‘24′ Going Soft in Season Seven? More Like Going Subtle
by Guy BensonWith a few strokes of the (real-life) president’s pen, Guantanamo Bay was ordered shut within a year, enhanced interrogation tactics were banished as relics of a dark past, and secret CIA prisons began dropping off the map in Eastern Europe. America’s going to play nice from now on. What’s a rogue former CTU agent to do?
As a relative newbie to the realm of “24″ fandom (I’ve only seen season six and all five hours of the current season), it came as a disappointment when a number of right-leaning Jack Bauer fanatics I know expressed concerns that the show’s hero might be “going soft” this season. Could the days of gunshot-induced confessions be over? Might we never witness Jack chomp through a terrorist’s carotid artery again? I suppose the answers to these crucial questions remain to be seen. Thankfully, 19 hours and approximately 1,609 preposterous plot twists have yet to unfold.
Nonetheless, to my eye, Bauer hasn’t exhibited many signs of weak-kneed capitulation this season. The man buried an FBI agent alive just to earn his terrorist bona fides and maintain a cover as a government turncoat. Still, some concerned conservatives are wringing their hands over the show’s new emphasis on excessive due process and “human rights” for enemies of the state. “24″ has traditionally offered segments of the population a welcome, albeit fictional, depiction of American agents treating dangerous terrorists as if they were, well, dangerous terrorists. Yes, Bauer has tended to cross the line once or twice per episode, but he always did so to extract critical information from nefarious characters in order to save innocent lives.
The high-octane drama served as a welcome retreat from frustrating realities. The show’s “do whatever it takes” mentality represented a stark departure from the prevailing “terrorists are people, too” attitude that has dominated editorial pages across the globe. How many times must we read that Gitmo is a “stain” on America’s deteriorating image? In some ways, “24″ represented the political Right’s TV equivalent of the fictional utopia “The West Wing” offered liberals throughout the Bush years. Therefore, the notion that the writers of this show are getting squishy just as the Obama administration takes power is, understandably, a dismaying thought for many fans. Thankfully, I believe that any such dismay is misplaced. The show’s recent shifts may actually be intended to undermine liberal conventional wisdom vis-a-vis American security, and turn public opinion against haranguing our intelligence gathering community.
Assuming the creators of “24″ did not shift ideologically during the writer’s strike that delayed season seven, it would appear that the show isn’t going soft, but going subtle. One of the very first scenes of the season took place on Capitol Hill, with Bauer being raked over the coals for his extreme tactics. Consider the portrayal of the senator who’s grilling Bauer just before he’s whisked away to serve an FBI subpoena. The lawmaker comes off as a sniveling know-it-all, eager to score political points by humiliating and demoralizing a man who’s repeatedly risked his life for his country. Bauer’s disdain for his inquisitor is palpable, and the audience isn’t far behind. Incidentally, inquiring minds must know: Was this character an homage to an actual sitting Senator? There are many who’d fit the bill, so let’s just call it a composite.
In a subsequent episode, budding protagonist and full-fledged cutie Renee Walker reluctantly abandons FBI protocol to coerce key intelligence from a smirking terrorist. Before she twisted her gun into his wound, the bed-ridden fiend seemed smugly convinced she was too by-the-book (the Army Field Manual, perhaps?) to actually obtain the nugget she needed. Her decision ultimately uncovers a plot to kidnap a high profile US ally, but reaps a whirlwind of legal trouble. The immediate opprobrium unleashed on her by the Department of Justice strikes viewers as misplaced and petty. The pathetic whining from the poor “victim’s” attorneys is downright revolting. Knowing that lives hang in the balance, viewers just want these suits out of the way and sparing their lectures, at least until the imminent threat has passed.
I believe that “24’s” increased attention to interrogation regulations and suspects’ rights does not translate into a newfound enthusiasm for counterproductive caution. If anything, it’s led to the emergence of an entire class of quasi-antagonists on the show: Grandstanding senators and process-obsessed bureaucrats. While this crowd’s motives aren’t nearly as malicious as the terrorists acting in conjunction with the genocidal Senegalese regime in Africa, their actions are still seen as self-serving and risky to the well being of Americans. They’re not viewed as evil, just annoying.
I suspect the sharp minds behind this show may be subtly injecting this meme into the public’s imagination. When the inevitable ”Bush Revenge” hearings come to Washington—with all the obnoxious posturing we’ve come to expect from devotees of political expediency—more Americans may perceive the holier-than-thou questioners with increased skepticism, or even contempt. They may also become more open to giving our nation’s real covert agents the benefit of the doubt, especially since their supposed malfeasances pale in comparison to Bauer’s, shall we say, intense brand of “tough diplomacy.”
Indeed, the mere fact that this season is set in Washington is a major change for the show—perhaps an acknowledgement that America has a new leader with different priorities. For the first time, Bauer is accountable not just to a few superiors (they were running out of ways to demote him, anyway), but to the American people and their representatives. In a moment of self-reflection while under oath, Bauer tells that self-righteous senator that if the public believes he’s behaved unacceptably, he’s prepared to deal with the consequences. It invites the question of whether his outlandish means justify the ends he inarguably produces. Bauer is appealing to regular folks to judge him, and the show’s producers are nudging the regular folks in their audience toward certain conclusions. It will be interesting to see how far they push this underlying conflict, but the cross-current to the prevailing elite conventional wisdom they’re providing is a welcome and thought-provoking one.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
34 Comments
I am relieved as well. Great to see old characters true to themselves instead of "growing" the way it sometimes happens in long running shows. I like the new president character as well, although where you find a real life Democrat like that is beyond me.
Oh hey there Terry. Always can count on you for a good laugh around here.
Guy – STOP whatever you are doing and get the 24 DVDs and start watching from Season 1 immediately. You will enjoy it more if you know the history of the characters and what has come before.
The brilliance of 24 is portraying all sides of an issue and the personalities behind each viewpoint.
All that and great one liners like “I’m going to need a hacksaw…”
It went “stupid” from the first episode of Season One.
Israel was caught red-handed committing a false flag attack on the US (Lavon Affair)
They attacked a US ship in a clear false flag attempt (USS Liberty)
They have stolen nuclear materials and technology from the US.
They spy on the US.
And American tax payers subsidize it all.
Yet shows like this continue to make it appear as if anyone BUT ISRAEL is “the bad guys.”
Let’s have a show where Israel is the enemy. It would actually be realistic.
My beef with 24 is not with the way terrorists are questioned, but with who the “enemy” is. Especially in the last 2 seasons. Do we really need to be afraid of rogue ex-special forces guys or Secret Service guys who don’t do their jobs or are in on the plot???? It’s so incredibly annoying and I have stopped watching because of that very problem. It’s become fill-in-the-blank storytelling:
Rogue special forces guys killing Americans – check
Nerds fighting over their turf – check
FBI, CIA, CTU agents not following basic protocol and getting caught by the bad guys – check
The mole room – check
Crazy spouse of President – check
God-like powers by nerds – check
I love the character of Jack Bauer. It’s everything around him that I can’t stand anymore.
Great artical. I am one of those right wing nut jobs that loves this show and this season. If you look through the dribble of what they call tv this show is one of a kind. It gives all sides. How bout the strength of madam president. She shows the pressures that this job is. She also shows that all sides of the argument have consequences. The Bush bashing aside it must have taken a lot to get the govt to work toghether to fight this new enemy. Back to the show. How great that the original team is working toghether and I can’t wait for interaction with the president. It kills me that I have to wait 7 days to see the best hr on tv.
The one basic virtue of good storytelling is gone. I don’t care about these people. Two African nations of about 3,000 African genocidal druglords/extremists…blah blah blah. Why would we get involved in this particular war? To prove we are good nation EVEN if they don’t have oil? Like the female prez, but come on, do any of you care about thse people??
New, more sensitive 24:
No rough stuff, Jack. We’re the FBI. We play by the rules.
Until the VERY FIRST TIME they need information. And then it’s “Do whatever it takes, Jack.”
After a couple of hours, even the female FBI agent is giving a suspect the Full Bauer treatment.
I am very relieved.
It does often seem that no matter who the bad guys are (Islamic terrorists, etc.), the real bad guys behind them are evil white guys, usually after oil. So much for the “neocon propaganda” argument.
I have a friend who is a “24″ fanatic and doesn’t like this season. I think it is good and follows the typical “Perils of Pauline” scripts – always have a cliffhanger on the end to keep them waiting –
As a burned out programmer I don’t see how one device can permeate a firewall and suddenly the terrorists can control the air traffic – but hey, you gotta run with it. Or pilots would willfully and blindly follow whatever the fake ATC controller tells them.
Jack “we don’t have a lot of time” Bauer seems to be up to his old self – He sure took care of business last night…
And I wonder what Renee will be doing – personally if someone buried me alive I would be a bit more angry than her forgiving self
In short it is the same formula that has worked so well – who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?
They used their writers strike time a lot better than the Heroes writers did – that was a disappointment for me after such a good 1st season
Terry, Terry, Terry is that the best you can come up with against the State if Israel? The Lavon Affair, 1954, that’s over fifty four years ago and Israel has taken responsibility and honored the victims. USS Liberty was part of the 6 day war and is considered a tragic mistake by both governments. Why would you like to see a show with a staunch ally such as Israel as the enemy; why not the UK or Canada?
First, to Terry…your bigoted anti-semitism is frightening. I hear you recently bought a brand new barbecue….and it seats 12.
With respect to this season’s “24,” I have to agree with those who are disappointed in the lack of action and the increasingly preposterous plot lines. There are so many holes in the current scenario involving the device that intercepts air traffic radio communications that I’ve lost count. And is it just me, or does this whole thing with the planes smell a lot like the plot to Die Hard 2?
That being said, I am PRAYING to the TV gods that little miss lefty Janeane Garafalo turns out to be the FBI mole and is vanquished forthwith, hopefully in a highly unpleasant, painful manner.
Lucius Vorenus –
How can we “win a war” while allowing ourselves to be COLONIZED by foreign countries? That is just absurd. Stirring up hornets nests on Israel’s behalf while allowing unchecked immigration is a recipe for disaster….which the government would not be all that disappointed with anyway since they can then declare martial law.
twilliam –
Well, it is a great deal MORE than other countries have done against us. We SUPPOSEDLY went to war against other countries for doing LESS against other countries! Example: Iraq which we SUPPOSEDLY went to war with because they invaded Kuwait (which we green-lighted, btw.)
Israel is no ally to the US. They are parasites at BEST. The relationship can be described in no better way even just looking at it on the surface. But when you look at all the incidents where they have caused us harm, it is clear they are enemies.
John Galt – January 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“First, to Terry…your bigoted anti-semitism is frightening.”
Right on cue. Dare to place America’s interests over Israel and watch the traitors bark about “anti-semitism.” There are many Jews who oppose Israel and Zionism and rightfully so.
Why don’t you move to Israel?
Reason the show is in trouble isn’t the changing politics in America. Used to love it, but after seven years, the show is just getting tired. Every show does. Harder and harder to come up with fresh plots. When you start to jump the shark, I lose interest. Time to move on.
No doubt that 24–even at its best–can be pretty ludicrous if you stop and think about it.
8 AM: Jack is testifying before a Senate committee.
12 PM: Jack is helping to abduct an African prime minister.
And that’s just in 4 hours!
It’s a comic book. Jack is a cross between James Bond and Captain America. Nothing stops him, not even death. He’s been clinically dead at least twice.
I haven’t seen last night’s ep yet. (DVR’s holding it for me.) But my one problem with this season as a conservative is this president considering the lives of foreign nationals on par with her own citizens. She has a tough choice to be sure, but given that choice, I just can’t imagine any American president signing away the lives of tens of thousands of her people like that, which would be a clear violation of her trust.
Besides, all she really has to do is pull back the troops and send in special ops to assassinate the African warlord’s ass. Problem solved.
i want to punch janine g. in the face. she is way beyong annoying. other than her being miscast, this season rocks so far….
The thing is, we’re still only a quarter of the way in, and liberals are nefarious. I hope I’m wrong, but I think this whole season is leading to the sucker punch of all sucker punches. Liberals have taken over the creative direction of the show, and I’ve seen some interviews suggesting that by the end of this season they will have settled the matter on whether “torture” is wrong. If that is their intention, which way do you think they’re going to lean? I’m betting on a non-nuanced condemnation, probably brought about by a late season twist involving bad information obtained by torture, since the one FBI boss has already made a point of bleating that torture usually only yields up unreliable information.
Jack Bauer is an American hero, and he deserves better than this.
Does it strike anyone as stunningly odd that the “crisis” to which the president is responding, and for which she is willing to risk untold thousands of American lives, is a “genocide” going on in an African country. She wants to intervene with military force to stop genocide, the “bad guys” tell her if you don’t pull back your naval forces, we will unleash destruction on your people. And they begin to do that. Airline collisions, and they are set to target a site that will result in thousands of American deaths. The president’s response? “We do not negotiate with terrorists !” It is a perfect illustration of the point that liberals will oppose the use of military power to serve this country’s national interest, but will use military force (and risk untold numbers of American lives) to do “good” for someone else.
Kishke: I thank you for the compliment.
M: "I’m Scandanavian and you are both ignorant. Any country worth its weight spys on other countries, including their allies. Trust me I know."
Thank you for reinforcing that point, and your are very right.
Terry, do you WAKE UP ANGRY every single Freakin day?
Just asking, you seem a bit angry, why dont you hop on our side and be happy, better yet stay where you are, We dont need an angry dingle berry!
why dont you be happy that you have a President.
By the waym Your PResident is RUINING my Country!
I seriously HATE LIBERALS!
24 is one of the best shows on television. Whether you have watched from Season 1 or just got on the bandwagon, it is outstanding. The 2 hour movie that set up this 7th Season gives the background and understanding as to why the US is backing this country. This show is never dull and you can never tell what will happen. Who knew Jack would go as far as he did to ‘prove’ his ‘loyalty’ to the terrorist group? Then, Jack is always doing something unexpected and outstanding that proves he has one loyalty and one loyalty alone: His country and her safety.
As to comments about Israel being ‘the enemy’:I personally find them ignorant of facts and history. Ignorance, however , is NO excuse for attacking a country that has done it’s best to get along in a region of hatred for it’s very existence. I suggest those who think that Israel is ‘the enemy’ do a bit of research on how and why Israel became a state in 1948. What led up to it and how it was implemented. More importantly, how, relentlessly, their land has been eaten away to the point they have the tiniest sliver to hang on to, with their backs to the sea. Their enemy is full of hate and politically correct outrage in order to further their own political ends. Arafat pocketed , personally, billions of US and foreign dollars to perpetuate the eternal victimhood of the Palestinian.And using the money to foster hatred of Israel and all things Western in the schools. Using US money to teach the young that the West , the US and Israel are objects of hatred that must be destroyed. Yet, Israel offered and over One million Palestinians have accepted Israeli citizenship. Showing that if Palestinans wanted peace really it was readily available. Also showing that the PLO and others, such as Hezbollah and Hamas do not want peace. They want Israel gone, dead, extinct so that they can tout one more victory in the march of Islam to take over the West. Israel is the canary in the coal mine to the West.
Israel is no one’s enemy. They simply wish to survive and thrive on what little the world has afforded them for their state. They have fought for and achieved astounding things and must continue to do so and maintain a thriving economy and a democracy that is the envy of others and a target of hate in the entire Arab world. It is a sign of good character of the United States that she supports Israel and a sign of warmongering and hatred of those factions who do not.
As for 24, it continues to show the hipocracy of politics and the necessity of doing what must be done to preserve our freedoms, at home and abroad. Especially this year, it shows the dangers that are on our own shores and how masked the enemy really is. Watching 24 is almost like watching a reality show with the contestants thinly disguised.
Heatherfeather,
Are you saying that if the Pali’s had nukes they’d use them? How about tanks, or jets, or artillery? Logic dictates that if they had these weapons, they’d use them.
The Israeli avoidance of devastating military power, such as a tactical nuke or two, says volumes about their goals in all of this. They fight to survive and life, their enemies do not. They fight to destroy something of which they are jealous.
If the Arab neighbors of Israel would put down their weapons there would be a more peaceful region there. If the Israeli’s put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.
Plain and simple.
“WWJD?”
(What would Jack do?)
My optimistic side revels the casting of Garafalo, hoping that her character’s death would be from a suicidal attempt to drown herself in a toilet after being found out as one of the traitors at the FBI.
That or possibly being pummeled by day old donuts.
I am broadly enjoying Garofalo’s turn on 24. As one of my viewing partners ‘angrily’ commented during one episode how he ‘hated’ her acting, I almost expected her to turn to the camera and wink.
A brilliant casting move and grudging respect for her as well. She explained her involvement in the project roughly as: “They offered me a job- I needed the work.” No excuses, I like that.
Joel Surnow is working on a project called ‘Night and Day’ according to IMDB.
I am enjoying season 7 so far. It is my escape hour and my steady date for the last 7 seasons (yes my life sucks..LOL)! I haven’t quite made up my mind on Garofolo’s character but I do enjoy many of the other characters and I am looking forward to seeing how the President deals with the public on her stance about not backing down.
Terry, I believe, for whatever your many flaws, you deserve a serious and considered response, as I would like the same to be done to me.
So, here we go…
“Israel was caught red-handed committing a false flag attack on the US (Lavon Affair)”
Ah, yes, the Lavon Affair. That is not an invalid point, and deserves due consideration.
However, it does not deserve more power then is due to it.
Because the Lavon Affair did not target the US or UK as an enemy. It targeted Nasserite Egypt. The reason I make this is to point out the real reason for it: it was to gain Western aid from two remarkably stubborn Western Powers (The UK and PARTICULARLY Eisenhower-era America) against an immediate threat from the Arab League. While it was a threat to American citizens, their capital, and other Allied citizens, the fact remains that it was an attempt to pre-empt aggression by the Arab League. And for all its moral shadiness, it worked, as Nasser & Co were forced to postpone any attack on Israel or the West in order to mask the troop buildups (which came to the surface during this time due to the use of the Egyptian military in bolstering the anti-Western riots).
Is it sickening? Yes. But I can safely say that we would have done EXACTLY the same thing in their position.
“They attacked a US ship in a clear false flag attempt (USS Liberty)”
Ah, yes, the USS Liberty, one of the most ugly and justifiably condemned incidents in the history of Amero-Israeli relations.
And also one of the most disputed.
For one, all the advocates of the “intentional Israeli attack” theory never dispute that the planes were clearly marked as Israeli, and that the IDF clearly and rapidly took responsibility for it. In short, that is not a “false flag operation”, which would have been if the IDF painted their planes with EAF colors and THEN attacked.
As for the idea that the Israeli forces KNEW that it was an American ship, the fact remains that there is more going against this then for it. For one, the US was supposed to have informed Israel of all American ships in the combat zone, but clearly forgot about the Liberty. This is not disputed by either party in this matter.
In addition, the point that the ship had US markings- which, I might add, are not the easiest things to discern when you are flying in a jet- fails to notice that the Arab League has a LONG and distinguished history of falsely-flagging their ships as Western during wartime, and the El Qusier- which Israel claimed that it thought the Liberty was- was particularly infamous for doing this. In addition, the weight difference can be explained by the fact that there ARE ways to make a ship appear larger or smaller then it really is, and this was another “trick” the Arab League- and PARTICULARLY the Egyptian Merchant Marine, including the El Qusier- was known to utilize.
Finally, you fail to note one key fact: the El Qusier was indeed seen- in false flag with a modified temporary hull to give the illusion of it being larger then it was- in the area before it was attacked.
I rest my case.
“They have stolen nuclear materials and technology from the US.”
And WE have been known to pilfer various info about Islamists off of them at times, like we “appropriated” the WWII-era Christie suspension system from them. Theft amongst even the staunchest of allies is a long and true tradition of the political world.
“They spy on the US.”
And we spy on them, the Brits, the Canucks, the Japs, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Greeks, the Kiwis, and the Aussies. Like I said, every nation tries to have some degree of penetration into every other nation’s internal systems, if for no other reason then to keep an eye on things or to avoid a massive misinformation campaign from enemy agents inside our allies ALA the Cambridge Ring in the Cold War.
And American tax payers subsidize it all.
“Yet shows like this continue to make it appear as if anyone BUT ISRAEL is “the bad guys.””
You REALLY haven’t looked at many shows nowerdays, have you?
“Let’s have a show where Israel is the enemy. It would actually be realistic.”
Right. And then we can unmask the secret Anglo-American intelligence conflict during WWII and the Franco-British conflict over artillery shells in WWI./ sarc.
In all due honesty, I do think that could be an interesting premise for a show- not because of the KGB-CIAesque relationship between Tel Aviv and ourselves, but because of the complexities and troubles that result from the reality being just the opposite.
“Right on cue. Dare to place America’s interests over Israel and watch the traitors bark about “anti-semitism.””
Ah, yes, the tired Buchananesque quip about Israel subverting our foreign policy to their needs. Save it, because it is not like this situation is unique in history amongst even the most tight-knit of Allies. The fact is that, during, before, and After WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, virtually every nation of the Western Allies tried to manipulate the policy of the whole to fit their agenda- France, for instance, wished to see Imperial Germany partitioned into a Protestant North and a Catholic South after WWI. And don’t even get me STARTED on the Polish-German conflict during the 1920’s, which drove MAJOR rifts in the Western Allies.
However, you fail to notice that this did not mean the Western Allies were hostile towards each other, or were preparing for war. It was just one of the many, many, MANY issues Allied nations have to deal with: what happens when one ally has interests that run even moderately in opposition to another ally (and I’m not talking WWII West VS Soviet issues, I’m talking about Britain VS US issues over strategy, spoils, etc).
In short, it is something that has happened before, will happen again, and is happening now. Nothing alarming yet, though make no mistake: if the day comes that American interests or liberties become threatened by Israel, I hope that I will have the courage to do my duty, and failing that, that I be struck dead for my cowardice against a foe of the American Republic.
It is just that that is a LONG way from happening. Which brings me to my next point.
“There are many Jews who oppose Israel and Zionism and rightfully so.”
And those “Anti-Zionist Jews” run the gamut from sane and reasonable people who oppose the excesses that occurred and occur in Israel, and the outright ranting and raving “people” who think that Israel is waging a “Holocaust” against the Palestinian Arabs. Unfortunately, I get the impression that the overall number of said individuals tends to lean more heavily towards the latter camp.
“Why don’t you move to Israel?”
Um, perhaps because I have lived here my whole life, remain firmly dedicated to the United States and the Republic, have neither the time nor the health to move, and do not think that an ally’s occasional escapades warrent all out war and that defending that position does not mean that I am more loyal to Israel then to America?
Pick one or more of the above.
“Sorry, Terry, as long as a certain minority continues to own the entertainment media, there will not be a negative word about Israel.”
Oh puhleaze. Have you ever actually conducted a search on International news coverage or of the media? I think you will find (as we did, by a factor of 3-2 at LEAST) that it has an Anti-Israeli slant.
“You forgot to mention they are a rogue state opposing UN resolutions which don’t go their way”
You say that like it is something unheard of or even appalling. Which it would be until you actually STUDY those resolutions. The fact is that every state must put its own interests above all but moral right, and when an immoral and antagonizing act is made, that nation has the right and the DUTY to resist it. After all, would you fault the interbellum Greeks in their response to the League of Nations- shortly after it used a ridiculous double-standard to place the blame for three seperate incidents with Turkey, Bulgaria, and Mussolini’s Italy on them in spite of the fact that the rulings contradicted each other- chose to tell the League officials asking for a Greek base of operations that they had a blank cheque from the Greek government to station military forces of unlimited size in Smyrna (Turkish port city that was occupied and ethnically cleansed by Attaturk), Varna (Bulgarian Port city), and Rhodes (Italian-controlled island)? The fact is that no nation can afford to subordinate themselves completely to ANY outside force and still retain its freedom.
“They practice their own brand of Apartheid.”
Have you ever STUDIED Apartheid? Have you ever BEEN to the “Black Homelands” in South Africa? Have you EVER been to Israel or the Palestinian territories? Then how can you compare Apartheid to it? After all, the Black Africans hardly committed acts of terrorism against the Afrikkaners BEFORE Apartheid and even AFTERWARDS usually limited themselves to the regime’s forces? Then how is this comparable?
“They have nuclear weapons even though their enemies are armed with rocks and homemade rockets.”
Obviously, you have never studied to OOBs of the Arab League and what they can and have fielded. Secondly, disproportionate responses within humane boundaries (ie, no razing a city to the ground when you have the CAPABILITY to hit only what you need to with less damage) is just. Is it wrong to take out an Assault rifle and kill a mugger who is armed with a spear if the mugger attacks first? That is one thing you don’t seem to get.
“Our slavish support of them is the reason we are hated in the Muslim world.”
Right after the Western Allied destruction of the Ottoman Empire, the fall of the Moorish states on the Iberian, the fact that we are “infidels”, our support of “unislamic” leaders, capitalist exploitation (both real and not), our Secular government, our success, our decadent “pop culture”, our lack of warrior ideals, our support for India….
The list goes on and on.
And even if one item, regardless of how large, was removed, how would that alter the feelings of the “Arab Street?” Probably not a whole damned lot.
I believe Churchill said “Study history, study history, study history!” And I sincerely believe you could benefit from that, as it would make your arguments and your points far sharper and more persuasive.
What I really hate is the hypocrisy of Sutherland –a real nutcase Liberal making tons of money off his tough guy shoot em up hero for conservative America when he’s part of the Blame America First crowd like his dear old Dad.
David_Theiman:
“Terry is 100% correct.”
Um, no. No he is not.
” It is sad to see fellow conservatives ignoring the facts that he is bringing up and simply calling him names, like the liberals you supposedly despise.”
Why? Because he willfully ignores facts, distorts any context the events have, and in general makes things up? You are right.
I have met many Liberals who are FAR better then that.
“Israel is no friend or ally of the US.”
Um, hate to tell you this, but yes, yes it is. Even Stalinist Russia was our “ally” in WWII, and Israel (all things, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Etc considered) is far more true and loyal an ally then the USSR.
“Friends and Allies do not spy on each other”
Um, YES, YES THEY DO! How do you think we got the WWII Christie Tank suspension system? We literally ripped it off from the Brits via intelligence! The fact is th at EVERY nation except perhaps Swaziland and Somalia (too small and too poor to afford or care about it) tries to have at least SOME insight into every other nation’s internal workings, be they friend, foe, or neutral. It happened amongst the Western Allies in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, and it doubtless happens today. Indeed, I would be VERY suprised if we do not have somebody in the Japanese Prime Minister’s office who is on our payroll and is copying down info on our behalf.
This does not necessarily mean that Israel is an enemy, no more then it means the Swedes (who probably have three times the moles in us now then Tel Aviv ever had) are.
“Israel repeatedly has spies arrested infiltrating the US military and other avenues of government.”
Again, see above. Everybody does this.
“Israel brags to the world of how much influence they have over the US”
Proof?
“Ehud did so last week while disrespecting Sec. Rice.”
I say again, Proof? And I do sincerely mean that I wish to see it, and will retract my prior statements in that area if it is so. However, as I mentioned several times before, every member of even the most harmonious alliance wants to influence the other members to their agenda, so that is nothing new.
At all.
“One day Americans will have to say enough is enough and start looking out for America’s best interests first.”
And would this be by snuggling up to the Arab League, who undoubtedly have even MORE moles in us then the Israelis, and who are almost certainly NOT using them for reasons as benign as filching the occasional blueprint?
Or would it be by turning back to or troubled and imperfect alliance with a Democratic regional power and accepting that, for all the troubles we have, we are ultimately in the same boat, and if they ever DO decide to become hostile, we can almost always jump ship and remain intact?
Answers would be welcome.
Terry part Deux:
“Well, it is a great deal MORE than other countries have done against us”
Yes, I have yet to hear about the gigantic spy ring the Tongans have set up in the State Department, so I guess that is a valid point. However, several nations have actually done VASTLY, VASTLY MORE to us then Israel has.
“We SUPPOSEDLY went to war against other countries for doing LESS against other countries!”
1. Any examples?
2. That does not necessarily mean ANYTHING. For instance, look at Anglo-French colonial relations in the 1890’s, where two conflicts at Fashoda and the Niger Delta saw hundreds of casualties between the two.
Yet this did not lead to war.
But, when a Bosnian Anarchist supporting Yugoslav Nationalism kills two honeymooning royals in Sarajevo, WWI happened.
Why is this so?
Well, in the first, the British and French did not particularly LIKE each other yet, and there were still strong colonial rivalries from an era when the Napoleonic Wars were still in living memory. But war did not break out because, while the Napoleonic Wars were in living memory, so was the Crimean War, where the British and French fought side-by-side to stop Russian expansion dead. In addition, both nations had shared Democratic, Capitalist, and Classical Liberal values, which STRONGLY contrasted with the growing threat of the reactionary, authoritarian, and militarist Germany. As such, there was a STRONG pressure to smooth things over for the greater good.
On the other hand, Austria-Hungary had long harbored a strong dislike of Serbia and her Montenegrin ally, and this dislike was returned with interest by the Yugoslav Nationalists and Serb Expansionists. PARTICULARLY after the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So, by the time that Franz Joseph and his wife Sophie were killed, Vienna saw a golden chance to remove the Balkan thorn in its side, while simultaneously weakening Russia in the Balkans.s
In short, some conflicts degenerate into wars, and some do not. There are MANY reasons for this, but usually the former occurs when there are bitter differences that, for some reason, are unresolvable or have their protagonists lack the reason to make an effort to do so. The latter, unsurprisingly, usually happens when the opposite situations are in play.
“Example: Iraq which we SUPPOSEDLY went to war with because they invaded Kuwait”
And who promptly began to impound or kill Americans at rates that put the Lavon Affair to absolute shame, began to threaten to sink everything in the Straits of Homez, and began to rattle their sabers. So, when a dictator who was fundamentally at odds with us in spite of occasional moments of agreement (ie the Iran-Iraq War) does something, that is not cause for war, but when a Democratic nation and staunch ally with whom we have occasional conflicts does something far LESS, it is cause to leave them to circle the drain.
Forgive me if I do not see the pattern here.
“(which we green-lighted, btw.)”
Proof?
“Israel is no ally to the US.”
And, by your logic, Churchill and De Gaulle were deserving of the “Public enemy #1 spot” for doing what virtually all allies- even the most loyal and closeknit ones- do?
“They are parasites at BEST.”
Hardly. Parasitism by DEFINITION is where something lives on another organism and benefits while the other is harmed without any gain. Somehow, I don’t see how a modern and remarkably strong bulwark against our mutual and sworn enemies “harms” us, anymore then Lend-Lease to Britain did (the USSR I can buy, but not the Brits).
“The relationship can be described in no better way even just looking at it on the surface.”
Ah, so you mean we are staunch allies in a most unhospitable region that go through occasional issues but are on the whole loyal to each other?
Thanks. Though I don’t know how that meshes with the rest of your postings.
“But when you look at all the incidents where they have caused us harm, it is clear they are enemies.”
DAMMIT! Churchill stole several blueprints and technological innovations from us! DEPLOY THE AIR FORCE TO BOMB LONDON! Let us provide covering fire for the Germans executing Operation Sea Lion! And once they have done so and have hung the thief Churchill on a pole, let us celebrate into the night (or at least until the V-1s eviscerate half of the East Coast)!
/Well, you do seem to be in the mentality that if an Ally is not a perfect and wholly unselfish Ally, then they are only our enemies….
David_Theman
“Yes, Terry is right.”
And, like I said, no, no he is NOT.
“What facts did he ignore?”
Oh, just the FACT that almost every nation spies on almost every other nation, INCLUDING allies, the FACT that the USS Liberty was not mentioned to the Israelis, the FACT that it would not have qualified as a “False-flag operation” even if the attack was deliberate, the FACT that the El Qusier WAS seen in the area the USS Liberty was in with a false Italian flag and with some modifications to its hull to make it appear larger, the FACT that there is no evidence that we approved Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait (no motive, no evidence, and no actual chain of events WHATSOEVER), the FACT that we do get something out of our aid to Israel (a strong buffer against the local thugs, like the British with their aid to the French pre-WWI and during the Interbellum), and the FACT that there is a VERY long history of allies spying on each other, and even STEALING things from each other (again, the Christie tank suspension system during WWII, which we lifted off the Brits, for example).
Is there any that I missed?
“He is 100% that Israel spies on the US”
And that is one of the VERY few things I can agree with him on. But I reject the idea that that necessarily means they are not our ally, especially given historical precedent and the fact that we almost certainly do spy on them and many other allied nations as well. As James S mentioned before, it would be nationally irresponsible for them NOT to do so, and for us NOT to do so.
“and pushes for the US to take actions with Israel in mind”
I also agree with that. But, unlike you, who seem to think that this is something new and treacherous, this is absolutely nothing new. The fact is that I can dreg up records going back to the 30 Year’s War about allies pressuring their allies to make choices or operate in manners that the one ally views as fitting their agenda. Hell, moving forward, the British fought at the Somme largely because the French pressured them to launch an attack to relieve pressure on Verdun, and there was a gigantic amount of Anglo-American rancour after the destructions of Panzer Armee Afrika in 1943 on where the first landings on Europe should take place: Italy or France.
As such, if you actually STUDIED HISTORY, particularly on how alliances actually function in reality, you would see these things are not sinister aberrations but actually normal features of even the most loyal and tight-knit alliance.
“They are so devoted to this cause that it is a open secret that they have high ranking members of US government under their thumb.”
1. Proof?
2. How is this different from our spies in London trying to manipulate British strategy in WWII, and vice-versa?
“Russia being a ally has no bearing on whether Israel is an ally to the US.”
This sentence only shows how skin-thin your argument and your comprehension of history and how REAL alliances work is. The fact is that, during WWII, the USSR was our “Ally.” A very treasonous, untrustworthy, and tyrannical ally, yes, but still our ally, as we felt obliged- due to the strategic realities of WWII- to supply and aid theme. If it is not relevant to compare one of our most treasonous, most ill-willed, and most inherently temporary alliances to one you and Terry claim is parasitic, uneven, and hostile, then what is? The fact is that we were indisputably allies with the USSR in WWII, and our relationship with the Israelis is nowhere NEAR as hostile or as parasitic as our alliance with the USSR and Czarist Russia in the two world wars.
Nice try. Roll again.
“As far as Israel being loyal, they aren’t”
No, they are not INFINITELY LOYAL, because they- like every single other nation on the face of this world- places their interests above those of every other nation, including their allies. This is nothing new, and we would be stupid and hypocritical to measure Israel by an impossible standard that we could not be measured by successfully. That being said, they are undoubtedly one of our the more loyal and trustworthy allies we have had historically (and before you try to contradict me, look at our extremely distrustful alliances with the Bourbon Powers during the Revolution, Czarist Russia in WWI, Pilsudski’s Poland in the 1920’s, and the USSR in WWII). And that is good enough for me, and pretty much everybody else who actually UNDERSTANDS what alliances are.
“They have been caught spying on US presidents, they have been caught selling US military secrets to China for deals, they have been caught selling US secrets to Russia during the cold war in exchange for Russian Jews”
And we have undoubtedly been doing similar things to them, the Brits, the Canucks, the Japs, etc. And those nations have probably been doing it right back at us. That tells us NOTHING. The key question is that, when the chips are down, who is Israel more likely to side with: the Russians, the Chinese, or us? The answer should be obvious.
“so no, Israel is not a loyal ally.”
Yes, they are. They are just not an INFINITELY LOYAL ally, as that type of ally does not exist in the real world.
“The country is no more beneficial to the US than Georgia.”
Are you referring to Georgia, the American state, which has long been a valuable agricultural source, has some of the largest stores of granite in the world, and has been a valuable ecconomic and military asset to the US since it was founded? Or Georgia, the Caucasian nation, which is one of our few truly strong allies on the Black Sea and in the Caucasus in light of the Pro-Russian attitude of Armenia, the growing Islamist movement in Turkey, the ambivalence of Romania, and the growing strength of Russia? A nation that also contains some of the only infrastructure for oil from Central Asia that is not dominated by Russia or China (our two most likely non-Islamist state-based foes>) and that also is a rare “jump-off point” for any action we may take in the Caucasus?
Because, either way, I think that sentence doesn’t mean what you think it means.
“No allies don’t spy on other allies”
Lovely. I give you true, honest-to-god HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that allies DO spy on allies, and you counter with THIS. Here is a hint: if you can’t back it up, you only make yourself look like an idiotic blowhard with no grasp of reality.
So, where is the proof to back up your assertion?
“especially when that ally provides backing for every action the smaller less powerful ally takes”
“Every action the smaller, less-powerful ally takes?” Remind me: who was amongst the first, in 1967, to condemn Tel Aviv for its “aggression” on the Arab League’s armies massing aggressively at its borders? Who was one of the most vehement voices that cut the Anglo-Franco-Israeli offensive against an arrogant and hostile Nasserist Egypt off- which ironically was a self-defeating move after Nasser strengthened his ties to Moscow and cut oil to the West off frequently?
The US.
Oh yes, and as for the actual POINT you were trying to make: take a look at the number of spies the Brits and ourselves put in the Greek government during their war with the Greek Communists, and don’t even get me STARTED about the number of moles we placed in the ROK and the RVN.
So, wrong on both counts.
“Allies don’t put plants in other nations governments to direct their foreign policy so that it is aimed at only helping that country”
1. Proof that Israel is actually putting “plants” in as opposed to merely trying to use diplomacy to influence our policy?
2. And this is different from the internal issues of the Free French in WWII, where DeGaulle and Giraud had a number of catfights with Britain and ourselves looking on and influencing events occasionally?
“Not a relevant excuse. We aren’t talking about everyone, we are discussing Israel.”
So, in other words, it is not relevant to point out that virtually every other nation- if not EVERY nation period- does this, but we are expected to treat Israel’s actions without looking at the general mechanics of foreign relations and thus judge her without any heed towards the context those actions take place in?
I call thee a hypocrite and a moron if you honestly think that is possible or just.
“Proof of Israel’s bragging of leading the US? Here you go.”
Thank you. I must say that the link in question does not work, but- in the interests of fairness and for the sake of the argument- I will take your word for it.
I still do not see how this changes any of my salient points, however. It only tells me that, if the story is true, that the Israelis are remarkably unsubtle and rather foolish to say such a thing. That said, I still do not see how this differs from other historical examples, like Allied and German attempts to influence American politics in the WWI era and the interbellum, and thus I do not see how this drastically discredits any of my points.
“No, it would be in setting foreign policy/Middle East policy that is in the interest of the US first and last, with no regard to the well being or the benefit of Israel.”
Ah, but what if one is to calculate our foreign policy in the Middle East on no other criteria then American interests, but the final result STILL advocates an alliance and aid to Israel, in order to form a buffer against the more powerful and hostile Arab League and to distract them and various Islamist threats that could later be used to target American interests abroad- while still retaining a valuable beachhead in the Middle East and the Eastern Med. (Israel, like Taiwan, is “an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier” that we have often used for our own self-interest), something that is all the more important due to Iranian growth and the growing hostility of “alternatives” such as Turkey and Egypt?
Is it not possible for one to, with the savage and ruthless calculus of Realpolitik, justify an Amero-Israeli alliance purely on what would serve American interests best in that region? That is one crucial factor that you seem to be leaving out: that alliances, like our current one with Israel, are rarely purely based on things like the Israel lobby or foreign influence on American policy, but on pure, strategic realities. The fact remains that, without this, the Anglo-French would never have sought out an alliance with Tel Aviv in 1956 to counter Nasser and his allies, that we would never have given support to the Israelis had we not realized that we made a boo-boo empowering Nasser by snubbing the Anglo-Franco-Israelis in 1956 and seeking to check a now even-more powerful Arab League armed and aligned with the Soviets in the leadup to 1967, and that, today, we face enemies that our both our own and Israel’s and that any diversion of them from us is positive, and thus it is worth arming and equipping their other sworn enemy in order to avoid their full force being turned on us?
THIS logic is the bread-and-butter of international alliances: what do we have to gain, what do we have to loose? And sometimes, that means tolerating an ally’s spying and attempts to influence us in exchange for having an ally to fight alongside us against a greater, mutual foe. And this is nothing new, as it is what drove England to support her French rival and Dutch kin against the Hapsburgs of Spain and Austria, what drove Britain to unite with its distrustful German and Russian allies against Napoleonic France, what drove France to unite with its ideological foe Russia and her colonial and ancestral British foe to contain two generations of German expansionism, and what drove a mixture of Western democracies, Latin American tin-pot regimes, African banana republics, Asian pseudo-republics, and Communist dissidents to unite against the USSR.
Convenience.
Sometimes ideological, religious, and historical bonds made those pills far easier and more natural to swallow, but one thing above all dictated alliances: what each member thought it could get out of it.
So, what happens if we agree to shape American policy around protecting American interests, but it turns out that an alliance with Israel REMAINS the favored route to do so in light of other factors? Then what?
“Israel is a sovereign, independent nation they can take care of themselves like every other nation in this world,”
And this is true. But what happens when a mutual threat to both ourselves and them appears on the horizon, and appears too difficult for only one of us to deal with? Then what?
“the US doesn’t owe Israel a damn thing, not money, American lives, nor American influence.”
And I believe that many British and French politicians and generals would have agreed with you in regards to each other in the leadup to WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. But what happens when you wake up to see Germany or the USSR growing in strength and power and you alone do not have the strength to stop it? Is it not wise to look for other nations that are threatened by that, and to forge some kind of agreement with them to stop it?
And, perhaps the key question, how is our alliance with Israel much different from NATO or the Atlantic Pact? And would it have been worth do eliminate those at moments of great danger over things that are the routine in foreign relations?
You must be logged in to post a comment.