|
Domination and Empathyby
Charley Hardman What can American soldiers be thinking when they roust an elderly Iraqi man who's done nothing to them? Oh, I forgot: They are ensuring their safety. Trouble is, their safety is threatened only because they've been behaving like jerks. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd even told the rousted man they were doing it for his safety. That would be standard, dominating cop newspeak. American soldiers seem convinced of their righteousness, but such an opinion can only be held through delusion. Listen to the sound bites from US troops. One punk actually said the other day that they weren't trying to impose their will. That's ridiculous. He seemed genuinely confused that people weren't thrilled with his presence. It's been proposed many times in this moronic, foreign adventure, but imaginary turnabout does provide good clarity. It should be practiced automatically. For some reason, the line which keeps popping into my head when I hear these programmed thugs spouting off is from the Mel Brooks movie History of the World – Part I: "It's good to be the King." Of course! It's easy to have a smile on your face as you degrade another human being, isn't it? Well, not for some people. Some people view liberty as a two-way street. Some people admire and root for those who attempt to throw off the chains of their degradation, no matter who's doing the chaining and who's doing the throwing off. These are the true lovers of Liberty. Freedom cannot thrive unilaterally. If you dominate another and deny his freedom, your freedom is usually threatened. It's hard to find a better example than the current Iraq. This concept probably sounds rather benign and pointless to expound, but it must not be so obvious if it's violated with such vigor and regularity. For every smiling Army goon manhandling another human, placing a sandbag on his head and treating him like cattle ("He wuz suspicious, Sarge!"), five good Iraqi men lie in wait to avenge the crime. What confuses me thoroughly is how anybody who claims to love Liberty and the principles on which this land was founded (rhetorically anyway) can look at that scene and not writhe in anger at the injustice. The only reason I can think a good human could tolerate such behavior would be by considering that it's a necessary evil – that American interests are being served, or at least that something had been done to warrant it. On the necessity of invading and dominating Iraq, I've lately found the best test to use with those who are on board the Dubya train (dwindling for the wrong reasons though that number may be). Ready? Here it is: "Name one thing Saddam Hussein did to America." You wouldn't believe the responses I get. There's usually a good 5-second pause to start. Sure, the average neocon could come up with the party line until he's blue in the face. Even the average guy will eventually mention something about Hussein threatening the US with a mother of all blah blah whatever (as he did). However, you will rarely find anybody, despite the pro-war hysteria of a few months ago, who can name a single thing Saddam Hussein did to America which wasn't in direct reaction to a particular act of US government aggression, like pretending it hadn't approved, via April Glaspie, his attack of Kuwait. For crying out loud, he was a pathetic suckup to the US even during her last, disastrous visit! Hmm, I wonder what happened. What would the US have done if it had found that Mexico was slant-drilling into Texas for oil? It would have brought out the iron fist, and the lemming flag wavers would have gone berserk in their offended intensity. How would the average New Yorker react upon being told by Iraq that we weren't allowed to fly military planes in 15 states, and that Iraqi fighter jets would patrol our airspace for the next 10 years, shooting down every military flight and bombing every active, "hostile" radar? Would the average American consider it aggression for a domestic US defense facility, assuming one exists, to fire on an intruding Iraqi jet? In their view, would such "aggression" warrant retaliation by Iraq? What would an American lemming do upon being told that Saddam Hussein had called for regime change here on account of our (and I hate even typing this initialism) WMDs? The older I get, the more consciously I dissociate from those who deplore the same behavior they would emulate were the shoe on the other foot, for it is only through dishonesty and lack of empathy that such people act. How can an American say "Let freedom ring" and then support this despicable anti-freedom being thrust upon strangers in Iraq in the name of freedom? If we do not allow (allow, not finance) others to live in dignity, they will find a way to strike back. Is that, perhaps, how we ended up here? Obviously. I'm sure Islamic militants had better things to do than imagine ills, leave their families, and suit up for suicide. There's something there, and those who ignore it do so at our peril. Our peril. There's the rub. Anybody who thinks this country is doing good work overseas is an idiot. Sorry 'bout yer luck, boys. Just do us a favor and stop stirring up the hornet's nest without cause. You are not fighting for freedom, and it sure as hell isn't in my name that you do what you do. You've made things worse while the evidence stares you in the face. Leave Iraq. Let freedom gasp and recover. All you have to do is stop pretending you're the King.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
|
July
28, 2003
