America+-+'The+Oblivious+Empire'

America: "The Oblivious Empire" I like how this article is directly after "America the Beautiful" which makes it feel as though they're direct replies to each other. Herstgaard offers a different reason for why America is disliked in many countries around the world, and it isn't D'Souza's answer, which Herstgaard calls "the obvious answer ... but it barely scratches the surface (732)." Thankyou, someone who can see that there's a little complexity to the world around us. Herstgaard says that a large part of anti-american feeling is because of America's blind arrogance. America is a world power, which means it's gotten its hands into a lot of political messes, causing what the CIA calls "blowback" (739), but no one in the U.S. knows this, or can be bothered by this, creating the belief that "We never did anything to them, so why are they doing this to us? (732)" America, by cultural definition, does not think in the long term, which means it will get into anything that may slightly affect us, often with consequences. Hertsgaard points out quite a few significant policies that ended in blowback, or at least making America look bad: "Washington ... had supported apartheid ... until the very end (735)", in South Korea "the United States chose the generals that ruled their country from the end of WWII until 1993 ... two of the ... dictators supported state terrorism (737)." Then there's the whole mess with the middle east, and America, one could say, is getting karma for its politics. It's little known, and Hertsgaard points out, that we probably wouldn't have had the mess with Osama Bin Laden if we hadn't armed him in the first place to fight off the U.S.S.R., our swore enemy at the time. Furthermore, in light of the recent Arab Spring, it should be noted that Egypt's previous dictator, Mubarak, was American supported, and now that he's gone, there's a strong chance Egypt won't be an ally anymore. Qaddafi, too, was American backed, and it took quite a bit of coersing to get Obama to denounce his regime. It doesn't help that America is very willing to use its military, we are known as "Leroy Jenkins". I'd say it's because we //are// a world power, and the government knows more than it leads on sometimes, but our policies create malcontent, so we have to use ofrce to keep ourselves safe, causing more malcontent, and it becomes cyclic. The worst part though, and one of the biggest factors for the cycle, is the U.S.'s refusal to admit wrong. When the senior Bush administration shot down an Iranian passanger plane, Bush Sr. stated, " I will never apologize for the United States. I don't care what the facts are (733)." Democrats don't have room to snicker though, Clinton's administration said, "if we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indespensible nation ... We see farther into the future (733-34)." Both of these statements show that the U.S. feels superior in every aspect, the problem is that it's not the all-seeing nation: Rome fell, so too will America and the next superpower after it.

Although I agree with Hertsgaard's position, I do think he gets a little carried away with himself a bit. Hertsgaard has perfectly valid argument with politics, yet he insisted on bringing in the environment, discussing how Bush Jr scolded the nations of the world for not working together on the war on terrorism, while at the same time not participating in the Kyoto protocol, a protocol that was aimed to curb green-house gas emissions. Herstgaard says "... the Bush administration insists on doing nothing to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. No wonder the foreigners resent us (732)." Yeah, right, they don't like us because we don't focus on the enviroment, not because we support oppressive regimes and military force. A little further, when Herstgaard returns to talking about policies, he takes the time to point out that the U.S. lead coup of Chile "eventually killed 3,197 Chilean citizens [and] the date of the U.S.-sponsored assault on democratic government in Chile: September 11, 1973. Note the estimated Chilean death toll - executions plus military casualties - of 3,197 people. Is it not the congruence between that coup and the WOrld Trade Center attack striking? (736)" This totally sounds like a conspiracy theory. There's a large number of eerie coincidences concerning the assassinations of presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, but there's no "hidden meaning". Besides, does Hertsgaard really expect anyone to believe that the death tolls were similar on purpose or something? His last strike was when discussing the American definition of terror: "target[s] innocent civilians to advance a political or military agenda (737)." Herstgaard then points out that many of America's military actions fit this description, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The problem is that eventually Hertsgaard gets into acts of war, which would then make every country a terrorist-harboring country because they all have militaries that are willing to win wars, his point just seems to become too exaggerated for effect. Honestly, Herstgaard could've gone different dirrections, used different examples, but his failure to do so docks points from him.

I think the most important part about Hertsgaard's article was clearly revealed during his disscusion with Sobuwa, when Herstgaard says he "taught [Sobuwa] to distinguish between Americans as people and the American government (735)." The biggest part of this article is Hertsgaard's insistence that the problems facing America is not the fault of the people, who are only see outside of the country as tourists, but with the government and its policies. Sure, there will always be those Texans who live for nothing but the superiority of the United States, but "Americans are a fair-minded people ... and I doubt that a majority would support such hypocrisy if we were truly aware of it (734)." The single biggest problem facing America is ignorance, and that's always a bad thing, honestly, what's the use of some of those more trivial facts anyway, but as a superpower, America has a role to play, and that role is not protecting itself against percieved threats from third-world countries. The reasons for this problem is that we, the common, assume the government is trustable, no matter how much we speak the contradictory, and assume that we're living up to our own beliefs: freedom, democracy, equality, and rights. Now, some may say that it just can't be done, the world is too nasty of a place. True, the world isn't unicorns and magic færies, but a lot of why the world is so hostile to us is because of our own short-sightedness and the consequential blowback. I think we a bit of it stems form poorly-taught history classes, especially in the elementary level. Children grow up thinking their country is the greatest, almost the gods' chosen child, but it isn't. Americans have a right to be proud to be American, it's a great thing, but it's a little weird, almost insulting, to think that the only way anyone seems to be patriotic is because the cirriculum left out the less-desirable parts of our history.