It’s a bit difficult to fathom why so many professional commentators are reacting to efforts to defuse the serious unrest in Afghanistan with dyspepsia. Specifically, and rather oddly, the opposition to America’s approach (which has now come from pundits on both sides of the political spectrum) seems to target the very concept of apology, or at least ‘collective’ apology.
Last Friday, Charles Krauthammer called the official mea culpa over a recent incident of Koran-burning “embarrassing,” “groveling,” and “abject self-debasement” on Americans’ part and argued that, if any remorse needed to be expressed at all, “we should’ve had a single apology from the commander on the ground and that’s it.” Then, over the weekend, Muqtedar Khan voiced unease with the apologies in the Washington Post, hinting that they’re essentially meaningless because they were not accompanied (or prefigured) by a total and immediate change of behavior and protocol.
The reason General John Allen, the commander in charge, issued an apology on behalf of his troops is that, as recent discussions of ‘military virtues’ on this blog have pointed out, responsibility in an army is assigned collectively. It’s also because Afghan society is both heavily communal (tribal, really) and deeply religious. A collective statement of that sort makes sense to locals. Krauthammer (and other critics) seem to view the offense through a thoroughly individual lens which finds scant analogy there.
But I admit that, with limited knowledge of the situation, a judgment on whether the Army’s apology was in this instance wise must be withheld. Nevertheless, the concept of a collective apology is not only relevant to this particular case. It’s a concept that stands on its own, stemming from an understanding of responsibility that goes far beyond the untenable individualistic ethos critics seem to be pining for. It finds an analogy in the Church, where the notion of sacrificing for the conversion of others (and even taking on reparation for their sins) is essential. Indeed, without negating each person’s individuality, our collective responsibility is exemplified in the Paschal Mystery. We “unfairly” inherit the effects of original sin, and “I didn’t cause the problem” stands as a thin excuse for inaction against the wide-ranging effects of others’ disobedience. The good or evil one believer does is not severable from the health of the Body as a whole.
Obviously a nation is not an individual, or a church, and that analogy is inexact. Nor ought any group obsess over its past, plunging itself into an endless game of historical deconstruction and victim-soothing, the sort of rabbit hole excursion many perfectly noble institutions have indeed drifted into. But the alternative to this politically-correct excess should not be the opposite excess of never acknowledging fault. If a corporate entity is to claim collective triumphs and disseminate them in a shared culture, neither can it disown its shortcomings or relegate them exclusively to single people. In rare circumstances where a collective apology may be helpful and credible, it’s hardly “grovelling” to issue one. In fact, it can be the mature, sane thing to do; the sign of a person or organization that understands that even ‘isolated’ moral failings have a ripple effect.
It’s also the kind of act that can restore credibility. Pope John Paul II made a public apology for the failings of some Catholics in World War II, to “every woman” for abstract historical “injustices” committed against their sex, and even for the burning of Jan Hus in 1415, despite a conspicuous dearth of remaining eyewitnesses to that event. These apologies alone, of course, hardly abolish the dilemmas they address. But neither do they count for nothing. They’re merely the beginning of a long reparative process, but even a first step to reconciliation is markedly different than the moral chaos which precedes it. If an individual who categorically refuses to apologize is not only churlish but sinister, how much more so for churches and states, “man writ large.” In the long run, that prideful stance can breed more pandemonium–whether on the streets of Kabul or in individual human hearts–than any single slip-up.
February 29th, 2012 | 10:46 am
Isn’t part of the reason for objecting to the apology is that it seems to legitimate the continuing outrage?
These troops did have a reason for burning the books that were being used to transmit messages in a prison. At the most, it was a cultural mistake, not an intentional offense, so there’s no need for top-level apologies.
Plus aren’t people getting just a bit fed up with the insane over-reaction of muslims to rather trivial offenses, while they are happy to go along with horrific abuses and terrorism? When was the last time you saw a riot to oppose an acid attack on a woman, an honor killing, or a suicide bombing?
February 29th, 2012 | 11:16 am
At the most, it was a cultural mistake, not an intentional offense, so there’s no need for top-level apologies.
sallyr,
If you know anything about Islam, you know that they consider copies of the Koran to be deeply sacred. The only analogy I can come up with that conveys the seriousness of desecrating the Koran is (for Catholics) desecrating the Eucharist. The word “cultural mistake,” in my opinion, would hardly apply to either the desecration of the Eucharist or the desecration of the Koran. We are in the realm of religious believe here, not mere “culture.”
That it may have been a foolish error probably seems a great deal more likely to Americans than it does to Afghans. Was the world not treated very recently to a video of US Marines in Afghanistan urinating on the dead bodies of members of the Taliban? I think it is quite possible that the US forces who burned the Korans knew it was improper but simply didn’t care. Has the US military not figured out, after 11 years in Afghanistan, that the Koran is sacred to Muslims?
And of course Santorum’s argument is that it is unnecessary to apologize for something that was inadvertent. That is pure nonsense. If he accidentally steps on someone’s toe, what does he say—”I just want you to know that was inadvertent”?
February 29th, 2012 | 11:47 am
Is there any actual evidence that the defaced Korans were burned because the troops didn’t care about Muslim sensibilities. The proper method for disposing of a damaged or defaced national standard is by burning, every trooper knows this. It’s much likely that the soldiers thought they were acting appropriately.
February 29th, 2012 | 11:58 am
How many innocent people have been killed during the last few years over the mere hint that someone has mishandled the book? In fact, all you have to do is have someone claim you have “insulted” the prophet to get the death penalty in Pakistan, as many poor Christians there have learned. Or simply believe in Jesus, like the Iranian pastor who is facing the death penalty for becoming a Christian.
If you honestly think that an apology will end the killing, have at it. I seriously doubt they care one way or the other if we apologize. There are plenty of people who want to use any excuse they can get to whip people up into murderous frenzies and “Sorry” is very unlikely to change their minds. By the way, Santorum, from what I read, said the local commander should have apologized and left it at that.
February 29th, 2012 | 12:30 pm
The main lesson of this incident is that we need to leave that country as soon as possible. They do not want us there, they do not want development, they do not want Western standards of decency, equality, justice. They want to live as they have since before time began, and nothing we do is going to change that.
We should help evacuate those (mainly women) who want to escape this system, and leave the rest to their chosen way of life. It couldn’t possibly cost a trillion dollars and thousands of US troop’s lives to move a few thousand people out of harms way, could it?
February 29th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
It’s much likely that the soldiers thought they were acting appropriately.
ROB,
Maybe you believe that, but as I pointed out above, it was just last month that we had the video of US Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans. It is not wholly irrational of Afghans to suspect that Americans are less than respectful.
These were troops that clearly were responsible for handling the Koran and other religious literature for Afghan prisoners. We’ve been in Afghanistan 11 years. If the military there has not figured out how to deal with the Koran, they must be exceedingly slow.
Now, of course it goes without saying that in American eyes, Muslims who riot and kill people over cartoons or even possibly deliberate desecration of the Koran are clearly wrong to do so. Also, 30 Afghans have gotten themselves killed over this incident, in contrast to 4 Americans. It does not seem like a rational way to protest. But a high-level apology would have been warranted even if there had not been even so much as a threat of violent protest. You can’t preach religious tolerance and religious freedom for everyone and then turn around and show disrespect for Islam.
February 29th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
The main lesson of this incident is that we need to leave that country as soon as possible.
Slats Grobnik,
I agree. I don’t think we should have gotten bogged down in a war in Afghanistan in the first place. I do think military action against the Taliban was warranted because they harbored al-Qaeda. But it was foolish to invade and stay there for 11 years.
February 29th, 2012 | 5:04 pm
“You can’t preach religious tolerance and religious freedom for everyone and then turn around and show disrespect for Islam.”
and it doesn’t help your credibility when you are violating the religious freedom of your own citizenry.
February 29th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
“I think it is quite possible that the US forces who burned the Korans knew it was improper but simply didn’t care. Has the US military not figured out, after 11 years in Afghanistan, that the Koran is sacred to Muslims?” As usual, we are being subjected to all sorts of distorted comments based on nothing but speculation from armchair warriors thousands of miles from the scene.
Here’s an interesting angle on desecration of the Koran by terrorist inmates at Bagram:
“A Western military official with knowledge of the incident said it appeared that the Qurans and other Islamic readings in the [Bagram] library were being used to fuel extremism and that detainees at Parwan Detention Facility, which adjoins Bagram, were writing on the documents to exchange extremist messages. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
The military official said that several hundred Islamic publications, including Qurans, were removed from the library. Some of the publications had extremist content; others had extremist messages written on their pages by detainees, the official said. The official said the documents were charred and burned, but none of them were destroyed.”
February 29th, 2012 | 7:55 pm
and it doesn’t help your credibility when you are violating the religious freedom of your own citizenry
peg,
Surely to Afghan Muslim eyes, the United States has “religious freedom” to a degree they would find horrifying. I don’t think they would shake their heads and say how oppressive the contraceptive mandate is.
March 1st, 2012 | 7:46 am
“Surely to Afghan Muslim eyes, the United States has “religious freedom” to a degree they would find horrifying. I don’t think they would shake their heads and say how oppressive the contraceptive mandate is.”
if they are paying attention to us at all, they would know there is an outcry from a large quarter claiming that secular power is trampling on religion. I doubt they would care much about the minutiae of the oppression—contraception, insurance, Sibelius, etc. They’d see the forest for the trees.
I don’t have experience living in Afghanistan, but in other conservative Moslem societies in which I have lived, there is a pecking order of respect—secularists don’t rate highly. The intrusion of temporal authority in areas properly in the bailiwick of Higher Authority is held in contempt.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:35 am
If you know anything about Islam, you know that they consider copies of the Koran to be deeply sacred. The only analogy I can come up with that conveys the seriousness of desecrating the Koran is (for Catholics) desecrating the Eucharist.
And yet, people mishandle the Eucharist, and nobody gets killed.
If you know anything at all about game theory (or animal behavior), you know – or would know – that responding to “alpha male”-style dominance aggression with deference or appeasement is likely to increase, not decrease, the dominance display behavior.
A nation’s first duty is the defense of its citizenry. It is not sound strategy for national leaders supposedly committed to protecting the well-being of its citizens to respond to threats to one’s citizens by rolling over and offering one’s neck.
Apologies are appropriate in exchanges where all the participants are agreeing to the certain standards of behavior. In cases where the person you are dealing with is following the logic of the animal kingdom rather than the rules of civilization, then the one who shows weakness is likely to end up pecked to death.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact