Fat and Prosperous U.S. Does Have Resolve
|
In response to "Plato on Fate of Modern Civilization," a column by Yulia Latynina on Sept. 19. Editor, Let me start with her suggestion that a fat, prosperous America brought this devastation upon itself by reason of its a) wealth; b) arrogance; c) underhanded intervention in the affairs of other countries; d) unwillingness to "fight to the end"; or e) all of the above.
Were it not one reason for attacking our civilians, it would inevitably be another for those who have lost all sight of their own humanity. Neither the United States nor any other country can be expected to tailor its policies, domestic and foreign, to the fevered fanaticism of extremists. Unlike the ancient empires that Latynina cites as having collapsed under the weight of their own wealth and arrogance, the United States did not become prosperous and powerful by the armed subjugation of other nations and a wholesale expropriation of their wealth. Its affluence has been built on the labor, ingenuity and creativity of peoples of many national and ethnic roots, large numbers of whom fled their native countries because of grinding poverty, a lack of opportunity and oppression. Furthermore, the United States is no empire, nor has it ever been an empire. It is a federation of states that willingly joined for their mutual benefit. I have myself been a stringent critic of my country's foreign policy over the past decade, believing it to be ill-advised and predicated on a moral superiority that we cannot necessarily claim. To its credit, the current administration appeared to be attempting to move away from this supposedly moral interventionism in the internal affairs of other countries and from the absurd proposition that national sovereignty is a matter to be decided on an ad hoc basis by other countries. On the other hand, underhanded intervention in the affairs of other countries has always been a part of international relations and it is not going to disappear, however unpalatable it may be to some. It is one way that human beings at every level of organization, from families to states, act in order to protect and promote their interests, and it is equally characteristic of powerful and weak states. It at any rate leaves more initiative and power in the hands of those affected than does a direct military assault, especially when the latter involves a balance of power heavily favoring one party and the casus belli may be something as trivial as not liking the way another country runs its domestic affairs. As for whether the United States is prepared to fight to the bitter end, the definition of what constitutes "the end" quite properly depends on what the goals are. The U.S. certainly fought to the bitter end in both World Wars, and for far longer than was wise in Vietnam. In other cases, such as the Gulf War, it fought and achieved the goals it proclaimed, one of which was not to hunt down and destroy Saddam Hussein. It was only with Slobodan Milosevic that we saw U.S. and Allied foreign policy reduced to a focus on a single individual, in the course of which we allowed that obsession to justify any actions we chose to undertake. Is that really a wise foreign policy, or better than the "underhanded intervention" in Yugoslavia that eventually allowed the Serbians themselves to choose their course? It is of course true that the way of life in the developed democratic world is an open invitation to the kind of tragedy we saw in the United States on Sept. 11. If enjoying democratic freedoms that have been a beacon to those oppressed elsewhere amounts to being "molly-coddled," why then I suppose Americans are guilty as charged. Not to worry, however. The brutality of the madmen who deemed the lives of well over 6,000 innocents to be a mere pittance in pursuit of their varied grievances is likely to result in some curtailments of those unparalleled freedoms, much to our sadness. Finally, I would like to address Latynina's amazing suggestion that our "intellectually lazy" president, failing to understand the stakes, has offered an inadequate and perfunctory response predicated on the calculation of political ratings or a boost in profits to the military-industrial complex. Setting aside the intellectual hubris inherent in the comments, are we to understand that Ms. Latynina has access to highly secret military information that the hordes of journalists in Washington and elsewhere have failed to obtain? As far as I understand, no one outside a small circle knows at this point precisely what actions the United States has in planning. It is highly unlikely, however, that there is going to be a new Vietnam in Afghanistan, or, as Russians might see it, a new Afghanistan in Afghanistan. Whatever happens in the short-term will be no more than the immediate reaction and first step on a very long and complex road. The United States president, his Administration, the U.S. Congress and the American people understand all too well that what is at stake is our very way of life. We understand that this horrifying threat is not to be resolved by a single military action, or a minor battle, or a one-time assault. It is clear that serious, well thought-out measures are being taken in Washington to identify the scale of the threat and to wage constant war against it in all forms, from the military to the diplomatic, in the United States and abroad. The United States is working hard to create a global alliance against terrorism in recognition that every democratic nation is at equal threat. Yes, the fat and prosperous United States has at last absorbed an almost unbearable grief of its own. But we are not about to give up our fundamental liberties, or allow any group of fanatics who nourish themselves on a hatred of our country to determine our future. I think those who doubt our resolve will be surprised to see that America can still fight to the bitter end, and prevail.
Norma Brown |
spacer.gif
