Fractured Lenses

Homespun Bloggers question for this week comes from Arthur Chrenkoff.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq have caused deep fissures through the international political landscape, but arguably not simply and predictably "left" versus "right"; after all, President Bush is allied with a social democrat Tony Blair and ex-communists of Eastern Europe, while the anti-war coalition is also a motley crew of American and British paleo-conservatives, European right (France) and left (Germany) and many others.

So what does it all mean? What is the new divide in international politics? And will it last?

The difference is one of perspective. Most people have seen the picture of the old lady/young woman, and how the picture changes for you depending on your point of view. I think that the current war on terror is an exercise in that same vein on a global scale. Keep in mind that countries, governments, etc., are made up of people, and everyone has their own read on a situation.

I think what they're looking at, what is driving this schism in politics is NOT, in fact, the war on terror.

I think it's the U.S.

To some, the U.S. is a largely benevolent culture. We've got a thriving economy, out of which we pay millions in foreign aid. Our universities and educational institutions are, by and large, the envy of the world, and centers of invention and innovation. Our military strength is unquestioned. We allow our citizens a huge amount of freedom to do what they want, and go where they want. To these people, the U.S. is good, and its way of life should be defended.

To others, the U.S. is a parasite - a sinkhole of consumerism. We take up more resources, our citizens are viewed as uncaring about other countries and peoples. Our culture spreads like a virus - we spawned McDonald's and let it and all its commercial brethren loose on an unsuspecting world. Our military is seen as a possible tool of aggressive imperialistic expansion. To these people, the U.S. is evil, and it was only a matter of time until something happened.

That something being 9/11. When the towers came down, there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy from all sides. Of course there was. For pro-Americans, it was a time of horrible loss. For anti-Americans, perhaps it was an unfortunate price tag on humbling the Americans. And people saw that as a coming together. And when we attacked Afghanistan, that was on the one hand, just retribution for an act of war, and on the other, it was part of that price tag. Someone had to take the fall.

When we decided to invade Iraq, and actually make this a war on terror, anti-Americans realized that we hadn't been cowed or humbled. We'd been incensed. And when they realized that the U.S. was going to continue to pursue an anti-terror war, they were even more convinced that we were pure, unadulterated evil. Hence the division we see today, and the effort of anti-Americans to remove the justifications for the war in Iraq - the lack of reporting on the Iraq Oil-For-Food scandal, the lack of mention of Saddam's funding of Palestinian terror, and the lack of reminding the people of the U.S. that Saddam was just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so he could become a nuclear power. And instead, we get Abu Ghraib reporting for months on end, and shots of Marines in combat situations taken out of context.

This schism will only be rectified when the U.S. finally drowns in a sea of self-loathing, and we withdraw from the world stage in a flurry of placation. Here's hoping that day never comes.

I try to make a point not to read others' responses before putting my own down, it'll be interesting to see how my ideas compare. Here's the other responses so far:

Mud and Phud
Dagney's Rant
A Physicist's Perspective
Bunker Mulligan
Chrenkoff
Nathan Hale at Paulie's World
Radical Centrist
Redhunter
Litle Red Blog