"The American Bully Strikes Back"

It can be a very admirable thing to live in your own head. It is very human, and indeed has edged us inexorably along our biological and cultural evolutionary path.

However, David Alford's response to Gary Kamiya's article cannot go unchallenged -- if only on a deeper level than the much-vaunted "rational."

I am someone who has identified with the politics of the so-called Left, ever since I could consider these issues, locally and globally, in a United Kingdom context. I championed socialism, and refused to succumb to Western anti-Communist propaganda during the Cold War, preferring to think for myself wherever possible. I grew up in fear of the Bomb, marched against neo-fascism and racism, urged the end of the disease called Thatcherism, fought for women's causes, children's rights, animals, the weak, the voiceless, the disenfranchised.

However, when I read such insensitive intellectual rhetoric and shaky analogy as "A husband beats his wife, denies her dignity. She rebels and hurts him. He kills her," I am appalled. The monstrous attacks on the World Trade Center cannot be reduced to such an arid metaphor. Can "hurts him" be a sufficient encapsulation of a crime that, arguably, is one of the most heinous in history? To reduce this to a domestic incident is incredibly hurtful to anyone who may have lost a loved one in that massive crime scene.

I am not, nor have I ever been, an apologist for America. I live in Canada for very good reasons. But this kind of knee-jerk Leftism is as damaging as the right-wing equivalent, the hawkish need to lay waste to the homes of American "enemies." For the most part, the "left" has been a source of pride in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. Let's try to remain balanced, and move toward a less rhetorical, less ideological, less strident form of humanitarianism from here on in.

In other words, let's mine our hearts for gems, not just our minds.

-- David Antrobus

Mr. Alford's argument seems to have two prongs. First, the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by, or on behalf of, those "bullied" by U.S. policies and actions. The attacks -- and presumably the barbarity and propensity to barbarity of the perpetrators and their supporters -- are thus a response to U.S. policy. Second, the U.S. response to the attacks -- attacking bin Laden and the Taliban that supports him -- is simply more "bullying" that is not only morally wrong, but will breed more strikes by the bullied (here, presumably, bin Laden, the Taliban, those who support either of the first two, and those that they purport to represent).

The flaw in Alford's argument is that there is little support for the notion that bin Laden and the Taliban (assuming them to be the culprits) have anything but the most passing interest -- indeed, an interest of convenience -- in the plight of those admittedly victimized by U.S. policies: e.g., the Palestinians, the Iraqis or even the Afghans.

It is only the victims of U.S. policies affecting life-and-death interests who might conceivably have a moral claim to the use of deadly force against U.S. civilians -- on the premise that the U.S. itself used close to force resulting in or threatening death against those victims. Thus the Palestinians (by Israel as the U.S. proxy), the Iraqis (bombing of Baghdad, sanctions, continuing bombing), the Afghans (pre-Sept. 11 sanctions) and the Sudanese (destruction of critical pharmaceutical factory) might have a claim for the use of force against the U.S. -- perhaps even against U.S. civilians given these victims' inability to take on the U.S. military, and U.S. policies that injured civilians.

These victims might have a moral claim to the use of force against U.S. civilians. Arguably, those who took up the cause of such victims might have the similar moral claim to use of force, as proxy for the victims. Moreover, cessation of U.S. policies that victimize the victims might cure the victims' and their proxies' need and desire to use such force.

Neither bin Laden nor al-Qaida are such victims, however. It is fanciful, moreover, to claim that they have legitimately taken up the cause of legitimate victims, because only recently have they begun to include, for example, the Palestinians or the Iraqis in their rhetoric. Even the Taliban does not seem to have taken up the cause of its own Afghan victims, although it might have and probably should have. Rather, the Taliban itself terrorizes and oppresses its people, administering one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in history. Any claim the Taliban makes to representing the Afghans must be viewed in light of its abuse of the Afghan population.

Because none of the current targets of the U.S. response are either legitimate, prior victims of U.S. policy, or have even the minimum moral claim to the use of deadly force against civilians, Alford's depiction of the U.S. response as simply "more bullying" cannot be accepted. Until and unless the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 atrocities can be shown to be actual victims (or their legitimate champions) of U.S. policies with life-or-death implications, the U.S. retaliation against those perpetrators is morally justified. To put it in Alford's metaphor, we do not have here the case of an abusive husband killing the beaten wife who dared hit back. Neither bin Laden, al-Qaida nor the Taliban are beaten wives, but rather at most insulted and belittled wives. We should no sooner accept as payback the Sept. 11 atrocities than we should accept as justifiable the shooting of a domineering, but not physically threatening, husband by an insulted wife.

Bin Laden and al-Qaida, after all, had until just this week as their primary concern the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. This complaint hardly rises to the level of those of the Palestinians, the Iraqis or the Afghans -- no matter how many coats of cultural relativism are applied! Moreover, the Taliban, which should be championing the Afghan people, is just plain psychotic, as many Afghans themselves declare.

Alford is correct that U.S. policies victimize far too many in the Islamic world (as doubtless elsewhere). Correcting those policies would be the right thing to do, and likely reduce the level of "enemy-of-my-enemy" for the bin Ladens, among the truly victimized. There is not, however, any moral equivalence between the Sept. 11 attacks and any U.S. policies toward the actual perpetrators, their direct supporters, or any people whose causes the perpetrators had actually taken up. The U.S. response, therefore, insofar as it is limited to retaliation against the perpetrators and their direct supporters, is both morally justified, and perhaps the only route to exercise of the self-defense imperative.

-- Michael Zara

Thanks, David Alford, whoever you are. I agree with all you said (well, maybe I don't think we're going to invade Cuba, but I could be wrong). I was appalled and frightened that Gary Kamiya, executive editor of Salon, a magazine I cherish, would write such an article. Of course Salon should have many points of view (they print Horowitz for one) but when a top editor has such warlike views it's chilling. I hope your letter causes him to rethink some of his attitudes. A brief refresher course on recent American history (I'm talking the last 50 years or so) would be a start. He could begin by reviewing our treatment of our Central and South American neighbors and then move on to the Middle East and Asia and Africa.

-- R. Moss

David Alford's willingness to excuse Osama bin Laden's murderous rampage against the United States is moral relativism at its most repugnant.

But let's focus on this concluding statement. Alford says: There would be no anti-Americanism, whether "knee-jerk" or otherwise, if U.S. foreign policy were conducted on the basis of deep respect for the cultures and values that prevail in other parts of the world and a genuine "humility" in the implementation of its economic interests.

Putting aside the "humility," I have a few questions for Alford. Which values shall we substitute for our own? On which cultures, exactly, shall we base our deep respect?

On the culture in Africa that allowed the Hutu majority to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Tutsis?

On the culture in the former Yugoslavia that created "ethnic cleansing" and the systemic rape of women from those "other" cultures?

On the culture in present-day China that still allows the murder/exposure of female infants on mountainsides so that the family can try for a son because culture dictates that only a son can properly care for his ancestors?

On the culture in parts of Africa that forces female circumcision, thereby irreparably harming and often killing teenaged girls, who have to be taken, screaming, and held down for the operation?

On the culture of the Taliban itself and its oppression of women and refusal to allow for their education or contribution to the nation in any way other than childrearing and homemaking? What of the rest of the Arab world, that hotbed of theocracy, monarchy and dictatorships?

How about the values in the Subcontinent where, when an Indian woman refuses marriage to a prospective suitor, he returns with a bottle of acid to fling in her face so that no one else will want to marry her? It's all the rage there right now, I hear.

Are we supposed to deeply respect the culture in Thailand and other parts of Asia that sells children into slavery and prostitution?

Should we deeply respect the South American nations that allow husbands to murder their wives for adultery freely and without prosecution, while allowing husbands to be open philanderers?

Shall we respect posthumously Pol Pot and his million countrymen that lie moldering in their graves? Yes, we were certainly wrong to intervene in that culture.

It seems the values that prevail in many other parts of the world are those of murder (especially of women), oppression (especially of women), suppression of civil rights (especially of women) and no universal suffrage.

Tell me something, Mr. Alford: Which of these cultures deserves our deep respect? Which of these practices shall we hold up as a shining light of otherness? In what way are they superior to the culture and value system that gave the world the Bill of Rights? That fought a war to eliminate slavery within its own borders? That continues to make amends for and repair its mistakes as they are pointed out, including the ones we are no doubt making today?

Moral relativism is rubbish. There are some things that are always wrong, and the murder of nearly 6,000 civilians is one of them. Osama bin Laden is no victim. He is educated and wealthy. He could easily have used his fortune to set up organizations to legally change the things he doesn't like. His hundreds of millions would have gone a long way toward lobbying for his cause with Congress, for instance. Spare us the "Poor Osama" references. He is a psychopath and a mass murderer, and nothing can excuse what he has done.

Apologists like Alford sicken me. My knee-jerk response: Go and immerse yourself in one of those other cultures, and see how fast you find yourself wishing you were here.

-- Meryl Yourish

• View blog reactions