When I was in the scouts in the mid-1970’s we went on camp, as scout troops do. This particular summer, we’d more or less finished pitching our tents when we discovered that the troop nearest to us on the camping ground was German. There was a real ‘edge’ to that. Though Britain was in the ‘Common Market’, WWII still loomed pretty large. Sunday afternoon often featured a war film: what we knew about Germans, we’d learned from those. Part of the reason that Basil Fawty’s german routine was so funny (”Don’t mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!”) is that it was so true for the times.
For the 1980’s, the enemies came in the shape of the USSR, tanks poised to sweep across Eastern Europe, missiles pointed in our direction, bombers perpetually on the runways ready for take-off. There was real paranoia about the nuclear threat. They were out to get us.
Then the USSR went away.
It died as a threat almost overnight. And a new enemy was on the horizon. Islam.
And it was out to get us too.
Two things fascinate me about all this. The first is the question I began with. Do we need enemies? The way in which we have been able to shift without effort from one enemy to the next suggests to me that we might. It is almost as if something in our collective psyche must have an ‘other’ over and against which it can define itself. We gain identity from being ‘not them’.
Second, it is interesting that enemies and allies are able to change places so easily. We fought against the Germans with the Russians. We fought the Russians with what we would call now Muslim extremists. (And not just in Afghanistan. Anyone else remember when the horrid Chechen terrorists were thought of as brave freedom fighters?) And in all of that time we’ve fought alongside our perpetual friends, the Americans — except in Ireland, where obviously the British were bloodthirsty imperialist aggressors. It was those nice men of the Marxist Provisional IRA who were the freedom fighters.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this - just thinking aloud.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
dh 04.26.07 at 8:37 pm
I think it is cool your thinking out loud on this. My take is that one must look at the “why’s” of each of those and the legitamcy therein as oposed to looking at it so quickly with what it appears overal. With the USSR it was the strong military and economics for the Western world to a afford that that kept the USSR from keeping up. When one looks at the cold war in the early 60’s and the Cuban missle crisis one can easily see that it wasn’t “paramoia” but legitimate fear that was going on in the West with the “we will break you” speach where Kruschev pounded his show on the desk at the UN that helps us understand how legitimate the fear was toward the USSR. Also, I know no one who thought “good” of the Irish IRA in the US. I always have support the UK in their fight “at that time” toward the IRA. It was only when the IRA “gave in” and realized that their military fighting was “futile” due to the strong UK military that the tides changed.
Us never support the Chechens. We supported Afghanistan but that was before they showed their true colors in reference to their support for Al Quida that the tides change as well. I think more should be said of how non-enemies change to be enemies as opposed to how we change from an enemy to another enemy. For me it is the enemy that changes not us but that is just me.
It is easy to say they “went away” or “we changed to another enemy” but one must understand what caused those things as opposed to looking at the surface. We should commend the West in its response to ALL of its enemies or else (in reference to WWII) history will reat itself and we will be stuck with 1938-39 WWII again where Germany kicked our butts with no preventive response BEFORE Germany kicked our butts but that is just me.
dh 04.26.07 at 8:40 pm
It isn’t a question of “needing enemies” but a statement of what enemies come to light as legitimate threats that must be stopped or else we will be killed.
J 04.27.07 at 1:53 am
“Do we need enemies?”
No. But want, or for whatever reason, seek them out? Absolutely. I’m not sure I agree with your reason why this might be, but the behavior is pretty consistent.
Kim 04.27.07 at 8:53 am
Two other things also fascinate me.
(1) The way state propaganda machines, with their discourse of “evil”, inevitably inflate enemies into demons - which, of course, then gives us a free hand in the way we treat them - they have no human rights.
(2) And thus the way we tend to become mirror images of our enemies, evident, again, in the way we treat them: thus the Allies, Nazi-like, fire-bomb Dresden and Tokyo, while the Bush government, terrorist-like, takes hostages and resorts to torture in Guantanamo Bay .
Terry Waite, speaking with both clout and compassion, drew the latter comparison in a documentary televised in the UK just this week. And he also pointed out, DH, that the IRA didn’t “give in” until the British government began seriously to negotiate with them - and, interestingly, after they had struck at the economic nerve centre of the nation.
Needless to say there is an elephant in the room of this discussion, the Dumbo Jesus with his crazy notion of loving enemies (though DH prefers a different zoological Christology: the lion - of Judah).
dh 04.27.07 at 3:15 pm
I think one can love enemies AND take them on “Lion of Judah” when 1) God knows (not us) there is no chance for redemption due to hardness of heart (aka Pharoah) or 2) when the chance for more innocent life being murdered can be reduced. Love doesn’t have to be solely “soft love” it can also include “tough love”.
It wasn’t “Nazi-like” to fire bomb Dresden and Tokyo because these nations were attacking with no chance of stopping their murdering of innocent people by them continuing the war until someone stopped them first. By the Allies doing what they did they shortened the war and thus saved life. Also, the Bush government isn’t “terrorist-like” because terrorists intentionally murder the innocent. Bush never intentionally do this to innocent people. These were people who had strong contacts with terrorists or were terrorists themselves. These are people who 1) should not be terrorists or 2) should never have had contact with terrorists in the first place.
Terry Waite, that is what he wants us to believe.
dh 04.27.07 at 3:18 pm
This isn’t influenced by propaganda. The only propaganda is the one that makes terrorists and those who innocent people as NOT being enemies. about demons? “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and rulers of this dark and presnt evil age.” It appears to me these are people influenced by demons and rulers of demons to me. Not that these people don’t deserve some measure of “human rights” but it is clear where the “influence” comes from.