Collective Guilt – Moon of Alabama

February 16, 2007

Collective Guilt

Via the National Security Archive we learn of Central Command’s 2002 Iraq plans on Phase IV – Notional Ground Force Composition (pdf). U.S. troop numbers were expected to be down to 5,000 by now.

In my professional life I have seen similar planning lunacy in business plans of U.S. companies expanding their models into Europe. Highly educated managers believing that their solutions would be welcome because they were unique American solutions.

This is not a unique U.S. attitude. The Daimler-Chrysler drama shows similar defects. But on the level of businesses the consequences of such behavior are not catastrophic and correctable. On the level of war they are not and in a democracy, such mismanagement can not be solely attributed to the CEOs or board members. Especially not when it is repetitive behaviour.

In Foreign Policy Pat Lang explains:

We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat) – are the root of the problem.

It’s woven into our cultural DNA. Most Americans mistakenly believe that when we say that “all men are created equal,” it means that all people are the same. Behind the “cute” and “charming” native clothing, the “weird” marriage customs, and the “odd” food of other cultures, all humans are yearning for lifestyles and futures that will be increasingly unified as time and globalization progress.

[…]
Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out. In our dream version of Iraq, we would be greeted as not only liberators from the tyrant, but more importantly, from the old ways.

[…]
Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq. Our mission there will be over some day, but there will be other fields for our missionary work, other dreams to dream about: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran …

The Daimler mismanaging of its acquisition is a question of manager incompetence. But as Pat implicitly recognizes, the war on Iraq is a question of collective guilt.

Posted by b on February 16, 2007 at 11:40 UTC | Permalink

Comments

To me, collective guilt is a dangerous concept waiting, as it were, to be misappropriated. ‘The Americans’ is just another disastrous generalization.

Posted by: teuton | Feb 16 2007 14:13 utc | 1

Pat Lang is spot on. It’s a comforting sight to see that there are people seeing things like they are.
With regard to the collective guilt, I think a key element is that people simply don’t think anything has any consequence anymore, and they can do everything as it pleases them, without ever having a price to pay.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 16 2007 14:15 utc | 2

“Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.”
–Oscar Wilde

Posted by: A | Feb 16 2007 15:56 utc | 3

I approached this matter of collective guilt a few days ago and indicated that there is no escaping the fact that we are social and thereby we cannot abstract ourselves from social responsibility. Some people may think that by withdrawing from society, let’s say to a monastery, they have evaded the social responsibility. The emptyness of that position is shawn clearly in a painting by Velazquez on the subject of Saint Paul the anchorite. The painting shows the anchorite in the Theban desert in the moment when a crow brings him the bread that sustains him. Once a man abandons every social bond altogether because he is a “belle ame” that does not wish to be soiled by social activity, his only hope of sustenance is to trust on the supernatural. It is terrible I know. The French “vertueux” chose to eradicate evil by chopping off the heads of those not “vertueux” enough.

Posted by: jlcg | Feb 16 2007 15:58 utc | 4

there’s nothing genetic/biological/organic about our collective denial about the very (very!) dark side of our disneyland-in-the-americas.

Posted by: b real | Feb 16 2007 16:01 utc | 5

Why stop there? I mean, if you’re going to blame Americans for not stopping Bush, then clearly you can blame the rest of the world for not stopping the Americans. Why haven’t Europe and China and Russia and India taken a firm stand against the U.S.? With the U.S. economy the way it is, it would be trivial for China to topple us all by itself. You can’t say it’s because their leaders are compromised, because you have already said that a country is responsible for the actions of its leaders, so it must be everyone’s fault. You, Bernhard, are by your own logic just as much to blame as I am, even if you aren’t even in Bush’s country.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Feb 17 2007 11:39 utc | 6

Collective guilt? Well, yes, but like many things, a truth with a lot of footnotes. Jonathan Schwartz at This Modern World pointed to an interesting analysis by Arthur Silber — it’s a series of articles and rather hard to sum up in a few words.
In this context, the second in the “Dominion Over the World” series is most revelent.
Basically what Silber is saying — and he is certainly not the only one — is that the present drive for hegemony is an evolvement of the idea (curse?) of Manifest Destiny. On the other hand, Silber points out that there are several currents in American culture.
In a few words, not every thing in the American Dream leads to Nightmare.
As L. Cohen wrote: “America, the home of the best — and the worst…”

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Feb 17 2007 12:16 utc | 7

Belief in “collective guilt” as a moral judgment appears to be an old Biblical concept of morality. From logic, my religious beliefs as a Christian, and from just a plain human rights/dignity standpoint, I take no stock in it.
And building on the last post: “…you aren’t even in Bush’s Country.” …This is probably not the way Bush thinks…http://www.globemaster.de/germanybases.html
Just how many U.S. bases does Germany need, anyway?
And from the other perspective, just how many U.S. bases does the U.S. need in Germany?
What other country has as many U.S. bases?
What is the economic arrangement of these U.S./German bases?
Haven’t these bases been used, and continue to be used, for the immoral U.S. Iraq War effort?
If one speaks of “collective guilt”, doesn’t that make all German citizens similar to “whores”? As I said, I take no stock in such thinking, and it is an insult to all.
Perhaps this is why I prefer conservative (rights of the individual) politics to socialistic politics (grouping people).

Posted by: Rick | Feb 17 2007 12:39 utc | 8

Correction: Quote from post #8 refers to The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It post #6,and not the previous post. Things move faster around here than I realize. And that is a good thing.

Posted by: Rick | Feb 17 2007 12:47 utc | 9

For me, good links Chuck – thanks.
I am battling my way through The Penguin History of the USA (Hugh Brogan) in an endeavour to better understand the (for me) baffling mindset of Americans.
Perhaps the thing that many of us non-Americans fail to grasp is the power of this Manifest Destiny mythology.
Oh, and don’t forget. It was the Democrats who started the march for an American Empire.
But as for collective guilt, I have to agree with TTGVWYCI (Why haven’t Europe and China and Russia and India taken a firm stand against the U.S.?).
We don’t need collective angst. We need bums on seats at a war crimes trial.

Posted by: DM | Feb 17 2007 13:02 utc | 10

Rick, maybe it’s just the sexism of the right that feels most congenial to you.

Posted by: jj | Feb 17 2007 15:28 utc | 11

We can dispute how far around to spread the blame, but there is no question where the heart of that collective lies.
At Tom Dispatch, Roger Morris has posted a long, telling history of the career of Rumsfeld that is also a devastating history of 50 yrs of American power, ignorance, and arrogance — always a deadly combination. Title: “The Undertaker”, in two parts.
In an account of the alliance of Congressman Rumsfeld with a young reactionary from Wyoming,

Whatever their other ties, Rumsfeld and Cheney were two of the era’s visceral reactionaries in the classic sense of the term. Musing with younger aides on one of his last days in the White House, Johnson came up with a telling term for their ilk. “The haters,” he called them. “They hate what they can’t run any more” was the way he put it. The calamity Rumsfeld and Cheney later wrought in American foreign policy traced not only to profound ignorance and immense, careless pretense about the world at large, but in some part to a four-decade-old kindred fear and loathing at home.
OEO began the Rumsfeld myths. “He saved it,” Carlucci would blithely tell oblivious post-9/11 reporters hardly apt to check the actual fate of the agency. Carlucci would spin an image of an ever-energetic Rumsfeld taking up the cause of the needy, streamlining and fortifying the laggard agency despite the funeral that had been ordered. It was a blasé postmortem lie. Community Action, Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, and most decisively Legal Services (whose leadership Rumsfeld and Cheney together decapitated in 1970) — one by one, each of these beleaguered efforts was stifled or sloughed off to political sterility. This mission, at least, was accomplished. By the time the burial was complete — with the agency’s quiet extinction in 1973, unmourned by the powers of either party — the undertaker had moved on to higher office.

Posted by: small coke | Feb 17 2007 17:33 utc | 12

Why haven’t Europe and China and Russia and India taken a firm stand against the U.S.?
That’s coming. Putin’s speech in Munich could be seen as the equivalent to Churchill’s “iron curtain” speech in 1946. He made it to an international audience in Munich, not a national one in Moscow. And he didn’t just wake up and decide to make the speech. He knew from several year’s of lower level embassy contacts that there was considerable world wide dismay over US foreign policy and believes there is significant international support for opposing it or he would not have made the speech. He also understands what a “uni-polar” world means, as does the rest of the world (except the US sheeple), and knows that there are at least factions of influential policy makers in most countries around the world who might be willing to align against US designs. He is, partly, speaking to them. If he didn’t think he would find a receptive audience, he wouldn’t have made the speech. (Note the lack of international outrage to it.) The speech indicates he also thinks Russia is now strong enough to take a public stand. The timing is also important, coming as it does when we (US elites, not the actual US public) are about to choose who will run for Pres. So he is also talking to the real decision makers in this country, telling them that the Bush/Cheney regime better be an aborration that will be corrected in 2009. Note also that he made a statement in Berlin a couple weeks ago warning against a US attack on Iran – while standing next to Merkel in Berlin. Putin’s remarks were expected; the real message was from Germany. (B would know more about this.) Putin is offering other countries an alternative to a uni-polar world lead (dominated?) by the US, beginning a process of peeling allies away from the US. The wind is changing; blowback is becoming pushback.

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 17 2007 17:52 utc | 13

Oops, me above.
Also:
Oh, and don’t forget. It was the Democrats who started the march for an American Empire.
This isn’t true, not that it matters much. Historical consensus is that the US march for empire began with the annexation of Hawaii in 1893 under Republican Benjamin Harrison. The annexation wasn’t ratified until 1897 because the Dem Grover Cleveland refused to when the official ratification was presented to him after Harrison left office. He didn’t reverse it, either, so Republican William McKinley ratified it in 1897. After that, it was off to the Spanish American War and real empire. Frederick Douglas declared in 1890 that the American frontier was no more, and many influential (i.e., rich) Americans decided it was time for the US to march onto the world stage. This was the big business wing of the Republican Party. Same as it ever was.
There are historians who argue that the Mexican War (1846-48) began the US quest for empire, but others discount this because these territories became part of the US and the impetus for the war came from southern aristocrats who wanted to expand slave territory to maintain their domestic US positions. Regardless, Regardless, US wars of conquest have been driven by the very wealthy to acquire the usual – more wealth and power.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 17 2007 18:06 utc | 14

@13 – lonesomeG Putin’s remarks were expected; the real message was from Germany.
Merkel is on Bush’s side if not under direct CIA control. The message was not from her.
That said, Putin certainly has good contacts to the major parties and pols in Germany and he knows a significant lot of them agree. The German population certainly agrees with him.

Posted by: b | Feb 17 2007 18:42 utc | 15

@17 – ttgvfyci
You, Bernhard, are by your own logic just as much to blame as I am, even if you aren’t even in Bush’s country.
First: I didn’t blame anybody.
I wrote: But as Pat implicitly recognizes, the war on Iraq is a question of collective guilt.
It is a question and it derives from PL’s writing in my view. I didn’t answer the question.
Second on the concept of “collective guilt”: As a German I am quite used to it and we got/get indoctrinated to have such guilt for the second world war and all its consequences through school and media. I think that’s good – at least it trained a bit to be careful about imperial adventures. (Unfortunatly “the elite” now works to lessen that feeling to allow for more US guided imperialism.) I cringe when I travel the middle east and get gratulated for being a German because Hitler killed so many jews.
Third: Germany, Russia, China did take a firm stand. Freedom fries anyone?
They, or me personally, are certainly not as much to blame as their influence on the persons and politics in the US is much less than that of a U.S. voter, 51% of whom did vote for Bush (the best run Hitler had was some 33%), and especially non-voters.
Should Germany have started a war to stop the US (and loose)? Should China have stopped exporting to the US (the internal result would have been catastrophic to China)?
A democracy brings with it the right and the responsibility. I believe it to be good to discuss this instead on simply deflecting to others and to thereby avoid the question.

Posted by: b | Feb 17 2007 19:05 utc | 16

Thanks for clarifying B.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 17 2007 20:20 utc | 17

a U.S. voter, 51% of whom did vote for Bush
i can’t believe people are still this delusional. several states in 04 have an abundance of evidence there elections were tampered with. there has been ample evidence the diebold machines can be controlled from outside locations. many states have widely difference outcomes wrt to percentage results for cndidates based on whether the ballots were mail in hand counted or electronic. the 00 election gore won the popular vote. there was also evidence of cheating in that election aslo.
how can one make these definative statements about percentages when the outcome is decided by 1%? or an appointed presidency?

Posted by: annie | Feb 17 2007 21:08 utc | 18

Lang’s argument reads like a variation of the ‘those people are so different’ line.
Can one relate bombing the shit out a country to cultural insensitivity, such as not understanding wedding ceremonies? Surely dealing with ‘alien peoples on their own terms’ -his words- would require more than respect for their religion(s) or ways of directing traffic, such as for example not torturing them? He reifies the belief that people are not all the same by calling that belief false, which I find objectionable. (I didn’t read the whole thing just the excerpts posted by B; there is much that makes sense..; just one aspect.)
The issue of collective guilt is so thorny I shall probably be grappling with it on my deathbed! Conventional wisdom, enshrined in laws that regulate interaction between individuals (and sometimes other entities) focusses on issues of foreknowledge, prediction (a line hard to draw) and so by implication inaction as well as different types, levels, or degrees of participation – such as in the US categories ‘accessory before the fact’, etc. (re. unwelcome outcomes, nefarious acts, etc.)
It is unclear exactly how such thinking, which is intuitively graspable in western countries by most, can be applied to large groups such as nations. Following common law, it would appear that the system of Gvmt must play a role, as argued in the link (eg. collective guilt is somehow higher in a democracy than in a dictatorship; information, participation..) Common sense refutes that point of view: Democratic Gvmts. can be highjacked by gangsters and someone who did not vote for Bush and did what he or she could to stop the Iraq war should not be held accountable (?) – particularly acute in the case of an ‘individualistic’ society…
Yet, being ignorant and/or disdainful of eg. Iraqi customs and making management errors is stretching the ‘guilt’ argument both too far and in the wrong direction! It goes too deeply into some causes (eg. Americans are insensitive ‘idiots’, ‘poor planners’, etc.) that are not clearly related to effects (dead Iraqis) while steering away from the intermediary steps, ie. decision making processes and concrete actions. (eg. vote fraud.)
Current principles (western world) leaves no room for the notions (briefly…) of retroactive guilt which is essentially blameless and spontaneous repair which is a kind of justified, necessary, generosity. We seem to live in a system where the positive aspects of individual interaction – sometimes laid down in ‘common’ or ‘official’ law, often part of various religious or more largely ethical precepts-, which accepts or integrates both concepts, has been perverted to branch out in two directions only, that is, punishment coupled with coerced reparation and, second, charity based on pity, but divorced from moral obligations, often based on transient emotion and superficial, or even ersatz, sentimentalism.
Very disturbing.
-hope of some interest; many complex issues…

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 17 2007 21:57 utc | 19

Thanks for yr. comment Annie. I wasn’t going to say anything given the drift but since you brought it up, I’ll add that was the only utterly ignorant column I’ve ever read by Lang. Suffice it to say that when history is written, it won’t look anything like that crap he spewed.
We had a coup d’etat in 2000. Policies are set by a cabal of the only handful of thugs in the country who are so radical that they even opposed detente w/the Soviet Union. To ram through these policies, they oversaw the largest false flag in Am. History. But even this wasn’t sufficient. To terrorize the Congress, so they could ram through the Omnibus Police State Legislation they had anthrax sent to the only legislators who could stand in the way, then resorted to further criminal means to take control of the Senate, rigging the Ga. election & murdering another Senator.
And we’re told we’re responsible… ….Yea, right…

Posted by: jj | Feb 18 2007 0:23 utc | 20

Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out.
—
Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq.

Just what would Pat Lang have us believe? That we invaded Iraq to do missionary work? Come on, Pat.
We invaded – as described in b real’s Chomsky link on another thread and in Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy – to seize what Wolfowitz called a “historic opportunity” in his 1992 paper for Cheney: to secure indefinite US global hegemony. Take control of most of the planet’s oil and gas reserves and we control the economies of most of it’s important nations. Fuck the world’s peoples and their differences.
Lang’s paper is useful and overdue self reflection, but it sheds light only on why the US propaganda is so effective on it’s people, not on the actual reasons we invaded or why the invasion failed. Characterization: We’re a good people, we really are. And our govt, freely elected by good people, reflects that goodness and has only good intentions even if things sometimes work out badly. But sometimes, you see, other people see things a bit differently. This doesn’t mean that they’re bad, just different. And we need to be more considerate of those differences as we go about our good work in the world. Blecchh!!
Cheney’s cabal was not influenced in the slightest by any of Pat Lang’s observations. Nor has the CIA or any other part of the US foreign policy establishment ever viewed the world in the way Lang describes. They have always coldly analyzed the social fault lines and used them to split cultures apart and control them. Tell me, Pat, how our starry eyed, idealistic naivete lead to the creation of El Salvador’s death squads. Our support of Saddam in the ’80’s, even after we knew he was using mustard gas. And…on and on.
Taking him at face value and in context, Lang’s reflection is nothing more than lukewarm pablum served up to make himself feel better about what his country did, and to turn away from the hideous, brutal reality that this was always an attempt to expand power and control via brute force. The rest of the world understands this. Why can’t Pat?

Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 18 2007 0:30 utc | 21

@lonesomeG .. not that it matters much ..
.. but one should be careful about what is and what isn’t true and ‘historical consensus’.
Perhaps in this instance, we are both correct. I was interpreting the march for an American Empire from the time that the phrase an ‘American Empire’ was first used. I think Indians, Texans, and Mexicans should count.
Wikipedia:
The phrase “Manifest Destiny” was first used primarily by Jackson Democrats after 1845 to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). The term was partly revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America
.. or maybe it does matter, in order to see the Middle East in context.

Posted by: DM | Feb 18 2007 0:36 utc | 22

I think Lang is addressing the “democracy” narrative, from the perspective of both the administration’s rhetoric and the public’s appetite and willingness to swallow it whole. We may believe that its all a lie, and it may be, but this is the narrative the administration has chosen — and to some degree its the narrative they are bound to. All the democracy talk would indeed be moot if they had simply installed Chalabi as dictator, and that was that. But instead the U.S. facilitated elections that elected a sectarian bound government controlled by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Not exactly a group married to the institutions of democracy, at least in the sense that we might know it. I think Pat Lang is illustrating both the folly of the administration’s and the public’s expectations that this might be possible. As this is implicitly a critique of American exceptionalism, I’m glad he wrote it. Because as far as I know, he’s the first person with a significant public profile, to make this argument openly in public.

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 18 2007 3:16 utc | 23

@DM
I didn’t mean to draw you into a discussion of when the US empire began. Sorry about that. My designation of 1893 is based on the way US history was taught to me in school. Basically, the argument went that land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was going to become part of US territory even if we didn’t control it yet. This is my understanding of manifest destiny as originally conceived, it’s concepetual creation required to justify stealing land that wasn’t ours before God. (Puritans and Calvinists needed this; the poor, white huddled masses didn’t.) The process of expansion during this time didn’t require convincing Americans that we needed to expand west. The lure of cheap/free land that they could easily take from natives who couldn’t stop them was enough to entice them to move there. And it wasn’t just native born US citizens – many Europeans migrated for the same opportunity. When the lower 48 was settled, parts of the world not originally considered within our “natural” boundaries were coveted. Yes, we annexed land from Mexico, but those lands were contiguous and annexed as ours rather than as part of an empire, not unlike the Franco German border changing hands after wars. (Not that this made any difference to the people we stole it from.) Acquisition of colonies for exploitation rather than settlement in the classic sense began in 1893.
These are only academic issues, though, however you come down on them. I’m not personally invested in one view. The US has been expansionist since colonists arrived from Europe. That expansion generally originated from below, sometimes against the opposition from govt – Brit and US – which wanted peaceful relations with other foreign powers or even natives for a time. The point I was actually trying to make was that US overseas expansion (colonialism) after the frontier was declared gone in 1890 was driven by the wealthy and big business, who were then and now generally aligned with the Republican Party; the public usually had to be suckered along on these ventures whereas the public often lead the expansion charge before that. When I said “it” didn’t matter, I was referring to party affiliation since it was all the same to the peoples on the receiving end of our expansion. Re-reading the post I see that you would have to read my mind to know that.
Again, this is academic and trivial. I agree with you that human cost is what matters, Mexicans, Indians, Iraqis included. Sorry for the detour.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Feb 18 2007 3:30 utc | 24

i think anyone who has a pea brain can see the real reasons why the designers of iraq wanted to invade. regardless of the numerous excuses (wmd,sadam,democracy etc), the psycological justification that was sold to the american public was very much based on the false premise lang describes
We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out.
our foreign policy tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American.
it is the manipulation of american exceptionalism that allows for the masses to accept these invasions, irrelevant of the real cause. i thought it was an excellent piece.

Posted by: annie | Feb 18 2007 10:18 utc | 25

Collective Guilt Department
Maybe, just maybe, 80,000 or so can be excused from Italy’s Collective Guilt.
Tens of thousands protest US base plan
Tens of thousands of people travelled to the northeastern Italian city of Vicenza to take part in a major protest against the planned expansion of a US military base, a divisive issue for the centre-left Government.
[snip]
“We were 10 to a compartment,” said Gino Del Ferraro, a 23-year-old physics student who arrived on a train chartered by the Refoundation Communist party.
[snip]
The Italian press predicted a turnout of up to 80,000, with authorities warning of violence fomented by “extremists,” while organisers scoff at the idea.
“The mass media are calling us extremists,” boomed Oscar Mancini at a pre-march rally on Friday.
“They haven’t understood anything about Vicenza.”
In December, he recalled, more than 20,000 people held a peaceful protest here against the base expansion.
“Tomorrow it will be the same,” said Mr Mancini, the Vicenza regional representative for Italy’s largest labour union, the left-wing CGIL.

[snip]
Vicenza’s former mayor Achille Variati said the protests were also misconstrued as anti-American.
“It’s about us against the city administration,” he said.
“It would be a big error to be anti-American.”
[snip]
[Rick here]
Heaven forbid that the people of this town or the protesters be labeled anti-American!
And for some reason, when reading and linking to this article, the song ‘Cowgirl in the Sand’ keeps repeating over and over in my mind.

Posted by: Rick | Feb 18 2007 14:43 utc | 26

Morris’ conclusion to his history of Rumsfeld. Worth reading the whole piece.

Weeks after Rumsfeld’s departure, history — the little ever really known or understood — was already being waved off, forgotten. The past was too complicated and troublesome, too guilt-ridden and close to home, too filled with chilling consequences.
The worst of it was the most basic and damning. Donald Rumsfeld and all he represented, all he did and did not do, came out of us. The undertaker’s tally, including Iraq, was compiled at our leave, one way or another, at every turn. His tragedy was always ours.

Posted by: small coke | Feb 19 2007 18:01 utc | 27

Adipex.

Adipex.

Posted by: Adipex online. | Jan 6 2010 1:22 utc | 28

Amoxicillin and pregnancy.

Amoxicillin. Amoxicillin and drowsiness.

Posted by: Amoxicillin expiry. | Jan 15 2010 22:56 utc | 29

Viagra.

Buy viagra online. Viagra patent. Order viagra online. Purchase viagra. Generic viagra.

Posted by: Viagra canada. | Jan 16 2010 7:03 utc | 30

Back to Main