You know, people are predisposed to look for the bad and ignore the good. Horror sells more papers. That's too bad. The number of people out there doing good in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere else in the world far outnumber the bad.
Do we want to know the good? Yes. Do we want to know the bad? Eh, not so much, really. Do we want the ugly? Sometimes it's the only way to illustrate the extent of the evil that men do - in contrast to the good. You expose what's wrong and fight to right the wrongs you see. The problem is, there is no balance. We're currently inundated with the bad and the ugly.
It's difficult to tune out the reports of abuse, to stop thinking about the damage done to the Iraqis and to our American troops. We shouldn't forget. However, we should acknowledge that some of ours behaved in a manner that makes our stomachs churn. We must make an example of them. Show the world that we don't tolerate bullies - no matter what side they're on.
You see, this isn't much different than when your child comes home, muddied, bloodied, and aching because some bully decided to beat your little angel. You don't like it. You're angry! And you want to protect your kid. But you do so in a way that teaches your child to accept the reality of the situation, to recover, and to go on.
Now, if your child were to come home after that ordeal and turn around and start beating the crap out of another kid. Is it right? No way in hell. Is it wrong? Yes, very much so. You don't suddenly tolerate brutish behavior because it is your child causing the harm.
America must accept the role of the parent and stand up and say, "bullying will not be tolerated! Not from you...or you...or you or you or you or from us. That kind of behavior wasn't acceptable when you did it and it's not acceptable when one of us does it."
We must apologize.
Apologies do not make us weak. They set us apart from those who have no remorse.
It's part of how we set an example - proper behavior is expected, and this is part of how it's done.
Simple.
I don't care what party says what or how they're trying to turn this into yet another reason why we shouldn't be over hither or yon. The fact of the matter is, those responsible need to be punished. Responsibility must be placed on the heads of those who perpetrated the acts, those in charge of the offenders, and this needs to be done now.
I keep thinking about what I'd tell my children if they were in that position. Wrong is wrong no matter what. Now there's the beheading of Berg...and people are saying that anything we did in the prisons is justified. It's STILL not okay. If we dismiss the behavior of our military in those prisons, we are stepping right into the same hell that the terrorists occupy.
It frightens me that so many people are all a-twitter with sickening glee over this. It frightens me that the people who behaved so cruelly documented their abuses of others. These are the people with whom we share our world.
I don't want them as my neighbors, do you? Not until they are brought to justice can I sleep comfortably at night.
In the meantime, let's get this off the front page. We've seen the atrocities of man upon his kind. We don't need more coverage of the same story over and over again.
We need to see that there are many others who are working to make the world better. That's what we need to see while justice is being served to those who sought to blacken our eyes.
Now, more than ever, we need to look to organizations like Spirit of America for all that can be right, good, and move on toward building peace and freedom.
Let's move forward.
Posted by DaGoddess at May 11, 2004 11:11 AMI think we have to own up to what we've done, and, as you said, apologize. Then I think we need to go through the chain of command and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted by: TW at May 11, 2004 12:53 PMYou've summed up all that has been floating around in my head. Thank you & I agree that it's time to just move on. Great piece!
Posted by: yayaempress at May 11, 2004 01:08 PMI'm eager to see the results of the new Iraqi TV stations being set up through Spirit of America. When Arabs and Muslims watch, for example, "insurgents" literally hiding behind women and children, and U. S. and Coalition forces literally rebuilding Iraq with their bare hands, their feelings toward us should start to improve.
About apologies by public figures, I understand their value, but they can also be acts of horrendous self-aggrandizement. Richard Clarke is the best recent example, but he isn't alone. An apology is appropriate only if one can and should have prevented the regrettable act. Who qualifies here? In your analogy, should the bully's grandparents apologize for not raising his parents better?
I don't want Bush or Rumsfeld, or anyone else, apologizing for something he didn't cause and couldn't reasonably have prevented. Maybe they do bear the responsibility -- I don't know, and I'm entirely unqualified to decide. But you write that apologies don't weaken us, and I have to disagree. I think Clinton's roundelay of apologies during his eight years did weaken us, causing the world, especially radical Islamists, to see us as flabby and divided, and disheartening our military.
I want our president and his advisors far more furious and punitive than apologetic. And I don't want them apologizing to the wrong people. Read this and this to see what I mean. If Iraqis themselves are divided on the photos, how abject should we be? If we express regret for something they approve of, won't they be confused, if not insulted?
Posted by: Michael at May 11, 2004 01:13 PMWell, all there is to say to that is....Yep.
Posted by: Dave E at May 11, 2004 08:59 PMI think apologies are good, but there's a point where they become a bit much. After all, who should be apologizing for the U.S.?
And after we've got the right person to apologize, then we say, "Let's move on, and don't let it happen again."
I'm afraid there will be too much apologizing and not enough moving on.
Posted by: bryan at May 11, 2004 09:40 PMI won't comment on apologies, but I definitely think that someone needs to be held responsible - and someone higher up than the ranking commander. If not Rumsfeld, then his undersecretary. Because, as most know, often the decisions that are made below reflect the ideals coming from the top. If we want to show the world we're serious, holding some middle-manager equivalent responsible won't do it. Firing someone high up would show the government is serious about what it says - from the top down.
Posted by: greg at May 15, 2004 03:01 PM