Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/19/2003 03:54:00 PM (Archive Link)
We all know and love Sheryl Crow, right? Of course we do (since we always trust celebrities)! And not just for her music, but also for her enlightened thoughts on world politics. Thus, I must direct you to a posting on her website concerning her latest elucidation for the masses. Actually, I like this treatise as I think it fairly well lays out almost every point that the anti-war movement likes to make. Where to begin in commenting? There are so many places, so let’s dive in.

"It is my philosophical belief that we are at this point in history not
because of any great leadership or because of any great evil. I believe
history has brought us to this point and that the matter at hand is that we
be armed with truth."

As my wife noted, somebody should point out to Sheryl that history is something that happens. It’s not some magical thing that creates world events and situations. Great leaders and great evil tend to be two controlling forces in history and we didn’t just come to this point suddenly or accidentally.

"It is time for us to decide what it is, as people, that we stand
for. Are we a nation that was founded on imperialistic ideals? Or are we a
nation that is part of a fabric made up of all other countries existing on
the same planet, respecting this organism that sustains our lives?"

I grow very weary of hearing about the “imperialistic” designs of the American government. If we were truly interested in empire, we could right now be directly ruling most of Europe and a few other places. And let’s not forget our latest jewel, Afghanistan. The second section about being part of a fabric is just nonsense. Or maybe not… let’s run with it. We are part of a planetary fabric. However, there are some very nasty stains and since they’re threatening to spread to the rest of the cloth, we’re bringing out the bleach.

"Do we ignore the relationships we have worked hard to build with our allies and do
we try everything in our power to rid the planet of evil using nonaggression,
or are we a country that will use force and in the meantime, be responsible
for the loss of innocent lives in the name of freeing oppressed people and
insuring our own security, when this war is not solely based on those ideals
but on the ideals of controlling the oil industry and our interests in
Israel. We did not go in to Rwanda, Sierra Leone, or Angola when these
countries were suffering catastrophic genocide and human rights infractions
beyond our understanding. Where was our humanitarian nature then?"

Those on the left always accuse America of jeopardizing and damaging its relationships with allies in Europe. They never entertain the possibility that it is those countries who are damaging their relationship with us. Considering that they have embarked on a campaign directed toward purposely frustrating and embarrassing the U.S. while our campaign involves removing a tyrant, I rather think that’s how things have worked out.

Sheryl doesn’t think we’re doing everything possible on the nonaggression route. I’m sorry, I thought 12 years was long enough. Aggressive evil wasn’t responding well to rhetoric and a Swiss professor.

I suppose freeing oppressed people isn’t a good war reason for Sheryl. I also guess that the loss of innocent lives is ok as long as it’s Hussein who’s doing the purposeful killing of innocents as opposed to the accidental and far rarer killing on our part during a war.

The oil industry. Heard this before. You know, though… for all the times I’ve heard this argument raised, I have not once heard it in a clear cogent presentation with evidence and logic that demonstrates just how this works out. It’s almost like some Gilgamesh myth or Asian rhino-horn potency medicines… nobody can say how it’s supposed to work. It’s just an empty mantra. As for the mention of Israel, I’ll get to that later.

Did we go into these places she mentions? Nope. No pressing national interests. Really, this was more of the UN’s department. They actually were involved in the Rwandan crisis and failed miserably. They essentially stood around while horrible genocides were taking place. Let’s not forget, though, that we did go into Somalia for humanitarian purposes and were richly rewarded for our efforts. We also went into Bosnia long after we should have because the UN and NATO dickered around for so long. More on Bosnia later.

"It is my dream that the arrogance that represents us as a nation can be
changed in the eyes of the world and that we will rise up as a nation of
peaceful people who will work at finding other ways of eliminating
enemies....perhaps by consciously not creating enemies in the first place,
after all, we have distinct ties to Saddam in his becoming leader of Iraq."

The language in this section is humorous in itself… “rise up as a nation of peaceful people.” “Rising up” generally isn’t peaceful. At any rate, a nation that’s unwilling to fight is going to get run over. Can you imagine a country populated entirely by the Amish lasting for long? Or the French? (Frog joke!) Also, enemies usually aren’t eliminated very well by non-violent means. You see, they tend to be your enemy because they violently oppose you. A soothing voice won’t accomplish much. As for consciously not creating enemies… well, I’m glad she’s here to tell us these things. We should have ended our Anti-American Enemy Training Program years ago. If only we had known it would backfire on us like it has.

"There are many questions that beg to be asked. Some are being asked
rhetorically by many journalists, including a great writer at the New York
Times by the name of Daniel Friedman. For example-if we are claiming that we are
going into Iraq to save it's people from such an oppressive regime and such
heinous human rights infractions, then why are we not addressing these
situations in other Middle Eastern countries that are our allies? What is
the standard? Is there a way to justify the human loss that we can expect
from this war....our own as well as innocent Iraqis?"

If celebrities want us to take them seriously, they should at least try to get a few things right. The columnist’s name isn’t Daniel, it’s Thomas. He has two Pulitzers to his name. If you get such a basic detail wrong, it makes me doubt you’ve ever read any of his work that wasn’t summarized and truncated.

Ok, what if we did decide to go into all these countries with human rights violations? Do you think Sheryl would approve? She and others accuse the U.S. of not being genuine about human rights but they would have a fit if we tried to solve it everywhere. And besides that, if you’re surrounded by evil, that’s not an excuse for doing nothing. Just because there are similar human rights issues elsewhere, that doesn’t mean you don't liberate anybody. You take out some evil and move on from there.

Tragically, and I do mean that, I must stop my analysis there. It appears that between last night and today, Sheryl’s thesis was taken down. Since I didn’t copy it over and I can’t find it elsewhere on the internet, I can do no more. Well… perhaps I can. There are a few points I can dig up from memory.

There is some very subtle, but implicit anti-Semitism in Sheryl’s piece. There are several places where she mentions the war in Iraq is due to “our interests in Israel.” No, she doesn’t say “the Jews,” but most Israelis are Jews and this point is never far from anybody’s mind. And the fact that she uses our Israeli interests as a bad reason for war, I think it can be assumed she’s pretty solidly on the Palestinian side of things. At other points, she mentions the centuries old Christian-Muslim conflict. No mention of the much more potent and active Muslim-Jewish conflict. Let’s not forget that many in the middle-east have a visceral hatred of the Jewish people. And finally, she also says something about Paul Wolfowitz drawing up a secret plan of world domination while in the first Bush administration. Wolfowitz is Jewish and is frequently the target of anti-Semitic barbs tossed at the government. The fact that she says he was the leading force in this secret imperial plan and nobody else… well… we’ve seen these insinuations concerning Jews before, haven’t we?

Another part that I can recall is a paragraph where Sheryl brings up her USO trip to Bosnia. She talks of how the land was scarred and ravaged and how the Bosnians had to be escorted by troops just to ensure their safety while they voted and that these same troops protected their villages. She brings this up as a way to describe the horrors of war, but it actually serves as a shining counterargument to everything else in her essay. That devastation was wrought by a genocidal terror campaign on behalf of the Serbians under Slobodan Milosevic. The ground was scarred because of him, the people required protection because of him. Had we acted far sooner than we did, none of it would have happened. Instead, Europe sat around trying to contain Milosevic through diplomacy. The miserable state of the Bosnians was the result of a war not taking place sooner that would remove the dictator. It seems, though, that Sheryl is perfectly willing to let the misery of the Bosnians be shared by that of the Iraqis. Oh… and when she whines about the war in Iraq being a crusade against Muslims, let’s keep in mind that we saved Bosnian MUSLIMS from the aggressive Serbian CHRISTIANS. Yeah, we’re real Crusaders.

That’s all for now since the story is gone from Crow’s site. I’ll keep checking, though, to see if it pops back up.