The morning of September 11, 2001, was a rude and tragic awakening for the American people, a wake-up call of earth-shattering proportions. We had long known that other expansionist powers led by dictatorial autocrats, whether fascist or communist, would batttle with us in world wars, whether hot or cold, over geographic and political domination, but 9/ll was somehow different. The Cold War had ended, a "peace dividend" was even expected. That some groups of people, not tied specifically to any nation's government, actually hated us, would engage in extreme steps to terrorize and destroy our citizens and our institutions, was virtually unthinkable. We were used to being seen as the "good guys", the nation that supported freedom and democracy, not only for our own people but also for those in other areas of the world. Why the massive, misdirected hatred directed at us, at innocent citizens? Why the groups of distant peoples actually cheering the wanton killing of our people? Some soul-searching was in order. The Bush administration's immediate answer, that they hated us because of our "freedom", seemed very calculated, uninformed. Some leaders may not like freedom, but people universally value freedom, they may want to exercise it in their own way, perhaps differently than we do, but freedom itself is not the villain. While we may have hoped that our actions since 9/ll, in our war on terror in the Middle East and elsewhere, would have lessened some of the hatred that we engender in the hearts and minds of some people throughout the world, last week's Boston Bombing is a stark indication that the hatred is still rampant, and may come from unexpected directions and isolated individuals. While this violent hatred is abhorent and can never in any way be justified, further understanding how it has developed to be such a force in some people's minds could be useful in finding better ways to counter its appeal. To do so, a brief review of how America's world image has changed in the last half century may be helpful.
The United States emerged from World War 2 as the most influential, respected nation in the world, and its actions in the creation of the United Nations, establishing the Marshall Plan to aid in the war recovery of other countries, and resisting communist expansion in Korea supported the positive regard with which we were held throughout much of the world. The colonial empires other allied nations had held for centuries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa were being relinquished, and our own brief experience with establishing overseas possessions in the Philippines and in Cuba were quickly forgotten. We had no expansionist desires, and were seen by many as the light, and the hope, of the free world. While our resistence to Soviet expansionism was highly respected in some areas, such as Germany and eastern Europe, and justified much of our military buildup and presence throughout the world, the situation in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South and Central America was more complicated, our involvements more ambiguous and often in conflict with local, nationalist desires. Our stated purpose in Vietnam was to resist a communist takeover, but nationalist sentiment there was prevailing, as was opposition to any continuation of foreign domination. Our involvement was a major mistake, the entire underdeveloped world was watching, and we had to leave in defeat. Our fear of communist gains anywhere in the world similarly led us to supporting right-wing dictators or monarchs in various countries in the '60's, '70's, and '80's, such as the Shah in Iran, Samosa in Nicaragua, and Pinochet in Chile. In chosing to resist political and social change in these and other countries, often misinterpretating locally-led social democratic change as communist-inspired, the US was increasingly running the risk of being seen as antagonistic to the aspirations of people in underdeveloped nations previously dominated by colonial powers or right-wing oligarchs.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's, combined with major breakthroughs and changes in the technology of personal communication and in international trade and finance produced a sea-change in world affairs. The world was a much smaller place, instant communication between distant people was possible. A bi-polar world no longer existed, but a world of peace was not to emerge. Buried rivalries immediately erupted, free of the overlay of major power involvement, between countries, sects, suppressed groups seeking their opportunity to reclaim their status. The Middle East was paramount in the powder-keg areas, with nations, sects of Muslims, Palestine-Israeli conflict all adding to the incendiary realities. Major powers could not resist getting involved, both the natural resources lost and the human suffering incurred if major powers didn't step in would be unacceptable.
Our government's initial response was well-proportioned, we stopped Iraq from going into Kuwait, but did not attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power and control Iraq itself. Clinton made an earnest attempt to resolve the way-too-long smoldering Palestine-Israeli conflict, but it proved impossible to do, and hostility there continued to mount. Since our vested interest and military support lies predominately with Israel, much of the Arab rage gets directed at us as well as Israel. Our support of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia adds to how the vast majority of the underclass of Arabs feel towards us, if not supporting past colonial European rule, or creating a home state for Jewish people by removing Arabs from land that had most recently been theirs, now supporting a Saudi monarchy which is suppressive of the majority of its own people.
In this explosive atmosphere, something like 9/11 perhaps should have been expected--the seeds of hatred had been allowed to breed far too long. The Bush administration's response, with Dick Cheney as a leading influence, was controlled by a neo-conservative group of political appointees who had been active in the Project for a New American Century, a think-tank group that felt America had the power and the right to establish a new world order, as the sole remaining super-power, of its own choosing. The horrors of 9/11 and the turmoil in the Middle East gave it, they believed, the legitimacy and the right to attempt it. Our response rapidly shifted from fighting al-Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan to attacking Iraq on suspiciously manufactured grounds, disposing of Saddam Hussein, and expecting to be received as liberators and freedom-fighters. The persistence of violence in Iraq, and the continuation of the longest war in our history in Afghanistan, speaks to the failure of their image of a new American century. Without admitting their failure, or the arrogance of their plans, most of their appointees left the Bush administration unceremoniously, and the Project for a New American Century closed doors in 2007. The US needs to develop a new world image, but that was not it. Obama has been attempting to reverse course, clarify our overseas policies, lessen our over-involvements, but it is clearly a work in progress, with many rough edges that are problematic. Our use of drones in countries not directly involved in warfare is among the myriad questions, as are our options in dealing with Iran's nuclear development, Palestine-Israel resolution, and the Syrian conflict. While we can no longer control overseas outcomes, our informed leadership can and should play an influential role in resolutions.
With the world's population more rapidly informed than ever, more aware of what is going on in the world around them, our image will be subject to more volatile change. People will be more aware of duplicity, hypocracy, inconsistency. As a nation that preaches the merits of democracy, it will be obvious when in practice we find reasons to support governments that don't allow it. Short-coming in our own democratic practices will be all-too-apparent, our greatly increasing disparity in wealth and income within our country will raise doubts about our own system. If we offer restive people hope and the intimation of help in their resistence to suppressive governments, it will create hostility if we are unable to provide it. It is clear that our power alone will not carry the day on the world scene, and certainly not make friends. The most powerful, in fact, often becomes the chosen target of those harboring hatred. A truly positive world image may well have more to do with being authentic, consensual, cooperative, listening as well as determining, certainly less arrogant and controlling. There will still, undoubtedly, be those out there who will hate us, and may want to do us harm. The least we can attempt to insure is that our behaviors and attitudes on the world scene don't clearly invite those tragic reactions.
