(Not) a potential terrorist

“I love my country. It’s my government I fear.”

For the most part, I’ve found the Baby Boomer generation to be quite annoying. Their original social views were understandable (not fighting in Vietnam) and commendable (civil/women’s rights); the modern-day manifestations of those views, however, are neither comprehensible (“unity in diversity”) nor praiseworthy (political correctness). I applaud the fact that they shoved their ultraconservative parents out the way, but, after nearly 40 years, why are they still around and will they ever go away? (Pretty please?) The people who bemoaned capitalism in their youth are today benefiting from it; the ones who didn’t hesitate to light a joint or drop acid have made it a felony for us to do so. (I don’t know about you, but my anti-drug is thinking about America under Bill Clinton and Dubya.) Recently, however, I have been thinking about one of their defining issues that, until recently, I was unsure about – the aforementioned Vietnam War.

The peace movement wanted to know “one, two, three, what are we fighting for?” which was a pretty good question. Essentially, the United States government sent troops to Vietnam to repel the Vietcong attack on South Vietnam. The support was so thin here (the government would never admit they made a mistake) that the government finally recalled the troops, giving the United States probably the most embarrassing military loss since the Canadians burned down the White House during the War of 1812.

As un-American as it might have seemed not to support your country or its troops at a time of war, the sentiment was actually quite American: Why are we interfering in the affairs of other countries that have nothing to do with us? Communism wasn’t the enemy, they figured, until they attacked us. And despite the fact that North Vietnam might have a government whose philosophy starkly contrasted with America’s, the Vietcong had not fired at the United States. They, of course, did not say it that way, but, in an obnoxiousness that still defines neo-liberalism thanks to them, sang “Give Peace a Chance”. (Which for some reason, always reminds me of Napoleon XIV’s “They’re Coming To Take Me Away Ha-Haaa!”, but maybe we’ll get to that some other time.)

The thing is that Vietnam reminds me of the “War of Terrorism”. There are, of course, obvious differences: For one, there was only a “Cold War” of nuclear weapons stockpiling by the United States and the Soviet Union, whereas there were definite attacks perpetrated by a terrorist organization a year ago. However, in both cases, the “necessity” of preventing a certain ideology was used to legitimate the use of force against a foreign power. Now, here too, is a difference. Vietnam was groundless, other than falling victim to McCarthyan paranoia. Flying commercial aircraft is damn sure good enough reason to go after those who were responsible … except who is exactly responsible? Al-Qaeda? Sure. They took responsibility. The Taliban? That’s acceptable, they housed the group that was responsible. But Saddam Hussein? What the hell does Hussein have to do with anything? The fact that he shares a religion with those who were responsible and the United States government doesn’t like him – that’s a good enough reason to attack? Aren’t we supposed to be avoiding making judgments like that in “the land of the free”? And that, more than anything, is what bothers me. If someone seems like they are an enemy, then the “War on Terrorism” can conceivably turn toward them, whether they are actual foes or not. (When people took a stand against the Vietnam War, they often were seen as traitors, when they weren’t also treated as criminals.) Well, for a few seconds, I just might seem like an enemy, but believe me, I’m far from it.

I feel the American government has every right to go after those who attacked our homeland. A loose organization (loose, at the very least, compared to a nation) like al-Qaeda is hard to fight, so, instead, we topple the government that supported them. Again, that’s perfectly fine. The government that replaced The Taliban is shaky, but friendly to us. Mission accomplished, bring the boys back home until we gather enough intelligence to make another move against them.

I’m not saying America deserved anything and everything that happened a year ago. I am saying that when a group of Pakistanis held up a sign that said “America! Think about why you are hated” not long after the attacks, that they had a point. Wherever there is a war or violence, there is almost without fail an American official or American military. As harsh as this might sound, if it’s not going in America or if it is not directly affecting the safety of this country, it should be none of our government’s concern, however tragic the situation might be.

American interference in Israel/Palestine hasn’t done any significant amount of good (the Palestinian and Israeli representatives may be closer than before, but the bloodshed continues), but the American government’s (supposed?) Israeli sympathy hasn’t helped to make the United States a big hit in the Muslim world, especially with the more radical/fundamentalist/nutroll groups. The American government’s audacity of telling other countries how they should handle their affairs, yet scoffing when some of those other nations say what they feel the United States should do doesn’t help our position with anyone, either.

If I ever decide I want to get involved in the travesties that happen in other countries, I’ll join Amnesty International. Until then, I’ll just as soon not have my interest forced by my government … or by some angered political radicals who happen to have enough funding to show their displeasure at my government’s presence in their country.