In a recent article in TechCentralStation, Dr. Helen Smith (aka, the Insta-wife), wrote an article warning of the dangers of “overhumanizing” terrorists:
In fact, I believe that the liberal stance of trying too hard to "humanize" our enemies is a mistake that will make the problem worse, and produce more violence rather than less....
In our attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. Surely, the victims of 9/11 deserve more from us than that. As do the potential victims who might be saved by a more realistic, and less "nurturing," approach.
Smith makes some excellent points in the article but it appears that she shares the liberal’s misconception that to be “human” is, at it’s core, to be “good.” Christians, of course, will naturally take exception to this view of mankind. We believe that humans are not inherently good and that our political actions should be developed in light of this understanding. I believe that on this issue in particular, Christian anthropology not only provides the correct view but the only one that can provide an adequate framework in which to form our conception of our “enemy.”
As political scientist Glenn Tinder notes, the human being is both fallen and exalted, sacred and yet morally degraded. These two aspects of humanity cannot be separated. A fact, Tinder admits, that is “hard for common sense to grasp.” Indeed, it is almost impossible to grasp when we try to apply this concept to our enemies. We often fall for one of two extremes.
The "liberal" position, for example, tends to be overly empathetic in an attempt to understand and “humanize” our foes. Smith highlights the inadequacy of this position:
Likewise, when the media and academics personalize terrorists to the extent that the American public feels they "know them," it is hard to support acting in ways that are incongruent with our treatment of someone we know. But in trying so hard to humanize the enemy -- who, remember, hates us -- we wind up dehumanizing ourselves, and in the process we do the victims of terrorists and murderers an injustice.
But this is just one of the ways in which we can err. The "conservative" position, which seeks retribution and “dehumanizes” our opponents in order to distance them from ourselves, can be just as dangerous, particularly for those who must carry out this “war.”
Psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, author of Achilles In Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, found that dehumanizing the enemy during the Vietnam war caused psychological damage to American troops:
Restoring honor to the enemy is an essential step in recovery from combat PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). While other things are obviously needed as well, the veteran’s self-respect never fully recovers so long as he is unable to see the enemy as worthy. In the words of one of our patients, a war against subhuman vermin “has no honor.” This in true even in victory; in defeat, the dishonoring makes life unendurable. (Achilles, pg. 115)
In our attempts to dehumanize our enemy we end up becoming less than human ourselves. It would be a Pyrrhic victory to save civilization and lose our humanity
We must never hesitate to defend our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us. The liberal's appeal to tolerance and understanding in the face of such an enemy is suicidal. The conservative position, which is willing to face up to and address the evil of terrorism, provides a more adequate approach.
Yet for the conservative position to provide an adequate response, it must be tempered by a Christian view of humanity. We must never forget that the evil comes not just from the actions of "subhuman vermin" but from the heart of a fallen, sacred yet degraded, human being. If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind. Like us, they are human, all too human.
1
The founding fathers gave us a republic(governed by the rule of law) rather than a democracy. Of course, they were all Christians with the notable exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson who both read the Bible and believed in the God of the Bible. Guess they all had that biblical view of mankind too.
posted on 02.09.2004 5:26 PM2
Good post, Joe.
I can't speak for all liberals, but I don't "humanize" terrorists (or other enemies) to excuse their actions. I do so to try to understand their actions and their motives -- things that we ignore at our peril. If liberals can be criticised for being over-sympathetic to terrorists (sometimes this happens, but not as often as some would have you believe), then the "conservative" view is too quick to ignore the possiblity that some of these groups have legitimate beefs with the US and its policies (propping up the Saudi royal family, for example).
This in no way is intended to excuse their actions or methods. I cannot underscore that enough. Still, it is important to understand what makes them tick, and what role, if any, the US has played in the creation of the inequities that drive people to acts of terror.
Like it or not, no amount of force is going to do away with terror -- at least, not by itself. As long as there are places with downtrodden, disenfranchised people, there will be a pool of people willing to blow themselves to bits for "the cause." Threats of force aren't going to prevent them from doing that. The better tactic is to take away their reasons for wanting to do so.
posted on 02.09.2004 6:41 PM3
Dear tgirsch,
The world is full of downtrodden, disenfranchised people, but there is only one group doing suicide bombings. Islamic extremeists. They will only be happy with the elimination of the State of Israel and the entire world ruled by Islamic law.
Barak offered Arrafat the farm. Everything except complete control of Jerusalem and it wasn't enough.
True the United States supports the Saudis and we have supported many horrible dictators in our southern hemisphere. That has always bothered me.
But the liberal idea that what ever is wrong is the U.S.'s fault and that if we could just find out what it is that were doing wrong an change it everything would be just fine is a load of baloney.
4
Mike O:
The world is full of downtrodden, disenfranchised people, but there is only one group doing suicide bombings. Islamic extremeists.
If you think suicide bombing is the sole domain of Islamic extremists, you are wrong. Crashing planes into targets originated not with middle-easterners, but with the Japanese. I wouldn't be surprised if the tactic was used by the Christians in Northern Ireland, either. (And, for the records, why is "suicide bombing" horrific, but homocide bombing is A-OK?)
But the liberal idea that what ever is wrong is the U.S.'s fault and that if we could just find out what it is that were doing wrong an change it everything would be just fine is a load of baloney.
Classic strawman. Show me where a prominent liberal has ever said any such thing. What liberals acknowledge (and many conservatives refuse to) is that the US is not totally without blame. Conservatives seem to think that the only two options are "US not at all at fault" or "US totally at fault." Admit that the middle ground is a possibility, and you're forced to admit that it's a probability.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an exceptionally complicated matter. To try and point a single finger of blame would be ludicrous. But if the simplistic "Islamists are evil" worldview is what makes you feel better, there's little I can say to change your mind.
posted on 02.09.2004 9:58 PM5
Dear tgirsch,
Notice that all in bombing examples are motivated by religeous belief(well maybe not N. Ireland which has a historical basis but both partises are labeled by their religion. Perhaps if we could just get rid of all those religions.
Show me where a prominent liberal has ever said any such thing. Can't name one but I've never heard the idea expoused by anyone but a liberal.
But if the simplistic "Islamists are evil" worldview is what makes you feel better, there's little I can say to change your mind.
Didn't say that all "Islamists are evil" but homicide bombing of innocents with no military target in mind seems evil to me.
6
Tgirsch,
"What liberals acknowledge (and many conservatives refuse to) is that the US is not totally without blame."
You present a false dilemma. Do you blame a rape victim for her status? If she were wearing 'provacative' clothing? In a bar?
Those that act aggresively are solely to blame for their actions regardless of their political environment.
Say whatever you like about the US...we support Israel, we use oil, we put ketchup on eggs...doesn't matter. There is no insult to Arab sensibilities that justifies the taking of innocent life.
period.
posted on 02.10.2004 9:47 AM7
tgirch,
While I think you make a good point concerning understanding our opponents, you are probably wrong about inequality causing the conflict. Osama, Saddam, and the Saudi Royal Family are a great deal more wealthy than virtually everyone people they pay or convince others to terrorize. Irish terrorism war more or less began after the British Government began reforming and addressing its terrible Irish policies. Most revolutions begin not when the government is oppressing the people, but when the government admits it was wrong and the situation starts to improve.
Marx was wrong, every conflict cannot be boiled down to materialism. There is such a thing as evil. Historically, concepts like duty, vengeance, and honor motivate men more than materialism.
posted on 02.10.2004 11:38 AM8
Mike O:
Can't name one but I've never heard the idea expoused by anyone but a liberal.
Fine, then show me a not-so-prominent liberal who's said such a thing. My guess is you've never heard anyone argue that it's "all the US' fault," but that your own biases have twisted "maybe it's partially the US' fault" into "it's all the US fault." Unless you can produce some references to the contrary, my assertion that your argument was a straw man stands.
Didn't say that all "Islamists are evil" but homicide bombing of innocents with no military target in mind seems evil to me.
I didn't realize that "shock and awe" went solely after military targets. And a lot depends on what your definition of a "military target" is, as well as your definition of "terror attacks." I've read stories where suicide bombers attacked occupying US forces, and those attackes were called "terror attacks." But if the target was military, how can it be terror? There's not as much consensus on these issues as you might like to think.
angrypatriot:
You present a false dilemma. Do you blame a rape victim for her status? If she were wearing 'provacative' clothing? In a bar?
Your argument is ludicrous on its face. It is you, and not I, who present the false dilemma. Your argue that either the victim is 100% to blame or 0% to blame. In real life, there are shades of gray. Yes, even in cases of rape. Does this excuse the rapist? Of course not! Nor am I saying that in all cases the victim is partially to blame. But in some cases, the victim's actions or mistakes DID factor in to the result, and it would be silly for a victim (of rape or of any other atrocity) to not look at their own behaviors, look for mistakes they may have made, and how they might prevent something like this from happening again.
This is what many conservatives refuse to do. They simply fold their arms, hold their breath, and say "this was completely unprovoked, and nothing we did could possibly have factored in to what happened." That's an opinion that one espouses at their own peril.
There is no insult to Arab sensibilities that justifies the taking of innocent life.
But it's okay for us to take innocent life, as we did repeatedly in Iraq and elsewhere? Where are you going with this?
posted on 02.10.2004 11:47 AM9
. But in some cases, the victim's actions or mistakes DID factor in to the result, and it would be silly for a victim (of rape or of any other atrocity) to not look at their own behaviors, look for mistakes they may have made, and how they might prevent something like this from happening again.
posted on 02.10.2004 3:35 PM