for our image to hold Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a Dostoevskyan trial in a demonstration of the superiority of our values in the face of religious nihilism?
That we will not, that we are afraid of a fair trial for the most evil people currently walking on this Earth, points to the stark possibility that Osama bin Laden has already won. We have tried one of the most evil ideologies human civilization had ever seen in the Nuremberg trials, and won. Why can we not do that again? Furthermore, that we are celebrating his death is evidence of the possibility that we have become the very monsters we are fighting. I completely understand that it was necessary and convenient to kill him at his compound, but that is nothing more than a necessary evil. It is not *good* that we killed this man--it is never *good* to kill any man, even if it may be necessary. But our celebration of his death--our jubilation--is unequivocally vile. This is America, home of the free, land of the brave. We are supposed to be decent, if docile, people. But our behavior is not indicative of our values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then again, maybe it never was.
Truly, is our reaction to Osama's death any different from our previous behavior? Was there ever a time when we treated the enemy--the Other--with at least some decency as a society? No, there was not. We came to the New World and profited from the subjugation of the native population. When that population was almost completely destroyed, we joined the Dutch in the Slave Trade, and in spite of our stated values and intentions, there was left a gaping chasm between what we said and what we did. When the Puritans came over from England because of oppression, they immediately began imposing their views upon everyone else, repeating the exact same tactics they suffered under in their homeland. Even among white people, each new demographic that arrived in this country was reviled: The Irish Catholics, the Germans, the Jews, etc. But each in turn eventually joined with the majority, if only to turn around and join in the oppression of the new Other. In fact, what do we see today? African-Americans, who have had fought the greatest uphill battle for civil rights in the history of the country, have turned around and joined their white counterparts in the oppression of homosexuals. In fact, these were the same kinds of people who sixty years prior wanted to deny them basic civil rights. Globally, no other kind of oppression brings more different people together than the oppression of homosexuals. All three monotheistic religions condemn homosexuality, so it is the only issue upon which nearly every group--no matter their religious or political differences--can come to a tragic consensus.
It is actually quite logical then that after World War II, we have had medium- to full-scale conflicts in 4 countries, financed rebel fighters that would eventually turn around and attack us, and all the while used buzzwords like "Freedom" and "Democracy" when the truth is that the only freedom we want to preserve is our own freedom to continue to enjoy lower gas prices.
Should we give up, though? Should we simply accept it, muttering to ourselves "c'est la vie", doing nothing to change who we are? No. The truth is that we have made some progress: We recognize that what we've done in the past was wrong and we have become much more tolerant than we were previously. The problem is that we currently do not possess the mechanism by which we can understand what we will do in the future we may be wrong. For all of our tolerance, however, it appears that someone has to be oppressed, much like capitalism generally, where the low prices we enjoy at Wal*Mart must come from someone's $0.50/day wage. It is very unfortunate, however, because tolerance doesn't have to work like that. In fact, then it really isn't tolerance at all when it is banking on intolerance toward someone else. There is no 'currency' of tolerance, it doesn't have to be compensated for.
How do we solve this problem; a problem as large and complex as human nature? How can we ensure that we do not simply repeat the behaviors and attitudes of our predecessors? What, exactly, is the root of understanding? Would it be possible to instill an unwavering respect towards others regardless of who or what they are in our children? And most important, how do we ensure that they do not fall into the traps their parents and grandparents fell into before them? For it is a great tragedy that the generation that suffered in Vietnam would send their children into Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we damned to repeat their mistakes, too?
No comments:
Post a Comment