David Bromwich, a prof at Yale, is an important voice on the left. Last year he had what I believe is the only reasonable response to Walt and Mearsheimer–impressed by the scope of their work, disturbed by their findings–and said that Elliott Abrams should be scrutinized by the Congress for dual loyalty. (No, all we care about is investigating Eliot Spitzer).
In the latest NYRB, Bromwich has a nice piece on the ways that Iraq and the so-called war on terror have fostered euphemistic language. He makes an important observation:
if you take stock of how little general discussion there has
been of the advisability of pursuing the global war on terrorism, you
realize that this country has scarcely begun to take stock of the
United States as an ambiguous actor on the world stage. Those who said,
in the weeks just after the September 11 attacks, that the motives of
the terrorists might be traced back to some US policies in the Middle
East were understandably felt to have spoken unseasonably. The
surprising thing is that six and a half years later, when a politic
reticence is no longer the sole order of the day, discussion of such
matters is still confined to academic studies like Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback and Robert A. Pape’s Dying to Win, and has barely begun to register in The New York Times, in The Washington Post,
or on CNN or MSNBC. … you will find
educated people saying things like "They hate the West and resent
modernity," or "They hate the fact that we’re so free," or "They hate
us because this is a country where a man and a woman can look at each
other across a table with eyes of love." Indeed, the single greatest
propaganda victory of the Bush administration may be the belief shared
by most Americans that the rise of radical Islam—so-called
Islamofascism— has nothing to do with any previous actions by the
United States.
Very astute. Though I disagree about the unseasonableness issue. Within hours people were asking, "Why do they hate us?" The other criticism I have is that Bromwich goes on to say that the causes of 9/11 were resentment of "725 American bases worldwide, and the emotions with which these are
regarded by the people who live in their shadow"–notably the "presence of thousands of American troops on Arabian soil."
The Saudi part is important and unquestionable. But did American bases around the world play a role in 9/11? Bromwich is contributing to the very mystification he deplores. Pape, whom Bromwich quotes so approvingly, wrote that the "taproot" of Muslim rage was American "military policy" in the Persian Gulf–specifically, the presence of American soldiers in Saudi. But Pape also made clear that bin Laden regarded this military policy as serving plans for a "greater Israel." Bromwich makes no mention of this. If we are going to mainstream Pape, let us consider U.S. policy in Israel/Palestine. But no, there is a ton of polite self-censorship around this issue…
The point is not to appease bin Laden. (No, let us kill bin Laden.) The point is to understand the reservoir of resentment in the Muslim world upon which he drew. Some of it has a legitimate basis: injustice in Israel/Palestine.
From the Bromwich essay: "Because the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials remains vivid today, the very idea of a war crime has been treated as a thing worth steering clear of, no matter what the cost in overstretched ingenuity. Thought of a war crime does not lend itself to euphemistic reduction."
No, somehow it doesn't. Last night we heard a folk musician, Spook Handy, sing a song he wrote which incorporates Iraq War references and the chorus, "This train is headed for The Hague." If only it were so — rich countries supply the judges, who clearly aren't inclined to judge the politicians who appointed them.
Handy is a disciple of Pete Seeger, the 89-year-old folk icon who lives in Beacon, New York, and probably doesn't have a euphemistic bone in his body. An engaging documentary about his life, Pete Seeger: The Power of Song, was released last year (highly recommended).
http://tinyurl.com/2ded5x
Some amazing archival footage was located for the film. One clip from the 1930s shows Seeger's parents, both classically-trained musicians. His dad is dressed like an Old World, European Jew. They decided to tour America, presenting live classical music to the masses. The effort was met with massive uninterest. But at folk festivals in North Carolina, the Seegers learned that the hillbillies had some vital music of their own. Pete Seeger picked up the banjo, and ended up actually writing the now-classic How to Play the Five-String Banjo (1948).
Going back to Bromwich's rather colorless essay, his assertion that discussion of U.S. policy as a root cause of terrorism "has barely begun to register in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, or on CNN or MSNBC" made me bust out laughing. Get a grip, Dave! You might as well as search in Der Stürmer for articles about "New Currents in Jewish Intellectualism."
The Revolution will not be televised, not will it be covered in the Slimes or the WaPo. Print journalism is like, so 20th century (sorry, Phil).
By the way, I wrote this before reading Phil's explicit reference to Pete Seeger in the post above. Feeble minds think alike!
"Cause" is a VERY difficult relationship to proove.
Its an important distinction, that too often leads to FAILED diagnoses and treatments.
As if there were a single "cause" to anything in the world.
Events occur in conditions. In different conditions, different events occur.
There is still responsibility to participate in effecting conditions, if you have the power, but "cause" is itself a lazy word.
And further,
"US policy "caused" Arab terrorism" is a lazy use of an already lazy word.
.
" 'Cause' is itself a lazy word."
And science is all a crock. Newton's laws of motion? F = ma? Mere casuistry!
Or, in the alternative, Witty's gauzy semantic fog, in which cause and effect birth each other like chicken and egg, is an elaborate exercise in obscurantism.
Too bad the English language, with its oppressive subject-verb-object syntax, is so resistant to efforts to erase the distinction between act, actor, and acted-upon. You would find this so much easier in Japanese, Richard. Onegai shimasu, sensei.
Ron Paul broached these issues in the Republican "debates" of the last few months. He put the thesis front-and-center: Some people hate the US because it needlessly interferes in their lives. In his writings, Bromwhich needs to consider Ron Paul.
'As if there were a single "cause" to anything in the world.'
the subtext being: 'You can't blame Israel for the Occupation' and/or 'you can't blame the neocons for Iraq'.
'Its an important distinction, that too often leads to FAILED diagnoses and treatments.'
Such as 'the occupation causes the terrorism, so get off their land and see what happens' ? Maybe that is wrong, but the only way to find out would be to try it, no?
'Events occur in conditions. In different conditions, different events occur.'
Of COURSE, why didn't I think of that? Different conditions, different events.. brilliant. I dips me lid.
LOL
Don't forget Newton on action and reaction.