I made a thread like that quite a while ago, and now I found an interesting article bringing the point to my attention again, so why not share it?

Titled Perhaps Not So Exceptional After All (http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2532), the article isn't gloating, but instead pointing out the mind set of a deeply ideological administration, and the Selbstverständnis of a pretty ideological nation.

Some excerpts: To understand the impact in the United States of the photos of U.S. military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners, it is necessary to recall what then-Secretary of State Elihu Root said in 1899, as the country first emerged as a global power in the Spanish-American War.

The American soldier, he said, is "different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the world began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order and of peace and happiness," Root declared, capturing the spirit of historical inevitability and "national greatness," as Theodore Roosevelt called it ...
(...)
... a moral mission that dates back to the 17th century Puritans who colonized Massachusetts and whose "Calvinist cast of mind saw America as the redeemer nation" that would build "a city on a hill" for all the world to follow ...
(...)
This notion is a constant throughout US history.
(...)
The continuing growth of US global power, particularly its defeat of Nazi Germany, confirmed the country's moral exceptionalism, as did the collapse of Soviet communism just 15 years ago. It is in this context that Francis Fukuyama's The End of History thesis – that after 8,000 years of social development, humankind had discovered that liberal, democratic capitalism, preferably of the US variety, was the answer – could become a best seller.

It was likewise in this context that other neo-conservative thinkers, notably William Kristol and Robert Kagan, revived Roosevelt's idea of "national greatness" with an explicitly moral underpinning.
(...)
"Since America's emergence as a world power roughly a century ago, we have made many errors," wrote Elliott Abrams, a PNAC Charter signatory and currently the top Middle East aide to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, back in 2000.

"But we have been the greatest force for good among the nations of the earth. A diminution of American power or influence bodes ill for our country, our friends and our principles," he added.

This indeed is why it is so important, in the view of US "exceptionalists," that Washington retain its freedom of action and not be accountable to multilateral organizations, like the United Nations, or even to international law.

Moral exceptionalism dictates unilateralism. If the United States, after all, is morally superior to other nations, such as China or France, then tying it to the decisions of the U.N. Security Council, for example, would in itself be immoral ...
(...)
That is why those who defend the war are insisting, contrary to mounting evidence, that the abuses depicted there are an aberration committed by just a handful of rogue elements.It doesn't quite look that way, reportedly the Pentagon postition, as stated by Gen. Miller, responsible for Guantanamo detention camp, was that detentions must act as an enabler for information gathering (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9519057%5E401,00.html). That suggests that this is no isolated incident but encouraged by superiors under pressure to get results.
So, it seems the US have taken the same path in Iraq as France in Algeria: The ends justify the means, torture is acceptable for the larger goal.

Personally I find the notion of a nation taking the position, that it is per se morally superior, disturbing. As Lobe pointed out: When you are as pure, as morally superior as the neo-cons see themselves, any interaction with the filthy rest of the world corrupts - so why cooperate anyway?

Take the Iraq war opposition: France's and Germany's sorrows that Iraq might blow up and that war in Iraq would endanger the fight against Al Quaeda were dismissed with the slight of a hand - the European naysayers could only have sinister and lowly motives when they so openly disagreed with America's divine mission to liberate Iraq - like greed, like oil contracts with Saddam. Boo-haha. Gimme a break.

A self adulating ideology like that is a grand receipe for intellectual decay: The idea that America could fail, be wrong, practically or morally, is unthinkable as a result of it's alleged special nature. In this spirit any attempt to discuss America's actions will succumb to furious screaming of nationalist harpyes, attacking on sight. Just look at OP-EDs from America's period of pre-war fever: the public climate permitted any critical discurse.
The result is this: No reflection required, America races to divine destiny on auto-pilot.

Reality suggests otherwise. In the end, Americans are human, guided by humans, and Abu Ghraib has shown that American soldiers are human as well and as fallible as those of other western nations.

I think it is a folly to argument based on exceptionalism when it comes to issues like National Interest or national actions. National interest, even America's, is a rational construct. Spreading democracy, much less at gunpoint, has no place to regret for the victims. It is a cold objective. How can national interest be morally superior in any way? Insisting on moral superiority equals blindfolding oneself to the consequences the own actions. Worse, it means clouding one's sight to the facts as well. You only need to have faith you are right.

Don't get me wrong, this is not gloating, and I don't want to retake Europe's moral high ground, IMO there is no such a thing, after the pictures of Abu Ghraib - what I am interested in is the place America gives itself in the world.
I feel that American Exceptionalism will be with us for quite a while, so why not try to get a grip on it then?

[ May 10, 2004, 14:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I believe the roots of American Exceptionalism started during the World Wars. As one US senator put it..."When the Germans, Japanese, or Russians showed up in your town, BAD things happened. When the Allies conquered, it was a different story."

I am sure there are plenty of individual cases to dispute this, but still, the underlying point rings true. Post-WW's have been different...Vietnam in particular. However, considering the significance of the WW's and their relative recency, the American soldier still has an aura of decency.

I hope Iraq has not taken that from us.

Iraq will not take it from us - we have already lost it. One need only look at all the arguments made along the lines of "We're at war, so what?", "What are they complaining about, so-and-so was worse?" and so on. One need only look at the photos of those soldiers and civilians enjoying their victims' predicament. Those are not the faces of men and women acting in anger, folks - those are the faces of men and women showing utter contempt for the prisoners in their hands.

First, it's pretty common for all nations to regard their soldiers as heroes and the soldiers of countries they have battled as ruthless, barbaric opressors. True information will be distorted, twisted or at all withheld. The same fashion it will work for the enemy, but the reverse way. Come on, even the German folks have stories to tell about allied cruelty (Dresden bombarding, for one), justice of the victors (the way Nuremberg trials were conducted - not even the fact of liability per se), and putting the sole blame on Germany after the whole former Ententa ignoring Hitler's increasing war effort up to the peak point of Munich '38. On their own side, the myth of a noble Wehrmacht officer is well functional.

And now cold war. Commies are guilty of everything? But just who sold whole Middle to Eastern Europe to them, in the first place? All those countries had legal governments ALLIED with the main victorious powers and having contributed greatly to the victory, getting nothing in return except for a second betrayal like in '39.

Ration of state? Dire necessity? Mitigating circumstances? Sorry, but those are the excuses that exceptionalists (American or other) blame other countries for using. When you point out that contradiction, your average exceptionalist will probably react with a long-wided stream of nonsense ultimately coming down to being "chosen". "Chosen" by whom and for what exactly?

If there's no reason - "oh well, just chosen... you know... special", it starts to verge on racism. Hörrenvolk, you know. Sounds familiar?

It's nice and all to be a patriot, but ignoring reality is not to be justified. The torturing of Iraqi captives is actually not the first such occurence. Latin America, for one, has very special feelings for the US, US Army and CIA. United Fruit Company, contras... Also, who established the Irani mullahs, Fidel in Cuba and Osama's kind in Afghanistan, as well as trained their troops and supplied them with weapons and cash is public knowledge. Now, I'm not saying it's a good reason to open your mouth wide and start shouting insults (say what you want, but the Americans here on SP don't really start wars, torture prisoners, trade weapons to regimes or train terrorists), but obviously something is wrong with exceptionalism.

The American soldier, he said, is "different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the world began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order and of peace and happiness," Root declared, capturing the spirit of historical inevitability and "national greatness," :(
Well, sentiments such as this sound unbearably pathetic and ridiculous to me, but if the average american needs myths of this sort to sustain his 'national ego' - I will let that speak for itself. However, raising yourself as a people, as a nation to such superhuman hights is risky, for reality might prove to be quite harsh and the fall long. See Iraq.
Of course the collective psychic hygiene kicks in, and all claim these are isolated incidents, only a few depraved individuals who acted on their own, we americans are unable to commit such crimes. Sure. It will never cross their minds that such methods have become a trend, that others have for some time spotted alarming signs in places such as Guantanamo. Come on... people who are denied human rights because Bush says so?! That doesnt bode well.

Perhaps the U.S. will learn humility now? Unlikely. However, it would help much if they recognized that they are just as selfserving and mundane as we, while we are as noble and altruistic as they. It would make America so much more likeable if they stopped looking down on us and regard our critizism as envy. We could talk face to face.
Power corrupts, in very subtle ways, and your morals apparently couldnt keep pace with the growths of your power.

(Sorry for the short post. I'm not really into politics.)

You gotta hand it to those Americanas. Most think they're so great, as a nation. Well...they are, they just need to stop saying it and all 'd be cool. I mean, we Belgians are cool as well, and you don't see us self-proclaiming to be thé nation. well...we aren't, but that's not the point. In fact, our nation is of so minor importance America won't even listen to us when we said to have no war with Iraq, pretty much the only country (aside from the French) who thought so.

No, all countries sided with America, the 'obvious' solution to this war. We all knew then the outcome of this war. Well, now we know the consequences. It might be (might! be) that America now boosted the enemy they claim to be fighting: terrorism, that's right. 'boosted'. A little push in the back, to put it that way. Yes. Truly. Yes.

Well, IMHO wé, were right. And I take pride in that... But in the normal world, there is no 'word of undoing'( ;) ) and still... we're happy with the outcome of the matter in its whole.

And maybe this topic is about something totally different. I just wanted to tell this without starting a new topic. Sorry 'bout that.

About 'exceptionalism', there can be no doubt. Taking everything in their own hands, thàt's American. It is (by far) a bad thing though. So you just go ahead. I like it that way...

Personally I find the notion of a nation taking the position, that it is per se morally superior, disturbing...A self adulating ideology like that is a grand recipe for intellectual decay...Spreading democracy, much less at gunpoint, has no place to regret for the victims...How can national interest be morally superior in any way?Also a grand recipe for intellecutal delay is a corrosive political cynicism which refuses to allow that one nation or ideology could be superior to the European status quo, while indulging neo-colonial contempt for the possibility of other peoples raising themselves to the Western standard. Oh, but wait:

I don't want to retake Europe's moral high ground, IMO there is no such thing.I disagree - I think Europe genuinely has a moral high ground. Very high indeed. But I would hate to see Europe let that ground decay beneath itself because it loses the passion, imagination, and moral energy that made the West great.

Yes, as you write:

In the end, Americans are human, guided by humans, and Abu Ghraib has shown that American soldiers are human as well and as fallible as those of other western nations.As a good Calvinist, I believe that men are both totally depraved and formed in God's image. As such, men are capable of both hideous evil and marvelous good. Our recognition of American evil should not obscure the tremendous amount of American good - in terms both absolute and relative. We would be blind to ignore America's ills - but even blinder to relativize and suppose that "everyone's the same", as if the American occupation style is no different from any other nation's. Just look at Chechnya or the Sudan for a bloody taste of the difference.

I just stumbled over a hilarious note on Thomas Jefferson, that for me sheds some new light on the french bashing fever that gripped the US a while ago when the french had the nerve to dissent with the US on Iraq.

It seems outrage over defiance is deeply ingrained in U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that France's "character (is) placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded."

France's "defiance (requires us to) marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier attitudes, which reflected France's crucial contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British rule.

That is, France was a swell friend, until Jefferson found out she had something he wanted badly :heh: Some people can't take a no for what it is.

Jefferson warned that France's "character (is) placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-mindedRight... loving the pursuit of wealth on one side (the US) and defiance out of greed (France) on the other side.

The very use of the word "defiance" for the position of France here signifies a great level of arrogance. Why not "mutiny", makes me wonder...

What has puzzled me over and over it that some people have constantly invoked the spectre of a coming clash of the cultures, the global onslaught of militant islam on the west. IMO the US totally misunderstood what Bin Laden is up to and was up to when he sent his goons out on 911.

That is because they (a) underestimated Bin Laden as a mere fanatic and not as a calm strategist and (b) because the pre-cooked idea of the clash of the cultures was there and so appealing. And further, (c) for these reasons they IMO drew the wrong conclusions from 911 and acted inappropiate.

Bush‘s notion that terrorists throw bombs because they hate our freedom is so ridiculous that it requires no further comment. So what then? Simply hate against the US? Full moon? Got up with a bloodthirst this morning?
I mean, Bin Laden is a smart man, and he wouldn‘t have got so old being lucky all the time. He must have had a plan, you don‘t do such a massive operation like 911 for nothing but the sake of pissing off and humiliating Uncle Sam.

IMO militant islam is sure a serious physical threat, but blown up to a big bogeyman way out of proportion to what it really is: Militant islam is nowhere near overrunning the west.

The oldest islamist group in the arab world, the egyptian muslim brotherhood, recently got a new head after the old leader died at the blessed age of iirc 86. His follower is 83 years young. That should give you the idea of the appeal and energy of that movement.
Militant islamists a reactionary minority. They are backward, and Arabs well know that. Iraq and the recent time have given conservativism a revival - though there is no existential threat or unavoidability as the clash of the culture thesis suggests.

Looking at the actual situation in islamic terror today, the only other country, except for Afghanistan or to an extent Iraq, where militant islamists routinely and regularly commit acts of terror is Saudi Arabia.
Usually the attacks in Saudi Arabia are aimed on westerners or local people living a western livestyle or locals who work with westerners. Saudi Arabia has a serious islamist insurgency problem and no doubt, without US aid the Saudi royals would be long history.
Insofar the US presence in Saudi Arabia not so much has a real religious impact, their support for Saudi Security Services can be expected to be both substantial and decisive.

Bin Laden is a Saudi, some 13 iirc of the hijackers have been Saudis. I heared that very often after 911, the opinion that the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq - and indeed that response is quite inviting.

IMO listening to Bin Laden and reading the news carefully gives a hint on what he wants: He wants the US out of Saudi Arabia and he wants to see Saudi Arabia as an islamic state and the corrupt Saudi monarchy to go away. That‘s his first goal. The infidels for Bin Laden aren‘t only the US, but also those Arabs who don‘t live a puritan islamic life – that‘s why his crew in Saudi Arabia also attack their own nationals who live ‚sinful‘.

Something happened shortly before 911, on September 9, 2001 actually, even though it got lost in the sea of information. People said to have been sent by Bin Laden assassinated the legendary afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud, the US‘ most trusted and reliable man in afghanistan since the days of soviet occupation, a man who knew the country and the people – the perfect ally for the US. So Bin Laden ordered his death to secure his back before starting „the big one“, that is, he attacked his enemy's ally.

When islamists attacked Spain they again attacked their enemy's ally – the US still are lacking tropps, they *need* tropps and contributions from other countries – to scare these troops away would weaken the US and would increase the cost for the US, a goal in itself.
When Bin Laden attacked Saudi Arabia he attacked the House of Saud‘s most important ally – without US support their rule would eventually and inevitably crumble. A significant act of terror, committed by Saudis could, and almost had, led to the US cutting ties and support for Saudi-Arabia. That would have been Bin Laden's slam dunk.
The US invading Iraq may not have quite been what Bin Laden wanted, so it was just a minor victory, and an unplanned one.

If you can‘t attack your opponent from the front, outflank him.

Bin Laden shows this 'indirect approach' on a strategic level.

What I think is that America sees the world in a very US-centrist view. So America didn‘t even consider the possibility that Bin Laden attacked the US not for what they see themselves standing form, freedom, but in order to weaken a US ally halfway around the world in order to bring him down.

For Arabs, much more islamists, America is not the center of the world, Mekka is. Hitting America may very well have not been the end but the means to achieve something else.

America, like a diva, is too vain to accept anything but the main act in this grotesque piece.

And so was the response. And this lack of understanding was it that produced such an outrageously inappropiate and counterproductive response - such as invading Iraq for some US social engineering on the Arabs.

[ May 17, 2004, 16:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

What you say above brings to my attention a related problem of using values, especially religious and moral ones, in political struggles.

It seems a common practice to make a lofty call on democracy, freedom, Christian values, whatever, and then attempt to make idiots of the public by concluding that everyone who opposes us does that because of hate for said values. A cheap way of scoring points, but an effective one.

Did someone mention Jefferson?! :)

Ragusa - Jefferson is one of the earliest proponents of American Exceptionalism. Also, looking at the period of the letter would be important, because he became increasingly more of a hardened Franco-phile during the French Revolution. This makes sense because of his contempt for monarchies. During that time, he was also back in America, as part of the first federal government, which consisted, in large part, of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton.

As you are writing about the situation with New Orleans then you must be looking at his own presidency. In 1803 he had purchased the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon. And also, he had concerns, as did Washington and Adams before him, that America could be drawn into the Europeon conflicts, which were, at this point, the Napoleonic Wars. That America never was drawn into them, until the strange war of 1812, speaks to the sucess of the first three American Preisdents. Also, would you want Napoleon on the borders of your country? Ironic question for Germany. ;)

For Jefferson Europe was a "den of monarchs", and as such, he had contempt for most of its governments. During his time in France he became engaged in a strange set of contradictions: On the one hand, he was a declared lover of French culture, and almost everything French, while on the other, despising what he often referred to as the decadence of Europe, which was typically French.

Some Jefferson scholars have described it as Jefferson's ability to have many internal "voices" speaking at once, but that his mind had its own internalized way of keeping them from hearing each other. Jefferson was a visionary, and he had mechanisms that prevented the order and harmony of his visions from colliding with the "disorder and messiness" of reality.

Also, Jefferson often modulated his writings to suit his audience. He hated confrontation and direct argument. This, in part, explains why almost anyone, regardless of political ideology can claim him as a touchstone. The context is always critical while evaluating Jefferson's statements, at least in any serious way. But this is true of most visionaries.