QuackQuack's Journal: Free Expression, the war, the flag etc.

Recently Ian Anderson, frontman for the British Rock Band Jethro Tull made some comments about the Americans flying the flag, the war in Iraq and other things that have caused quite a stir in the Classic Rock community.

Now, I have tremendous respect for Ian Anderson, and Tull. Unlike most entertainers who spout off, he is actually articulate, thoughtful, and an original thinker. And he did apologize for the tone of his remarks, saying he misunderstood Americans, and he is basically distressed by the slagging the US and UK are taking from the rest of Europe, and he thinks blind flag waving doesn't help this.

Understood.

But this mentality is not unique to Anderson, and many are not so "understanding".

1. There seems to be a perception that if you fly or display a flag, you are some kind of Nascar-watching, ignorant dolt.

2. Conversly, if you trash this behavior, as well as other aspects of America, it somehow makes you appear intelligent.

3. The current spate of flag-waiving was from the grass-roots. After 9/11, everybody wanted one, and put them everywhere. The govt didn't even have to suggest it, which critics seem to imply happened.

It is possible that you can both be intelligent, know that everything about America isn't perfect and still love your country. I know this isn't in vogue, but there are a great many people who feel this way.

Also, displaying the flag is a form of free expression. Just like complaining about it in an interview is. So is boycotting someone who pissed you off in an interview. Entertainers who spout off always seem to complain about their rights being infringed, forgetting others have rights as well. Ian didn't actually do this, but other entertainers have, Tim Robbins comes to mind, as does Barbara Streisand after the Reagan movie was yanked by CBS, they seem to think that only they have first ammendment rights. Most Americans don't have the "right" to get an interview of themselves published, or make a movie and have CBS show it.

Going back to the original Ian interview, he did say some other odd things. One was that you don't see Europeans waving their flag other than at sporting matches. What is that supposed to suggest? That America should be more like Europe? Maybe Europeans don't love their own countries as much as Americans love theirs? Maybe with good reason? When you have the EU dictating how politics in your country should be... When you have 10% unemployment (Germany). America is not like Europe, nor should it be.

His comments on the Iraq war itself were rather bizarre. He essentially said that it's not even a real war, just a piddly little invasion. Here is where I think he really misses the point.

Maybe in his mind Flag waiving = Nationalism (He brought it up)
Nationalism = Need for country to prove itself
Country prooves itself by launching a "war" against another country, but the other country is no match for even your tiny invasion force.

If that's his line of reasoning, he's mistaken. Being able to kick Saddam or the Taliban out does nothing for our national pride. The wars are about dismantling the terrorist power structure to help prevent another 9/11 style attack (or worse). Only time will tell whether the war in Iraq helps this cause.

That brings me to the next point. He also said that the sanctions/weapon inspections were working fine. Fine?? Were the Iraqi people better off under Saddam? (The president asked this very question in a speech in the UK today, a BBC analyst called it a clever piece of rhetoric. Whatever. )
Before Bush decided to go to war^H^H^Hinvasion, the Iraq sanctions were one of the biggest bones of contention of the "Blame America First" crowd to show the injustice perpertrated by this country. When war^H^H^Hinvasion looked inevitable, they were the ones who started crowing that sanctions were working just fine.

As I said, time will judge Iraq. Right now the opponents are proclaiming "See, no WMD!", "No Al-qaeda connection". On the second point, I recently wrote in this journal about new evidence that seems to shatter that claims (time will tell). As for WMDs, if Saddam truly did not have them, why did he not prove it in 1998 and get the sanctions lifted, instead of kicking out the inspectors? Why did he not let inspectors back in until the last moment? Was that just a bluff?

If I was a leader of a country who was about to be invaded by another that I could not hope to beat unless I proved that I don't have something that I didn't have. I'd do what I could to show that I didn't have it in front of the whold international community, and embarass them in the process, and get my sanctions lifted.

But I'm not Saddam.