Curtice Mang's response to my letter in the Arizona Republic highlights the problem with rhetoric nowadays. The issue is not what Goldwater meant regarding liberty, but the use of the words and who uses them. Like too many people, Mang expects the world to accept and use his definition and context of “liberty” regardless of anyone else’s circumstances or beliefs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
There is nothing keeping anyone from using the phrase “in the defense of liberty” as justification for terrorist acts regardless of anyone’s opinion. Iraqi extremists have clearly stated their mission is to “liberate” their country from American “occupation.” Pushing the U.S. out or Iraq and Afghanistan would be their liberation. It may not be Goldwater-defined “liberty,” but that isn’t the point.
It doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is the ability of extremists to convince Iraqis and Afghanis their liberty depends on killing Americans. We do our cause serious harm by arguing for extreme measures because whenever we do, we play right into their hands. It makes their claims after Abu Ghraib more believable to the Iraqi people. Extremism may be the macho response, but it’s the wrong response to a serious situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment