by Matt Barr

American exceptionalists are the best

It may seem strange that an avowed American exceptionalist, like myself, would mock those who appear to want nothing but the best for the rest of the world, insofar as they would treat developing democracies, statist, busybody Europeans and terrorists like they had somehow become Americans, flush with freedom of the press, Bill of Rights protections and equal partnership in military decisions. Admittedly, the idea that everyone should be more like us is reflexively attractive, but one tries to work these problems out beyond what seems intuitively right at first. Also, you come to realize that most (not all) of the time, the what's good for us is good for everyone else shtick isn't borne of a belief that the way we do it is better, but rather that it's arrogant of the United States to treat other people like they aren't Americans, as though that somehow makes them less, I don't know, American.

Not the most well known but perhaps the best example of this, as indefensible as it is on any basis beyond "it's good for us so it's good for them," is Matt Welch's crusade against Iraq propaganda, which began, as far as I can tell, here. The revelation that the Pentagon had produced "basically factual" pro-democracy news "omit[ting] information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments" and was paying to have it run in friendly Iraq papers, and was even controlling a paper and a radio station itself, was like unto finding out we were "teaching our 12-year-old girls to strap nail bombs to their bodies before riding the bus" or using "nerve gas on enemy lines, or napalm on villages, or atomic bombs on cities" (first link above) because we have freedom of the press, our terrorist enemies in Iraq don't, so if we undermine freedom of the press in Iraq The Terrorists Have Won, or something.

Unlabeled propaganda, Welch said, is ineffective long-term -- he may be right, at least if the L.A. Times broadcasts to the world that it is American-produced propaganda -- and "show[s] a disturbing lack of faith in the ennobling power of American values." The Pentagon should "be open about buying a newspaper; make it the best and most truthful damned newspaper in all Iraq, and watch citizens go 'Huh; maybe these Americans are on to something!'" The problem with that may be cleverly hidden in this bit from the original news account from the L.A. Times:

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.

You think? But our faith in the ennobling power of freedom of the press, truth, justice and the American way would keep employees of an openly owned, most truthful paper ever from being blown to smithereens. We have a free press; they should have a free press. A free press is its own end, not a means to help citizens govern themselves that may not exactly be helpful when citizens can't govern themselves, owing to all the explosions and such.

You've seen many other examples of this. It's possible (and, I would say, worthwhile) to argue that foreign terror detainees should be brought to trial before a reasonably neutral tribunal, with access to counsel and exculpatory and inculpatory evidence, in order to separate the useful from the useless in intelligence gathering, or in the name of conspicuously dispensing justice and punishment for conspiring to attack America. (That Zacarias Moussaoui trial isn't exactly cathartic as far as opening a can of criminal justice whoop-ass on al Qaeda.) Or whatever. It's not possible to sensibly argue that foreign terror detainees should be brought to trial because the Guantanamo Bay facility violates the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the principle of "liberty and justice for all."

Ok, I take it back, it is possible to sensibly argue that Gitmo is unconstitutional. But not that we need to act in ways consistent with the principles of due process and the Constitution, which is appealing to an unhelpful and even dangerous abstraction. Like so:

Institutional reforms are needed to resolve these questions and signal clearly to Americans and a watching world that due process, even for terror suspects, matters to our government. Extraordinary measures presented as matters of executive authority, or justified in the name of security, have been tolerable during a period of adaptation to the new era, but they will fail in the long run. Leaving it to the Supreme Court to force the government to act, meanwhile, is a poor substitute for a forward-looking and forthright effort to face our unprecedented situation squarely and in a way consistent with the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Signaling clearly that we act consistently with the principles underlying the Constitution is great as a concept, something to be encouraged in the best of times, but not a goal that ought to undermine national security. Come to me when we're actually violating the Constitution and I'll be right there with you. (I was with the Jose Padilla thing, you may recall.) Or so:

The traditions and history of our people have always been that legal and administrative rules should be clear, and impartially levied against those who run up against them. As such, then, despite the lack of clear standards that can be derived from the Geneva Conventions, it is incumbent upon us as Americans to ensure that the procedures at Guantanamo Bay are fair, and impartial. From what I can see, the procedures for determining the status of Guantanamo detainees are highly arbitrary. This is not the way Americans are supposed to go about such procedures. If the standard for making such determinations is not clear and predictable, then, no matter how "legal" that might be under the Geneva Conventions, it is a violation of traditional American ethics and morality.

All this boils down to "how can you, United States, claim to be a model of liberty and freedom and due process and keep 500 alleged enemy combatants by the short and curlies without lawyers, trial or hope in Cuba?" Which is qualitatively the same as "how can you, United States, go on about how great freedom of the press is and then covertly spread insidious propaganda in Iraq?" The answer is never "because we're different from other people and to whatever extent we treat other people the way we treat ourselves as Americans, it's because we want to, not because we have to," but that's the correct answer, and hiding or avoiding it only encourages people.

Like the ones who insisted action against Iraq was improper and illegitimate unless we got a certain number of other countries to go along with it. I understand why it's in our interest, weapons of mass destruction, shooting at our planes, flouting terms of the Gulf War surrender, liberating a country under the heel of a despicable tyrant, avenging millions of Kurds, all that folderol, but it's not in Italy's interest, according to the Italians, and why is our interest more important than Italy's interest? Because we don't give a Flying Wallenda about Italy's interest. If it's in our interest to worry about Italy's interest we'll worry about Italy's interest. But that's not fair!

My favorite in the run-up to the war I wish I could find and link to. It was on a Yahoo message board somewhere, where someone actually asked how we would feel if Iraq decided to invade us and overthrow our government, assuming they could. We wouldn't like that, would we? So therefore we shouldn't overthrow Saddam.

What's good for us is good for the rest of the world. It's difficult to argue with this, if you're an American exceptionalist, because the rest of the world really should be more like us, and the way we do things really is superior most of the time. But you can't establish The Daily U.S. Mouthpiece newspaper in Baghdad and advertise it as such in order to ennoble the virtues of people because everyone who works for it will be killed; you can't imprison a foreign national captured on the battlefield with operational knowledge of possible planned terrorist attacks against America and stop questioning him if he asks for a lawyer because you'll never get to the bottom of the next attack; you can't ask an ad hoc committee of nations who aren't you to sign off on your national security because a camel is a horse built by a committee.

These realities are too often expressed as troubling, pragmatic exceptions to our highest and best principles, ones you feel vaguely unclean about. You shouldn't. We are a government of laws, not men, but also not ill-defined, amorphous principles that inexplicably exclude the principle that with America we grabbed the brass ring, did it right, and we owe it and ourselves every conceivable effort to protect and defend it. Why never an appeal to that principle? We should conduct the war on terror consistent with American principles of protecting and defending America. Is that so hard? It's also exportable: I would love to teach several other countries that they should protect and defend America, too.

Inevitably somebody will trot out the slippery slope: If we start detaining suspected foreign terrorists without trial it won't be long before we start arresting random innocent Americans and waterboarding and starving them to death in solitary confinement. Are you telling me that if the Defense Department buys favorable news coverage in Iraq, suddenly journalists in America are going to start knuckling under to the government? When it's a Republican administration, I mean? That's ridiculous. Thanks to Guantanamo, you are currently in more danger of arrest and detention without trial for years at a time than you were five years ago? Really? That must stress you out.

Now, having said all this, the point is that the answer to the question how you reconcile what you do unto others with what you would do unto yourself is yes, there are different rules, and we can't have a useful, honest discussion until you acknowledge that. But the answer to the question should we do something or other is never yes, because they're not American. Should we send troops over to commit widespread anal rape in Uganda? Yes, because they're not American. Should we annex Canada and enslave all the Canadians to go drill for oil in Alberta? Yes, because they're not American. No. It doesn't work that way.

But you shouldn't have to dignify accusations like these of inconsistency, or a "disturbing lack of faith" in your values, in discussions over how we conduct a war on terror elsewhere than in America, and deal with non-Americans in the course of same. Our cherished rights aren't an end in themselves, like Welch thinks freedom of the press is; they're a means of preserving and perpetuating a way of life. Where that way of life doesn't exist, resort to our rules is nonsensical. Freedom of the press mandates that you tell people you're an American mouthpiece, Mr. Iraqi journalist! And then with the explosion.

Resort to our principles is worse, because at least we can look at our rules and see what they say; isn't there, seriously, a principle that we should protect and defend America? I wasn't kidding about that. I'll see any one of the principles you want to say should make us act one way and raise you two others that say you're wrong. Nothing will ever be resolved, and all either one of us will do is reinforce what we already think is right. It's not helpful.

We're fully capable of conducting our business and our war with honor and benevolence where appropriate without pretending that everywhere is America.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
American+exceptionalism war+on+terror