War leaves U.S. standing alone
By by Max Rettig and Drew Tarlow
Johnny Spann sat gravely in the courtroom, not long after his son, American CIA agent Johnny "Mike" Spann, had been killed. But Spann's connection to the courtroom seemed tenuous. This was the scene of the arraignment of John Walker Lindh, the American youth who fought for al Qaeda. Lindh was facing arraignment for killing Americans and aiding terrorists.

Before returning to the United States, Lindh was being held at an American prison camp; the same camp where Mike Spann performed interrogations. In fact, Spann had questioned Lindh moments before his death at the hands of rebellious prisoners. Notably, the American government declared that Lindh did not have a role in the death of any American. After the arraignment, in an apparent act of American kindness, Lindh's father approached Spann's father to express his condolences. Lindh offered his hand. Spann begrudgingly saw a man who, in his eyes, had raised a deadly traitor, kept his hands in his pockets, and walked away.

While it is easy to understand Spann's resentment of the Lindh family, it is also worrisome to see that the American ideal of forgiveness and brotherhood, especially in a time of war, has withered away. This is a pattern that stems from our top political leaders and is trickling down to the common American, producing a national resentment for the unknown. In the weeks and months following Sept. 11, New York City streets were flooded with police officers, looking not only for terrorists, but also for hate crimes against the Arab community.

In fact, on the quiet upper-west side of Manhattan, there was an incident that didn't appear to belong in the "new" post-Sept. 11 New York, in which people had embraced each other, forming a strong sense of community. Four Arab men stood by their vandalized car, asking the police for help to no avail. The windows and the windshield of the car lay in pieces at their feet. This anti-Arab sentiment has become a disturbing trend: across the nation, mosques have been vandalized as Americans have drawn closer together, but farther away from reality.

Christopher Patton, the European Union's foreign affairs minister and a former favorite of Washington conservatives for the hard line he took on China, has recently become critical of how the Bush administration has handled the "war on terrorism." He recently cited the perceived American arrogance, and denounced it as "absolutist."

His observation is not unwarranted. In his State of the Union address, Bush condemned North Korea, Iran and Iraq, declaring them an "Axis of Evil." The very act of making such a definitive statement shows an absolutist ideology reminiscent of Reagan's position on communism. Ironically enough, it was that position on communism that put the Islamic militants in the position they are in today. The United States funded Osama Bin Laden in an attempt to subvert Russian communist aspirations. By putting Islamic militants in the place of communists, didn't America, in part, create the "Axis of Evil"? America has been blinded by its own absolutism and now it is America's duty to take some responsibility for the state of affairs in which the world finds itself.

Terminology such as "Axis of Evil" represents an overly simplistic perspective on the situation-Iran, Iraq and North Korea pose strikingly different threats. This oversimplification of America's anti-terror position has been noted by Nicholas Kristoff, a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, who has written extensively about U.S. involvement in the Philippines. Kristoff has criticized Bush's decision to continue the war on terrorism in the Philippines as an easy way out. He notes that there are only 60 members of Abu Sayyaf on the island of Basilan. Kristoff believes that we are in the Philippines for political, rather than anti-terrorist reasons: to make it appear as if we are making progress in the war on terrorism. He sees the American presence in the Philippines as a "feel-good declaration of victory more than a defeat of terrorism." America also has no plans to target the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, "which has much stronger ties to terrorism and to al Qaeda, but which has thousands of fighters and is thus more formidable." As it is, America is fighting a battle against an island, not a group: Abu Sayyaf members can easily escape to Sulu, a nearby island, where America is not prepared to pursue them.

But most integral to this issue is the integrity of the operation itself, something America has prided itself on in the war against terror. In fact, America's partner in this stage of the operation, the Philippine army, nurtured Abu Sayyaf to become the terrorist organization that it is today. The Philippine army is known for its brutality and Kristoff writes that the campaign against terror in the Philippines is based, in part, on terror itself. By backing the terror we are no better than our enemies.

America has gotten ahead of itself in its attempt to preserve the integrity and values it upholds throughout the world. America is dangerously close to becoming the absolutist regime that its allies fearfully have warned against. By labeling our enemies as "evil" and thereby distancing them, America has retreated from the old axiom: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." If America keeps its hands in its pockets, as Johnny Spann did, and fails to work at making peace with its enemies, then, in the end, we may find ourselves standing startlingly alone.

Issue 18, Submitted 2002-02-26 23:20:06