The tragic events that came out of Newsweek’s publishing an inaccurate story shine a light on some unfortunate facts. Recognizing these facts is both uncomfortable and painful.
Americans need to realize that the presumption of innocence is no longer granted to them, their policies, or their military. The war against terror and the war to help Iraqis free themselves from a tyrannical dictatorship have led to some disasters and some atrocities.
The accidental bombing of civilians or the death of civilians simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is tragic. It can be a pure mistake, but it has consequences that reach beyond an apology and a reparations check. It is the rare person who will either turn the other cheek or say that the death of an infant, wife, grandparent is just the price that needs to be paid. The results are real and the costs are real. We should not be surprised that the victims of mistakes are not cheerleading American policies.
The atrocities of Abu Ghraib—and those alleged to have taken place at Guantanamo—are just that: atrocities. They are horrors both because of what they were in themselves as well as what they said about our self-image as a country.
Americans generally believe—rightly, in my opinion—that they normally act on the side of good and righteousness. They accept that mistakes happen. They do not accept willingly that their peers and their children commit atrocities.
When it comes out that even American soldiers are capable of ghastly crimes and behavior, it bruises both national identity and our individual self-image. But it is a fact that American soldiers are no less immune to the abuse of power than, say, UN peacekeepers in Africa are to using their power to obtain sexual favors.
But it’s one thing to be on the observing side of atrocities and quite another to be on the receiving end.
Those on the receiving end include, of course, the individuals who were so badly mistreated. Even if it were not torture— and mostly I think, it wasn’t—it was mistreatment of a sort that we, as citizens, do not condone. We’re not proud of it, even if we might concede that it was somehow “necessary”.
But the victimhood of the atrocities is wider than just the prisoner. It includes those who identify, in one way or another, with that prisoner. I don’t mean fellow terrorists, I mean people who see the mistreatment of one Arab as indicative of treatment of all Arabs, the treatment of one Muslim as the treatment of all Muslims.
That, of course, is not the message the US government, the US military, or individual US soldiers is intending to convey. But that is the message that is received.
It just doesn’t work to say, “Oh, but they’re being over-sensitive or paranoid.” So what if that’s exactly the case? The point is, millions of people are outraged and, to their minds, justifiably so. [Note: I've been told that I'm not making myself absolutely clear here. I do not intend to accept the behavior of ignorant mobs as somehow "justified". Mobs are mobs and they are not "rational actors". Those who take insult at the perception of a shadow, of a Nike or Coca Cola trademark are not "rational actors".]
In the US—but notably not in most of the world—abusing a book, even a religious book, even a book believed to be the literal word of God, is not a crime. Our freedoms of speech and religion make it thus. There is no American crime of “desecration” as we see sacredness as something outside the ambit of law. Because of both our laws and our multiple cultures, we realized that what one holds sacred may be meaningless to another, and that equation works in both directions. It is, I believe, a strength of our system of government that no laws can be made based on the beliefs of any single religion.
Having a right to exercise a freedom does not mean that every opportunity to do so is warranted. One does not have to be “PC” to be polite. One needn’t be an “accommodationist” to believe that “in your face” isn’t always the best way to communicate.
Desecrating a Quran, while perfectly protected by American law, is not a smart thing to do at a time when we are trying to convince Muslims that we are not, categorically, their enemy.
The Newsweek story has been retracted by its publishers. What they cannot retract is the things that happened as a result of that publication.
The fact is that past US actions have led a significant portion of the world’s population to believe that the US is capable of intentionally desecrating a sacred book to make a political point.
Where once there was a sense that the US could be included among the Good Guys, at least in terms of its anti-colonialism, its general sense of non-interference in the affairs of a country, that is no longer the case. I don’t intend to argue here about whether non-interference is the best or right policy; I’m only noting the perception.
The US is no longer perceived as among the Good Guys. For a variety of reasons—all debatable—the US is seen by many as an officious state that imposes its will by force, be it military, economic, or cultural.
But this isn’t solely an “American problem”. A part of the problem lies in the Arab and Muslim world.
The first flaw lies in intolerance. Much of the Arab and Muslim world believes that there is only “one, true way”. That way, of course, is Islamic. Rather than accepting that 5/6 of the world does not agree, they see it as a challenge, a challenge to convert the majority, if not an outright need for military clashes.
It’s possible that the vast majority of the world might convert to Islam. That would put an end to the discussion.
That’s not likely to happen, though.
Modernization has, as one of its features—and for some, costs—the fact that differences, even serious differences, must be tolerated. That goes for Westerners as well as Arabs.
But the West has not seen much in the way of reciprocity in this. Accommodations are made to permit believers in non-traditionally Western religions to practice their faiths freely. The reverse is not always the case.
Western states, valuing cultural diversity, have tended to welcome “others”, with greater or less warmth, depending on political and economic conditions. The reverse is seldom the case.
In fact, the citizens of many Western states are now beginning to feel abused by immigrant populations which accept the benefits of a liberal society but who refuse to return that liberality. As imposed upon by Western values as some Arab and Muslim states feel themselves to be, some Western states feel equally imposed upon. “Why,” they ask, “does an immigrant leave Country X only to seek to recreate the conditions that led him to flee Country X?”
To a certain point, most Muslim states have a reason to view the West charily. The history of British and French—as well as Italian and Dutch—colonialism is not one that rains honor on the colonialists. These countries often imposed “solutions” to political problems that were no solution at all.
But the colonial period really did end some 50 years ago. The statute of limitations on historical atrocities has expired. I realize that many of the Arab intelligentsia—particularly those educated in Europe—don’t agree, but they’re stuck in an eddy of history.
The world is not what it was in 1945. It is what it is in 2005. All the motives, all the suspicions, all the justifiable paranoia of 50 years ago are now defunct.
What both groups need to do is to learn to put things—rumors, news reports, gossip—on hold while the facts are ascertained. That means not leaping to conclusions about motives. It means not saying, “Well, what would you expect!” or “See, more proof that….” At least until there is something more than rumor and innuendo.
The tragic fiasco that resulted from the Newsweek story has many fathers. There was less-than-sterling professionalism from the magazine. There was a partially credible history of abuse, by at least some American soldiers working in prisons with Muslim prisoners. There was gross intolerance and xenophobia put into action by those who immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion.
The restraint needed these days came from a surprising quarter. It was groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Muslim World League that called for investigation, not lynching. This was certainly not because either of those groups takes the Quran lightly, or only as a symbol. I’d like to think it was because they saw the point in waiting for truth to be discovered, as best it could be discovered, before calling for punitive action. But I’m disappointed in the calls by the Saudi government, including the Shoura Council, for that punitive action.
I’m equally disappointed by American groups whose default assumption was that this couldn’t be true. Abu Ghraib showed that, yes, it could be true. Those who immediately assumed a plot by the media to discredit the military weren’t much closer to the truth.
The search for truth and the search for a way for vastly different cultures to co-exist are too important to leave to those who know better than the facts available to us allow us to conclude, no matter which side they’re on.
[Also linked at Outside the Beltway]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
John,
Good post, and interesting info about the OIC - do you have any more info/links?
You wrote:
I’m not aware that this was anyone’s “default assumption”, it was certainly not mine. The Quran charges were so damaging in large part because of the credibility lent by the Abu Ghraib scandal. I don’t dispute that and I believe this is generally understood.
A case can be made that the most excitable extremists who are rioting and calling for jihad are not influenced directly by Abu Ghraib – they are apt to believe that Bush works for Sharon, OBL is run by the Mossad, etc, so why do they need Abu Ghraib to tell them Amerikka is the great Shaytan? This argument misses the point that there are a great many more people in the Arab world, the people we really need on our side, for whom Abu Ghraib really was a watershed event, and who will now believe the Quran desecration story and ignore the retraction. This is tragic, and I get this. I think my cohort of “warbloggers†does too.
Let me further add something with respect to Abu Ghraib: you write:
As a “neoconâ€, (and I embrace that label), I’m pretty serious about human rights – that’s the “neo†in neocon, recall. Heck, I was a Jimmy Carter fan back in the day, and though history has not been kind to some of his decisions, I respected his disavowal of realpolitik and support of diplomacy such as the Helsinki accord. Let me be blunt: Abu Ghraib was worse than torture. Some types of coercive interrogation may in rare cases admit to a defense of necessity; then again, they may not – I don’t have perfect clarity on this. But Jeebus, John, Abu Ghraib was pointless friggin’ sadistic abuse.
The point that I’d make is that to excoriate, and I mean excoriate Newsweek for their complete lack of journalistic responsibility is not inconsistent with what I wrote above. Excoriating Newsweek is not an effort to shift the focus from Abu Ghraib; rather, invoking Abu Ghraib as a kind of “get out of jail free” card for Newsweek is itself an unwarranted deflection, and I do think some in the MSM are trying to do exactly that.
Newsweek was deplorably irresponsible. In this instance, they have damaged the United States and it’s standing in the world – they, not Bush, not the military. That they are not alone in creating damage is not a defense: if I shoot myself in the foot, it does not give you license to step on it. Newsweek is plenty capable of exercising caution and sensitivity in places; apparently they feel that because some existing damage to the US image was arguably self inflicted, they had no responsibility exercise caution or sensitivity on issues vital to the US, it’s military, or policies. There is no excuse for this. Newsweek and their defenders are desperate to change the subject, and they should not be allowed to.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Rumor and Consequence
John Burgess has a lengthy and thoughtful piece about how America is viewed in the Arab world.
I have to say that I disagree with very lit…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Rumor and Consequence
John Burgess has a lengthy and thoughtful piece about how America is viewed in the Arab world.
I have to say that I disagree with very lit…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
I’ve nothing to disagree with. I’ll only note that my article failed at least in part if I didn’t make it clear that the Muslim reactions I was refering to were those of the thinking majority, not the mindless mass.
It was that mindless mass that rioted and killed–as they often do with little or no real cause. But the fact that they know that they will be supported–at least in part–helps encourage their acts.
My source on the OIC/MWL reaction was the Arab News. I blogged that article at Culture Clashes: Sacred Texts.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Before and After Newsweek
A brilliant and importantly honest article from my buddy John at his blog Crossroads Arabia regarding Newsweek and the Koran story. Just some snippets: Americans need to realize that the presumption of innocence is no longer granted to them, their pol…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Rumor, Consequence, and Responsibility
I, on the other hand, on the matter of abuse, ask what acts are more barbaric, horrifying, appalling, brutal, wicked, abominable, and cruel(all refer to the quality or state of being atrocious), the kind of acts attributed to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghr…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Rumor, Consequence, and Responsibility
what acts are more barbaric, horrifying, appalling, brutal, wicked, abominable, and cruel(all refer to the quality or state of being atrocious), the kind of acts attributed to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, or raping women, sawing off heads, and shooti…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Rumor, Consequence, and Responsibility
what acts are more barbaric, horrifying, appalling, brutal, wicked, abominable, and cruel(all refer to the quality or state of being atrocious), the kind of acts attributed to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, or raping women, sawing off heads, and shooti…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Very good piece, John.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
[...] er Newsweek
A brilliant and importantly honest article from my buddy John at his blog Crossroads Arabia regarding Newsweek and the Koran story. Just so [...]
May:17:2005 - 23:03
[...] er Newsweek
A brilliant and importantly honest article from my buddy John at his blog Crossroads Arabia regarding Newsweek and the Koran story. Just so [...]
May:17:2005 - 23:03
“The atrocities of Abu Ghraib—and those alleged to have taken place at Guantanamo—are just that: atrocities.”
I strongly suspect that your definition of “atrocity” differs greatly from mine…but you make several good points here. Not bad.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
The torture and death of a single individual is an atrocity. That of a multitude, is also an atrocity. I am not looking to put them side-by-side, in some calculus of horror. They are all horrible.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
“The first flaw lies in intolerance. Much of the Arab and Muslim world believes that there is only “one, true way”. That way, of course, is Islamic. Rather than accepting that 5/6 of the world does not agree, they see it as a challenge, a challenge to convert the majority, if not an outright need for military clashes.”
Substitute “Christian” for “Muslim” and you have the attitude of the contoling interests of the ruling party in the USA
May:17:2005 - 23:03
You’re welcome to your opinion, of course, but I certainly don’t agree with it. If you mean, by “ruling party” the Republican party, then you’re a bit paranoid there. If you mean by “controlling interests” the Christian right, you’re right insofar as the intolerance goes, but they’re nowhere near in control.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
John, I support the thrust of your argument, but I think there’s a little too much moral relativism woven in.
In particular, I object to the statement “it is a fact that American soldiers are no less immune to the abuse of power than, say, UN peacekeepers in Africa are to using their power to obtain sexual favors.” That’s blatantly untrue. I spent most of my life as an American soldier, and I know a lot, directly and indirectly, about UN troops. There is, in fact, no comparison.
The cultural chasm that exists is not just between the Muslim world and the U.S.; it’s between the Muslim world and western civilization. In that regard, I’d refer you to this short post.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
You cheapen the word ‘atrocity’ by linking it with what a few American soldiers did at Abu Ghraib. What Saddam’s thugs used to do at Abu Ghraib was an atrocity. What 15 Saudi citizens did on 9-11-01 was an atrocity…
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Al, everything you cite is an atrocity. What happened at Abu Ghraib, as is alleged to have happened in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo, are equally atrocities. It’s not like someone’s complaining because he got hit by a spitball.
Perhaps English is insufficiently rich to define the various kinds of atrocities in way you’d prefer.
Should we go to some sort of mathematical notation? Is the mother of someone beaten to death only entitled to allege a minor-league atrocity?
May:17:2005 - 23:03
The Messiah walked on earth one millenium before the birth of the hate mongerer. He will once again, and lead his flock to safety. Understand that there are two forces in all that is physical, or spiritual. The balance will shift to the negative before the tribulation, which according to Malachy is eminent.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
We’ll just have to agree to disagree then, John. IMO you’re engaging in rhetorical inflation.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
I agree with all that, except this belief that once upon a time, the rest of the world thought we were these magical fairies dispensing joy and happiness whereever we went.
Never happened.
May:17:2005 - 23:03
Great points John.
Al: forgive me for holding you responsible for your own world view.
To downplay Abu Gharaib (atrocity and human rights abuses) by comparing it to Saddam Hussein’s crimes (more atrocities) is tatamount to saying that the U.S. is not responsible for it’s behaviour, since you can personally jot off worse crimes. We should not “one up” each other on crimes, to excuse our own crimes, we should want America to be the example of human rights.
So, let’s just ignore all crimes against humanity, and revert to the deaths caused by Hitler, since he this crime was so horrifying. That in turn should ease our conscience a bit. Phew.
I Love my country, enough to admit when it’s wrong, and to keep our principles as a country based on freedom for all, on it’s toes. Tough love, not denial.