Why They Hate Us
By Anthony Gregory • Tuesday March 29, 2011 2:29 PM PDT • 32 Comments
Because the population stands by its government and war machine, despite years of continuing murder, torture and unspeakable spectacles of inhumanity like this. If you don’t have the stomach to see the photos, here’s a bit of prose from the Rolling Stone feature to digest:
[A] review of internal Army records and investigative files obtained by Rolling Stone, including dozens of interviews with members of Bravo Company compiled by military investigators, indicates that the dozen infantrymen being portrayed as members of a secretive “kill team” were operating out in the open, in plain view of the rest of the company. Far from being clandestine, as the Pentagon has implied, the murders of civilians were common knowledge among the unit and understood to be illegal by “pretty much the whole platoon,” according to one soldier who complained about them. Staged killings were an open topic of conversation, and at least one soldier from another battalion in the 3,800-man Stryker Brigade participated in attacks on unarmed civilians. “The platoon has a reputation,” a whistle-blower named Pfc. Justin Stoner told the Army Criminal Investigation Command. “They have had a lot of practice staging killings and getting away with it.”
Despite the provocative title of this blog, “they” don’t really hate “us.” Much of the Muslim world still looks fondly upon American culture. As Ivan Eland noted in 2003:
If the U.S. government really wanted to find out what the people in Islamic countries really thought about America, rather than commissioning a study, it would have been much cheaper to have asked John Zogby, a prominent pollster and study group member, and other prominent independent pollsters for the results of their numerous polls in those nations. Those polls show that people in those countries like American culture and political and economic freedoms, but despise U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world.
Somehow many in the Muslim world have been generally able to separate the American people from our government, even more charitably than many Americans seem to distinguish foreigners from their rulers. It is so easy for the common victims of U.S. wars to become dehumanized, whether by rogue soldiers or an indifferent political culture. While the premeditated slaughter described in the Rolling Stone story is widely seen as immoral, most of the inevitable deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands in America’s elective wars are dismissed as “collateral damage.”
Foreigners should be forgiven if they resented “the American people” far more than they actually do. Most of us seem to care nothing of the atrocities committed in our name. Even worse, many of us actively support the politicians and military who bring these horrors to other people. We implicitly celebrate these acts of slaughter in parades for veterans. We “support our troops.” We name streets and buildings after presidents who ended the lives of literally millions of innocent people. In the name of humanitarianism abroad, we enlist the help of a state that jails without trial, claims the right to do anything to anyone on earth, and has tortured hundreds or thousands of detainees to death.
By “we” I am referring, of course, to the American people as a group, which is problematic. Even worse is considering the government an extension of the popular will. American voters fight over which sociopath should run the war machine, condemning other nations for nuclear ambitions and human rights abuses while sitting comfortably amidst the largest prison population on earth and an unsurpassed arsenal of inherently aggressive weapons, including tens of thousands of nukes.
We argue seriously about what “we” should do to stop Iran from one day obtaining nuclear weapons, almost all in agreement that this is the U.S. government’s business, even as we do not stand up and demand our government, the only one ever to intentionally murder civilians with atomic bombs, disarm unilaterally and unconditionally. We debate endlessly about the most minor details of domestic politics as a bipartisan empire financed with our tax dollars and central bank lays waste to countries, destroys the most priceless archives of cultural records, deliberately poisons foreigners by the thousands, prevents people from getting food and medicine, and drops terroristic death from the sky, perhaps more than all other governments in history combined.
Then there are those troops on the ground, chopping off body parts, shooting helpless kids for sport, gleefully playing with the remains of some of the millions of casualties of America’s post-9/11 killing spree. The military apologizes for the photos, but not for the war that makes these atrocities inevitable. This is the rot at the soul of the American empire. When its leaders claim that their last round of bombing in intended to and will effectively secure human rights, why on earth would anyone in his right mind believe them?
Tags: Afghanistan, Libya, Philosophy, Uncategorized, War 
Gregory:
(1) We argue seriously about what “we” should do to stop Iran from one day obtaining nuclear weapons. (2) Yet, our country is the only one ever to intentionally murder civilians with atomic bombs.
(3) We do not demand that our government disarm nuclear weapons, unilaterally and unconditionally.
AMG: (re:1) Iran controls its population and has put down recent popular dissent. Its leader Ahmadinijad has called the US the Great Satan, advocates the elimination of Israel, and believes in the coming of the Imam Mahdi by Spring. The Mahdi is supposed to lead the conquering of the West, beginning with the taking of Jerusalem. ( http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39501 )
So, we have a rational interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, regardless of our past history.
(re:2) World War II was a war of civilian murder. There is dispute about the need to use two nuclear weapons on Japan. But, conventional bombing was responsible for similar numbers of casualties. US actions were not gleeful mass murder, but were part of a tragic, horrific war.
(re:3) We and the world would not be safer if we unilaterally disarm. What would be your basis for thinking that this would lead to less conflict or following world-wide disarmament? We don’t mind much that France, England, and Israel have nuclear weapons. Iran is another matter.
Gregory:
(4) Our empire lays waste to countries,
(5) destroys the most priceless archives of cultural records,
(6) deliberately poisons foreigners by the thousands,
(7) prevents people from getting food and medicine, and
(8) drops terroristic death from the sky
(9) perhaps more than all other governments in history combined.
AMG: In each of these cases, I don’t know which events you are referring to; could you be specific?
What context did these occur in? Were they understandable as part of some other, more worthy policy, or were they the gleeful actions of a deranged and evil society? You imply gleeful and deranged, especially in (re:9) where you imply that the US might be the most horrific society of all time.
I don’t like war, but I am not entirely pacifist. Maybe your statements would make more sense with more detail.
Andrew_M_Garland | Mar 29, 2011 | Reply
The USA has always made the pretense of being the beacon of freedom and justice for the world, and the humanitarian savior of the oppressed. In order to live up to this we the citizens should hold our soldiers to higher standards. Instead, we are guilty of treating all of our enemies as subhuman trash — check out some WW2 propaganda posters some time. There can be no excuses that simply make the “war is hell” argument or justify such actions because the enemy was also guilty.
Glen Litsinger | Mar 29, 2011 | Reply
In our current conflicts, we have such an overwhelming superiority in firepower and technology that it’s often about as a fair a fight as shooting fish in a barrel. This is not about our nation’s safety, nor its honor, nor its soldiers’ heroism. I have a hard time stomaching the constant propaganda we hear about the brave warriors who are protecting our freedoms as they engage in the slaughter of innocents. Even the insurgents are mostly innocent of wanting to make war against Americans; they’re simply defending their country and their families.
As long as we’re the invaders, the aggressors, we are wrong in prosecuting these wars.
Glen Litsinger | Mar 29, 2011 | Reply
I agree that deranged soldiers and their commanders should be brought to justice, but getting rid of nukes is a totally crazy idea. If not for them, we’d already have had a WW III.
Innocent civilians die in wars, but you should at least put a part of the blame on their own governments which provoked the US, like Taliban who could put the deranged Bin Laden away but chose to fight the US instead. But you probably don’t understand this...
Harley Davidson | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
(1) Ahmadinijad does not run the Iranian military. He has much less power than a US president over his country. His statements about Israel have been taken out of context — he did not advocate the destruction of the people there; he spoke of the elimination of the Israeli state from the pages of history, more or less, and he was quoting someone else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy
There is also little evidence that Iran is actually seeking a nuclear weapon:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0917/Reality-check-Iran-is-not-a-nuclear-threat
(2) You are right about WWII being a war of “civilian murder.” The US actions in that war were murderous, and yet they are upheld as proper policy by today’s US war party.
(3) I object to England, France and Israel having nukes, even if you don’t.
(4) — Iraq, Vietnam and Pakistan are examples of countries laid to waste. Japan might be a better example, going further back, as over fifty of its cities were razed to the ground.
(5) — the ancient archives in Iraq, including some of the oldest writing known to man, were ravaged during the US war. Some ancient artifacts and architectural sites were devastated by US helicopters. That’s a recent example. The firebombing of Dresden is another.
(6) — the poisoning refers to the destruction of Iraq’s sewage treatment facilities, the chemical destruction of crops in Colombia in the drug war, the napalming of Vietnam or Korea — there are plenty of examples.
(7) — Iraq sanctions: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1009f.asp
(8-9) — the US has seemingly bombed more civilians than any other government, and it would seem more than the others combined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Strategic_bombing_events
A note: Some of these acts happened decades ago, but the US government continues to act as though they were just or defensible. So I think they can be used to indict the US government. The US empire has enjoyed a continuity since at least WWII.
I don’t think _any_ policy goal can make the targeting of innocent people moral, and most US policy goals don’t even come close to the standard I would adopt even if I were a cold utilitarian. All this said, I do not mean to imply that the US is the most “horrific society of all time.” The US government is one of the most aggressive governments in recent history, especially in foreign affairs. Society should be seen as distinct from the state, although there is a relationship. I don’t think German society is the most “horrific of all time,” despite the Nazis; nor British society, despite their empire; nor the Russians and Chinese, despite their communist regimes; nor the Belgians, despite their government’s genocidal massacre in the Congo. Government are all evil, and America’s is no exception. But I love American culture despite this.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
BTW, I’m not a pacifist either. Self-defense against aggressors is perfectly moral and legitimate in my mind. But modern governmental war is never limited to violence against aggressors. It always involves murder of the innocent. I oppose wars not out of pacifism, but out of support for the individual rights of all innocents who are killed.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
Oh My God! I had no idea it has come to this! Ahmadinijad has called the US the Great Satan!
Why hasn’t Iran already been nuked?
I mean it’s not like he said the US is an imperial empire, or a bunch of a-holes, he’s playing the “Great Satan” card. This guy is a major threat to America’s existence.
Tom Blanton | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
Greg: I think AMG really exemplifies our collective problem today. We’re addicted to a persona of our nation, portrayed in those John Wayne war movies as the crusaders of liberty and justice. But we’ve become similar to all addicts in denial. We know damn well we’re doing something terribly wrong today, but we’ve lost the ability to look in the mirror because it’s just too painful. So we continue along our destructive path, disrupting the lives of all those around us, and blaming everyone but ourselves. Nothing is going to change until we finally face and accept the reality of our situation, and admit to ourselves what our addiction is doing to both us and our family. In this case, it’s the family of mankind. If we can’t, we will ultimately destroy both them and ourselves.
Jerry | Mar 31, 2011 | Reply
PS: Whoops! Sorry “Greg”...looks like I meant “Tony”. I knew I was bad with names, but geez.
Jerry | Mar 31, 2011 | Reply
I totally agree. As a American/Pakistani dual citizen, I cannot stand a single civilian being killed whether it’s by the U.S Army, the Pakistani Army, the CIA, the ISI, Taliban, Al Qaeda, an Arab Army, an Arab intelligence agency, the Indian Army, RAW, the Israeli Army, MOSSAD, Hamas, Hezbollah, the British Army, MI5, a European Army or Intelligence Agency, the Iranian Army or Intelligence Agency and so on...
How can anyone support “collateral damage” if they themselves would not like to experience the same? How can I support a single innocent civilian dying for “the greater good” if I myself wouldn’t want to be killed even if a thousand lives were saved by me being bombed to oblivion.
Saif | Apr 1, 2011 | Reply
Anthony, don’t forget the depleted uranium weapons the US military is so fond of and their devastating after effects.
http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm
And we claim to be a Christian nation on top of it. Maybe “we” should reread what that would really mean.
Matt. 5:9
Mark | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Regarding “deliberate poisoning” there is also the 1962 CIA poisoning of Cuba bound sugar on the “Streatham Hill”.
The “humanitarian intervention” attack on Libya has already deployed DU so that’s this week’s “poisoning”. One can argue about how “deliberate” it was.
Ian | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Worship of the State is a relic of 19th Century nationalism.
The State is not the people.
Americans who believe anything the state tells them after all the PROVEN lies, half truths, and misinformation must be not Paying too much attention.
Vooch | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
I am gratified there are still Americans such as Anthony Gregory who have a conscience and the intelligence to protest the madness of our government.
Robert Charron | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
I’ll take your request for examples seriously, even though one would have to be living under a rock to ask for them:
(4) Our empire lays waste to countries: Iraq, Vietnam.
(5) destroys the most priceless archives of cultural records: Iraq antiquities.
(6) deliberately poisons foreigners by the thousands: agent orange and depleted uranium.
(7) prevents people from getting food and medicine: support of Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
(8) drops terroristic death from the sky: drone attacks in Afghanistan, aerial bombing in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.
(9) perhaps more than all other governments in history combined: do the numbers.
Donna | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Current war strategy targets civilians! 90% of war casualties are civilians and this has been the case since Korea. All have been against non whites.
bogi666 | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
“blamin everyone but ourselves”. This is the false doctrine of the pretend christians; “I’m not responsible god told me to do it and or Satan made me do it but I’m note responsible”. The doctrine is institutionalized by government, business, individuals and the pretend christian churches which give it legitimacy.
bogi666 | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Three points to raise: 1) the lying is really offensive from our government. “It’s the oil, stupid”. Calling any of this humanitarian or claiming it is to promote secular democracy is a fiction. 2) it’s now perpetual war and endless war. This is no longer a conflict with a finite rationale and a resolution in sight. These are open ended hold and control until a stable regime is capable of continuing the war against their people without our troops. That’s something new and very scary. 3) the parallel between torturing a helpless captive and bombing / occupying a country that has no defense against our military should not be ignored. We’re guilty of torturing the middle east, not just invading it.
Steve pesce | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
“If we can’t, we will ultimately destroy both them and ourselves.”
That’s a perfect example of American arrogance. You Americans think that just because you’re still the most powerful country on earth, you have the power to destroy everyone else. you’re in for a nasty surprise. America is weakening, and the rest of the world is just waiting for it to become weak enough so that it can gang up on it and destroy it for good. It’s a matter of years now, not even decades.
xorg | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Amadinajad’s comments were NOT taken out of context.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/
JOORIP | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
You and the writer have both, valid arguments as I see it. US is not bad but the American people needs to wake up to the reality of follow the money and then you’ll know who’s behind all those. What reason did we had to go to war against Serbia, and look how the American people wants us out of Afghanistan but never cared about Serbia. So we really need to figure out those things before those “foreigners” stops making the diff in between US the people and the irresponsible Democan and Republicrats leaders we keep electing.
Florin Milea | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
I wonder if scattering thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium Munitions all over Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia and now Libya qualifies as an event to your resident troll!
Ah yes! DU the gift that keeps on giving with a half life of about what 4 billion years!
Big Red | Apr 2, 2011 | Reply
Absolutely.
The terminology “served” is a loaded statement that should be changed (for example to – being on military welfare). This terminology – to serve, automatically legitimizes and justifies our wars. I believe that the first duty of any antiwar movement is to dishonor the soldiering profession. After all, soldiers serve nobody except themselves and those who make profit out of wars.
Joshua Ashenberg | Apr 3, 2011 | Reply
Why everyone knows that they hate us for our freedom, eh, Anthony?
All the lying and deceit by the government notwithstanding, there is no way that the citizenry of the United States can be exempted from moral responsibility in atrocities such as these. They’ve been public knowledge for long enough, certainly. The whole torture, war-crime ethos has resonance even in places one might expect things to be otherwise: In the writing of the vaunted, “old right” doyen, Pat Buchanan, for example, who can manage to find propriety in water boarding at least under some circumstances. A great Catholic, Pat. Everyone who reads this Nazi needs to grasp the spiritual rot that make such views possible. But Buchanan has tons of company and that’s not likely to change at any early time.
Andrei Vyshinsky | Apr 3, 2011 | Reply
@JOORIP...
Did you bother reading the Hitchen’s article you linked? Hitchens actually admits he is choosing to use a mis-translation and then bases his argument off of that mis-translation! Even though he has a working mind, he admits he is going to appeal to authority instead of verifying the text himself. At least he is honest about his intellectual dishonesty.
Here is the literal translation and the history of the quote.
Frank | Apr 4, 2011 | Reply
Anthony, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. But I think your tone crosses the line. I do not believe that saying things like “(The US government has) tortured hundreds or thousands of detainees to death” is going to do much to change people’s minds about our foreign policy. I think the term ‘extreme’ is over-used in American political discourse, but I would classify that as an extreme statement. If you could offer proof of this claim I am willing to change my stance. Also I do not think the American people are morally responsible for the things that our government does. We elect our representatives but they still make their own decisions, in many cases regardless of the will of their constituents. If anything, average Americans are guilty of being uninformed and/or apathetic. This is not morally equivalent to mass civilian murder. Our goal should be to help educate and involve the populace to put a stop to these atrocities instead of condemning our fellow countrymen as complicit in them. Because of the work of freedom activists, we now have a senator from Kentucky who is leading the charge against the action in Libya, and doing so brilliantly in my opinion. We can make a difference. We just have to first see our citizens as fundamentally good and work to help them overcome their deficiencies, rather than demonizing them.
Andrew Irvin | Apr 6, 2011 | Reply
I think you’re right in saying that to refer to military “service” is to confer upon it an aura of honor that has been most useful to pro-war propagandists since the end of the draft.
But it’s unjust to accuse those who do enlist of self-serving motivations. Speaking from experience as well as hearsay, I can tell you that quite a few military personnel—perhaps the majority—come from circumstances of penury so intense as to be coercive: It’s enlist or starve.
We on the left are often accused of elitism. Most of the time, that’s an easily refuted lie. But now and then, we do find middle-class progressives who have no appreciation for the problems of poverty and find it all too easy to lay blame on the poor for doing only what they must to survive in a society that is all too willing to ignore their suffering. And when they do this, they abet the right by making us all look like hypocrites.
Please think before you condemn, and ask yourself before uttering a syllable of scorn for the choices of another whether those choices were genuinely choices at all. Free will is a relative term, and in a kleptoplutocracy, it is a commodity affordable only by the fortunate few.
Abdel Irada | Apr 18, 2011 | Reply
Note: My preceding comment was meant as a reply to Joshua Ashenberg. For some reason, however, it’s not displayed as such; hence the clarification.
Abdel Irada | Apr 18, 2011 | Reply
Your comment is very interesting. I agree with your thinking.
—Orna Taub, Haife, Israel
Orna Taub | Sep 10, 2011 | Reply
This report came from the World Health Organization because of the US military use of depleted uranium, 500,000 babies were born deformed and 11,000 US troops died from exposure to depleted uranium. The US used depleted uranium in their bombs, missiles and munitions in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya and now in Syria. Some of the deformed children can be seen on YouTube and other sites.
Bob Marshall | Sep 10, 2011 | Reply