Nothing Human Is Alien To Me
Stumble Upon
Newsvine
Mixx
Diigo
Delicious
Reddit
Facebook
Ralph Peters somehow always manages to outdo himself. Not satisfied with being staggeringly wrong throughout the presidential campaign on Obama’s foreign policy, among other things, Peters now aspires to fit every last stereotype of militaristic imperialists, according to whom our rebel subjects are not merely misguided, backward or even simply evil, but are actually not really human:
A fundamental reason why our intelligence agencies, military leaders and (above all) Washington pols can’t understand Afghanistan is that they don’t recognize that we’re dealing with alien life-forms.
Oh, the strange-minded aliens in question resemble us physically. We share a few common needs: We and the aliens are oxygen breathers who require food and water at frequent intervals. Our body casings feel heat or cold. We’re divided into two sexes (more or less). And we’re mortal.
But that’s about where the similarities end, analytically speaking.
Yes, if there’s one thing the last eight years have shown it is that Washington politicians are prone to too many fits of respecting our enemies’ humanity! So many times we have had to plead with them: please treat Arabs and Afghans like alien beings! But would they listen to us? No! Their dedication to human dignity knew no bounds. Their tender concern for the “body casings” of enemy combatants was so great that you could easily confuse the subjects for human beings if you weren’t careful. Fortunately Peters is here to remind us that we are not really dehumanizing our enemies with propaganda and unjust treatment, since they are not really human in the first place. Where would we be without Peters’ keen insights?
It would be easy to dismiss Peters as deranged or simply hateful, but that does not give him enough credit. Every ideologue is tempted to follow the route Peters is going, and every person is tempted at times by the appeal of one ideology or another, and invariably the result is the same. Ideology teaches that those who do not fit into a universal scheme, whatever it claims about human nature and society, cannot really be human or at least they are not deserving of the treatment accorded to fully rational human beings. If another people has radically different cultural values that order things in an entirely different way, it is ultimately not enough to acknowledge that the values of different cultures clash, sometimes violently, or even that one culture may be deeply wrong about many things. It is apparently necessary to insist that the people who practice that culture are not the same species and do not share our nature, which implies that we do not have to afford them the same protections and respect that we extend to our fellow man.
At the end, of course, Peters must retreat and claim that he just wants this to be an “exercise” that is “meant to break our mental gridlock, to challenge our crippling assumption that we’re all merry brothers and sisters who just have to work through a few small understandings.” Yes, we are so badly crippled–obviously we have been suffering from an excess of empathy and recognition of shared humanity. If the pious internationalist claim that “all people just want the same thing” is misleading, Peters’ position is far, far worse in that he seems unable to imagine that other people could hold views that are radically alien to his own without falling into the habit of describing them as members of another species.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
4 Responses to “Nothing Human Is Alien To Me”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.



Well, at least he’s honest: We can do whatever we want to the Mooslems because they aren’t people. Explains a lot, actually.
It’s remarkable to see that after a spectacular electoral shellacking, the Republican establishment just double down on the simple-minded idiocy that got them there in the first place. Taxes bad. Muslims bad. Spending bad. Joe the Plumber good.
This reminds me of John Podhoretz’s column from (I think) 2006, in which he coyly suggested that we “win” in Iraq by launching a campaign of genocide targeting Sunni Arab Iraqis. Peters’ column is similar; both men drop the pretense that American foreign policy is about helping foreigners, and baldly begin from the assumption that foreigners are insects that might have to be crushed in the name of American “security” and American “values.”
Peters claims that he’s not saying Afghans are inferior, only that they’re different. And he goes on to point out that they’re different because, while we want good things for our children, Afghans want to murder their children and/or encourage their children to commit suicide. He also implies, bizarrely, that sexual hypocrisy and non-procreative sex are oddball alien traits that define Afghans in opposition to Americans.
Peters derides the idea that we can get anywhere in Afghanistan if we assume that Afghans want physical and economic security. There are limits to how much we can accomplish if we start with that assumption. But we managed to avoid an even worse catastrophe in Iraq in part by belatedly embracing the limited goals of providing security and basic services to as many Iraqis as possible. If we’re going to be in Afghanistan at all I think that we’ll be best off, morally and strategically, if we start from the assumption that Afghans are people.
Or we could start from Peters’ assumption that Afghans are perverted aliens who hate their children. Let’s see how far that gets us! Best case scenario: nowhere. Worst case scenario: genocide. Great!
Metropolitan Jonah said this, on Sanctity of Life Sunday:
Describes Peters’s way of thinking to a T. He needs our prayers, difficult as that may be.
Hobbes in Aubrey’s life, right?