American and British Soldiers: Racists One and All

Fisk is not one for subtlety--nor is he one for reasonableness, kindness, empathy, or even the most vague attempt at understanding anyone with a different opinion. He clings to his far-left, anti-West dogma with a tenacity that would embarrass a pit bull.

Today, he riffs on coalition soldiers, painting with the widest brush possible.

Why are we surprised at their racism, their brutality, their sheer callousness toward Arabs? Those American soldiers in Saddam's old prison at Abu Ghraib, those young British squaddies in Basra came -- as soldiers often come -- from towns and cities where race hatred has a home: Tennessee and Lancashire.

How many of "our" lads are ex-jailbirds themselves? How many support the British National Party? Muslims, Arabs, "cloth heads," "rag heads," "terrorists," "evil." You can see how the semantics break down.

Add to that the poisonous, racial dribble of a hundred Hollywood movies that depict Arabs as dirty, lecherous, untrustworthy and violent people -- and soldiers are addicted to movies -- and it's not difficult to see how some British scumbag will urinate into the face of a hooded man, how some American sadist will stand a hooded Iraqi on a box with wires tied to his hands.

He might be surprised to find that, at least here in the US, the soldiers come from all over the nation. And those that come from Tennessee aren't, as he seems to assume, all racists and brutes.

Without excusing the soldiers that took part in the maltreatment of prisoners--criminals and poor excuses for soldiers from the top down--Fisk's assumptions go beyond offensive. His presumes to know that of which he has no knowledge, and points a wavering, angry finger at his opposition, scolding them for being everything from "sexual sadists," racists, and provincial rubes.

He is always quick to believe the worst about Westerners, quick to assume the worst about soldiers, and quick to ascribe his own version of events the label of "truth" without waiting to find the facts of a situation. And damn anyone who dares disagree.

We are all victims of our high-flown morality. "They" -- the Arabs, Muslims, "cloth heads," "rag heads," "terrorists" -- are of a lesser breed, of lower moral standards. They are people to be shouted at. They have to be "liberated" and given "democracy." But we little band of brothers, we dress ourselves up in the uniforms of righteousness. We are marines or military police or a queen's regiment and we are on the side of good. "They" are on the side of "evil." So we can do no wrong.

Most of the pro-war crowd isn't racist and won't use the offensive terms that Fisk has no problem trotting out. Although, I would note that on a moral level, you're damned right I think of terrorists as having lower moral standards--the willingness to intentionally blow up busses of school children would probably back up my assertion.

Very few would say that "we can do no wrong" and the outcry from conservative corners over the maltreatment has been almost universally condemnatory. What we would say, though, is that we are trying to achieve a greater good both for ourselves and for the Iraqis and Afghanis, in a direct sense, and the Middle East and the world more indirectly.

By making an argument, and pointing that accusing finger, that acknowledges absolutely none of the thought, beliefs, and nuance that went into deciding to go to war, Fisk would make straw men of all of us who supported the effort. As we all know, it's pretty damned easy to knock down those straw men.

Fisking Fisk is sort of like hating Rall, though. For moderates and conservatives, it almost goes without saying. Once in a while, it's good to be reminded of what people like them really stand for.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at May 5, 2004 03:55 PM | TrackBack