"HONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOM" : WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING IN IRAQ?

AN ESSAY

Two weeks ago, I watched Paul Greengrass' searing Green Zone. Although the movie masquerades as a pure action thriller, it actually deeply criticizes American involvement in Iraq, especially the manufactured casus belli that led us to war. At several points during the movie,my emotions surged. I have always spoken out against the War in Iraq. I always considered it an illegitimate, illegal, unethical, imperialist venture without justification in law, justice or good policy. The movie showed raw American power at work. And that reawakened my slumbering vitriol about the war.

Green Zone opens in the din of an air raid. It is March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. air force began bombing Baghdad. Sirens wail. We hear the buildings shudder as explosions rip through the city. Iraqi men and women frantically run through hallways, shouting and screaming. We see lights flickering. Dust falls from ceilings. Windows break. Then the shot pans out to a vista over the city. Massive fireballs light up the night. Buildings burn. Anti-aircraft fire streaks into the sky. Jet engines and cruise missiles boom through the air before yet another explosion rips the skyline.

That scene choked me up. So that's American power, isn't it: The power to bomb a city into oblivion. The power to make civilians scramble in panic as the house next door explodes into a million pieces. The power to knock out electricity and destroy infrastructure. And for what? In hindsight, I knew there was no justification for the war. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not plan 9/11, nor did any Iraqis hijack the planes that attacked the United States. No, America flexed its muscles against Iraq simply because it could. It ignored the United Nations and its weapons inspectors. It acted with breathtaking defiance, even if it mumbled about "reliable independent intelligence" concerning an Iraqi nuclear arms program.

Worse, we're still there, seven years and 6000 American dead later. That's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and countless more lives ruined for nothing.

War apologists will inevitably label be a socialist for making these observations. They will tell me that "intelligence was uncertain" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in early 2003, so it was better to be "safe than sorry." They will also tell me that America had "good reason" to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people. In fact, they will stress the fact that America "fights for freedom" around the world; even if we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq, at least we gave Iraqis democracy.

I recoil from this facetious "freedom" explanation for the invasion. The argument is not just illogical; it also shows American involvement in Iraq for what it really is: A selective, hypocritical, arbitrary application of brute force. It is illogical because America does not really care about "worldwide freedom." In the first place, it is presumptuous to even suggest that "American-style freedom" can work in diverse cultures around the world. And even if such a thing as "freedom" were universal, why stop with Iraq? George W. Bush said that the war was necessary because "Iraqis needed freedom from a murderous tyrant who tortured and gassed his own people." Yet there are many nations across the globe that need the same treatment. The "freedom" rationale--if believed--would require U.S. military involvement in virtually every sub-Saharan African nation, as well as Saudi Arabia, several southeast Asian countries and even Russia. There are "tyrants" in all those nations who "murder their own people."

So why haven't we attacked all these other countries? If we truly care about "freedom," we should attack Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Pakistan and Malaysia. The fact that we haven't shows that our involvement in Iraq is purely selective. And because the freedom rationale is so weak, it begs the real question: Why Iraq? Only a naïve idiot could believe that America had a genuine interest in "Iraqis' freedom from tyranny." So what was the real reason?

For a long time, I thought that America invaded Iraq to gain access to its lucrative oil reserves. The cynic in me can never really suppress the thought. Yet after seven years of occupation, oil prices are no lower than they were in 2002. In fact, they have even spiked several times in the ensuing years. With oil men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the White House, Iraq's oil must have been one reason why they decided to invade. In retrospect, it should have been an easy assignment: Knock out Saddam, capture the oil fields, set up some pipelines and start pumping.

But it did not work out that way. The war planners encountered a set of problems they did not anticipate: Sectarian strife. They must have underestimated how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq. They could not set up their pipelines or build their oil-carrying infrastructure because the Iraqis did not just roll over and allow the Americans to have their way with their country. They sabotaged roads, blew up tankers, ambushed convoys and beheaded "contractors." And because men like Donald Rumsfeld woefully miscalculated how much force would be needed to subdue Iraq, the U.S. military never had sufficient strength to pacify the countryside. Rumsfeld thought a "small, rapidly mobile force" with overwhelming air power could claim Iraq.

He was wrong. In the end, U.S. forces in Iraq wound up fighting a desperate "fire brigade" war in which they struggled to respond to local hotspots without bringing overall stability to the country. As a consequence, America could not realize its initial commercial war goal: Oil mercantilism.

Still, I am not writing today to summarize America's strategic failure in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to stress that America's failure was far larger than mere military stalemate. America sacrificed much more than young soldiers' blood to occupy Iraq. It also sacrificed its historically "moral high ground" in war by engaging in illegal, unethical behavior on an unprecedented scale. In the end, American occupiers showed themselves little better than the Baathist torturers they set out to depose in 2003.

Green Zone alludes to this. In brief, the movie follows an army officer (Matt Damon) assigned to locate nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" at various sites throughout Baghdad. After coming up empty every time, he begins to wonder whether his intelligence is sound. He decides to investigate his sources and gradually uncovers a tangled web of official deceit running all the way down from the Pentagon. When he realizes that the Pentagon has basically misled the army into supporting the war, he sets out to locate an Iraqi general who met with a senior Pentagon official (Greg Kinnear) prior to the war. The general told the Pentagon official that Iraq had no WMD program. The Pentagon official lied about what the general said and told Washington that Iraq did have such a program. To prevent the truth from emerging, the Pentagon official sends a hit squad to kill the general. Meanwhile, the army officer rushes to save him and expose the truth.

Green Zone's plotline makes for a good thriller. But it also makes a valuable point: America's case for war against Iraq was marred from the outset. It was built upon official deception. It threw ethics to the wind and committed American blood for fabricated reasons. The movie shows the American government working in a criminally underhanded manner. It shows senior American officials manipulating the truth and authorizing murder to conceal it. While Green Zone might just be a movie, it is certainly based on real events.

I thought America was supposed to be better than this. What ever happened to America as the "White Knight" of international politics? There was a time when America went to war for good things--and only as a last resort. There was a time when people around the world looked to America as a beacon of freedom and justice. During that time, no one would have dared think America could be tyrannical or evil. America did not lie, cheat, deceive, torture, murder or kill. It punished those who did while remaining true to its ethical principles. Hitler tortured, killed and invaded. America liberated the death camps and freed Europe from Nazi domination. That was noble and just. That was America's international reputation. That America could never act a villain.

Sadly, America did act a villain in Iraq. In a telling scene, Green Zone reminds us that American forces committed atrocities against Iraqi prisoners. It shows us a "detainee camp" in which U.S. forces hold allegedly "high-value" Iraqis in a stockade. It shows U.S. troops brutalizing prisoners with clubs, barking dogs and extremely loud music. It shows them forcing prisoners to sit in uncomfortable positions. We hear prisoners crying out in pain from darkened solitary cells. Some even lie bleeding on the floor without medical care.

Ironically, a sign over the stockade reads: "Camp So-and-So : Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom."

What kind of freedom is this? What kind of honor? It is as if the American army in Iraq still believed that it was the "White Knight" of 1945, even though its "intelligence division" members acted more like SS torturers than noble liberators.

There is no honor in torture or inhumane treatment. America said it waged war in Iraq to overthrow tyranny and torture. Yet within weeks, it began committing the same outrages on Iraqi prisoners that Saddam committed against his own people. Of course, war apologists will say that troops in the field must discover valuable battlefield intelligence "by any means necessary." That may be so as a practical matter. But America used to draw ethical strength from its refusal to engage in the unsavory tactics of its enemies. America acquired a sterling reputation because it refused to be Machiavellian.

We have drifted far from our ethical moorings. The war in Iraq has cost this country more than individual soldiers. It has also cost us our international reputation. We are no longer noble liberators committed to justice. Rather, we are now petulant rogues who wage war simply because we want to, without regard to ethics or international law. Our involvement in Iraq is a very dark chapter in American history. It is the chapter in which America became just another Machiavellian State determined to do its will, no matter the cost in blood or principle.

I wonder whether we will ever repair the damage we have done to ourselves.

FLAG-BURNING AND NATIONALISM : WHOSE FLAG IS BETTER?

A REFLECTION

Flag-burning is an interesting subject. So are flags. The first thing I notice when I get back to the States from a long trip to Germany is that there are flags all over the place. In Berlin, you only see flags on the Bundestag building, and that's understandable because it's the seat of government. But private citizens don't fly German flags over their homes, businesses don't drape them over their lobbies, people don't sticker them to their cars and they certainly don't wear flag lapel pins, even the newscasters.

By contrast, it seems that flags are everywhere in the United States. From the moment you step off the plane you see flags. There are flags hanging everywhere at the airport. You can buy little flags at the gift shop, people wear flag T-shirts and even the Dunkin Donuts shop sports a flag, since it is very patriotic to buy pastries and coffee. Outside the airport, there are even more flags. You can't drive through many suburban neighborhoods without seeing flags in windows, flags on poles on lawns, and, if you go inside a house, flags on quilts and blankets, or flags in picture frames. If you get a cocktail at a bar, you might find a paper-flag toothpick in it. Car dealers fly enormous flags over their parking lots. So do amusement parks and waterslides. In New York, every commercial building has a flag in it. Every apartment building I've ever lived in has had a flag in the lobby. I don't know how paying rent to a private landlord (who probably hates taxes) is patriotic, but what do I know?

America is unabashedly nationalistic. It doesn't like flag-burning because it loves flags. Many Americans attach mythical status to their flag. Personally, I don't like unchecked nationalism. I think it's fine to be proud of your country, but I don't feel the need to blare it by displaying flags and shouting down those who burn them. Not only that, but Americans don't really object to flag-burning "in the abstract." You can burn an Afghani or Russian flag and no one would give a fart. No, Americans don't like American flag-burning. So it's more a selective objection than a principled one.

Congress criminalized American flag-burning in the late 1980s. In a brave moment, the Supreme Court invalidated that law. But many saw the same case as a betrayal and reviled the Supreme Court for deciding it. Trouble is, we have a little thing called the "First Amendment" which guarantees "free speech." I think flag-burning is speech. You might hate what the speaker believes, but I think he has a right to say it without being jailed.

Beyond that, I find America's obsession with flags very disturbing. Relentless nationalism is dangerous, pure and simple. If anyone knows that, it's the Germans. That's why they aren't so zealous about flying flags all over the place anymore. 50 million dead worldwide (including genocide) convinced Germany that blind patriotism really wasn't a healthy prescription for anyone, including themselves.

I have difficulty according blind respect to any symbol. True, the American flag has long stood as a symbol for democracy, freedom and self-government. But sadly our Nation often falls short on its promises. As a "world leader," it often comes across as intransigent and churlish, not compassionate or principled. If people burn the American flag, they probably object to some perceived injustice America has committed. In my view, it makes no sense to categorically condemn flag-burning without at least acknowledging what the speaker means to say. Perhaps America truly has done something blameworthy. If we are committed to our principles, shouldn't we want to rectify a bad situation rather than ignore it?

This is the trouble with nationalism: It prevents people from rationally considering divergent opinions, even if they voice legitimate objections. From a nationalist's perspective, there is the "American way" or there is "no way." But life is never so simple. Still, America's love affair with flags all too often reveals that many Americans believe exactly that. In my view, simple-mindedness is not something to be proud of. It is just foolish. And it stifles rational dialogue that could lead to progress.

SOME THINGS CHANGE FAST

A REFLECTION

This morning I thought about how fast some things change. Sometimes history can change in an instant. So can our lives as individuals. Developments are not always measured or even reasonable. Sometimes we deserve things; sometimes reason scolds us because we "should have anticipated results." Yet sometimes events strike from the blue and change everything overnight. There is no logic in these sudden changes. They defy the notion that life can be planned. In large part, they strengthen my belief that something beyond reason and "chance" works in our lives.

In 1942, the Japanese were winning the Pacific War. In May, a Japanese fleet was steaming toward Midway Island. The Japanese planned to destroy America's aircraft carriers and take the island. Japanese pilots were far superior to the Americans at this stage in the war. They had experience. They had high morale. They had never lost a battle. They had every reason to think they would win the upcoming battle.

But they did not. By chance, the Japanese had to switch their bombers from ground attack mode after they discovered American ships nearby. For twenty minutes, all their bombers stood dangerously exposed on carrier flight decks while crew members switched torpedoes to bombs. Fuel was strewn all over the place. At that precise moment, an American bomber squadron was overhead. They had no idea the Japanese were refueling and rearming. The American bombers swooped down at this critical moment. They sank three of Japan's four mightiest carriers in five minutes. It was pure luck. Japan never recovered from this catastrophic blow. For better or worse, America did not win the Battle of Midway by skill. They won because they profited from fortune.

Such moments do not just occur in war. They occur in everyday lives, too. Consider my life partner's story. One night two years ago, he walked into a gym. At that moment, he was healthy and had everything to live for. He suffered a freak burn accident in the gym. He spent 15 days in an ICU and almost died several times. Since then, he has never been the same. One moment he was healthy. The next moment, he was crippled. Bizarre accidents happen to many people; I report this incident because I know about it. I have seen how (mis)fortune can radically transform individual lives in an instant.

Things do not always change gradually. Sometimes they change without reason, defying our expectations. Our assumptions can transform in an instant. Sometimes fortune strikes for the better. Other times, it strikes for the worse. No matter how fortune falls, it defies our logic. We cannot account for "randomness," yet "random" events change history and our own lives in equal measure. Some say that we can predict events based on circumstances from which to make "educated guesses" about the future. Yet no one could have made an "educated guess" about the Japanese refueling their planes at the moment the American bombers were overhead, nor could I have made an "educated guess" about the disaster that befell my life partner. When fortune falls, our logic appears woefully inadequate.

Should we then embrace destiny? Does some other power ordain these seemingly random events? I have written that destiny appeals to me--even as an empiricist--because my all-too human senses can neither prove nor disprove it. I am content to believe that there are things I cannot know. This does not mean I subscribe to a particular religion. Rather, studying history and experiencing life both teach me that it is mature to acknowledge limitations to our capacity for knowledge in this world. By the same token, I am deeply skeptical of anyone who claims that "he can know" anything in life. He obviously has not suffered a random misfortune.

On the other hand, perhaps everything is truly random. There is no way to say one way or the other. Yet that is a disheartening thought.

THE MILITARY IS SOCIALISTIC BECAUSE IT CARES ABOUT ITS OWN MEN

AN ESSAY

Several days ago, I watched a documentary about American military strategy against Japan during World War II. The basic lesson boiled down to this: “America won not by overwhelming manpower, but rather by overwhelming firepower.” Unlike the Japanese—and especially the Russians—American military leaders recoiled from suffering heavy casualties in battle. Instead, they preferred to leverage massive technological advantages against their enemies, ostensibly because they cared about their soldiers’ lives. In the Pacific, this involved blasting the Japanese with massive battleships, airplanes and tanks. Obviously some infantrymen had to die in the final push to take island fortresses, but not before the Navy and Air Force gravely weakened the defenders with numbing firepower. In essence, although America mustered huge numbers of military personnel in World War II—over 16 million—commanders won battles without subjecting them to unnecessary risks.

That tradition continued after the war ended. In virtually every conflict America has fought since 1945, the military has put a premium on technology over manpower. Manpower is vital to operate the technology, but American strategy bets on technology to win battles, not massed men. In Vietnam, the Air Force dropped countless tons of bombs on the jungle in an effort to root out the Viet Cong. B-52 bombers razed North Vietnam’s cities to the ground. When American troops got in trouble, they called in air support to hammer their attackers. In most cases, the Air Force faced no opposition at all. They freely bombed, napalmed and strafed their enemies. American soldiers died. But a whole lot more Vietnamese did.

In Operation Desert Storm, America took its “technological” approach to war to the ultimate level. By 1991, the United States held sway over a formidable new “computerized” arsenal, including invincible tanks, stealth bombers and “smart bombs” that could home in on individual targets. Again, although America deployed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Gulf, the technology did the fighting. Day and night, the Air Force systematically pulverized the Iraqi army. By the time the Army moved in, there was almost nothing left to shoot. And once the advance into Kuwait began, the Army savagely destroyed anything that resisted. This time, only a handful of American soldiers died, while up to 100,000 Iraqis did. So complete was the slaughter that more American troops fell to friendly fire than to enemy action.

Beginning in 2003, America has attempted to leverage its “technological” approach to warfare in Iraq. Despite initial successes against “conventional” resistance on the way to toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, American strategy bogged down once the conventional battlelines disappeared. The guerrilla “insurgency” that arose after Saddam’s fall continues to this day. American troops must engage in demoralizing patrols. Often, they are hard pressed to tell civilians from foes. In most cases, they never even see their attackers, who either wait in ambush or plant traps for them along the roads. Technology counts for nothing in these circumstances. And this is why—despite the smug confidence of men like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush—the capabilities of “technology-based” armies in the 21st Century have their limits.

Yet I do not fully criticize America’s “technological” or “standoff” approach to war. America fights wars all the time. True, they are not colossal, World War II-style struggles between established States. But they are wars nonetheless. America solves problems with warfare. It defends its ideology and commercial interests with warfare, just as every Empire in history has done. Perhaps this is what dominant world powers must do. And at least America is not reckless when it fights. It does its utmost to ensure that few Americans die. Officially, it tries to reduce civilian casualties, but civilian casualties are unavoidable when deploying such immense firepower. America avoids losing its own men by deploying firepower. If it kills some civilians in order to save Americans, it will. That is just how the game works.

I do not criticize America’s war methodology to the extent that American military leaders care about American lives. There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid unnecessary deaths. In fact, one might even say it is compassionate. Throughout history, many military leaders viewed their own men with contempt. They did not blink when hurling them into certain death. Generally speaking, however, American commanders rarely do this. While some men always must die to fulfill dangerous objectives, the real question is how many must die. The Russians never cared how many soldiers died. They just threw everyone in and trusted their overwhelming manpower to win. By contrast, American commanders actually take pains to reduce risks to their own troops by first inundating the enemy with firepower. In a strange way, this reflects care for individual lives. It might subject noncombatants to huge risks and inflict horrific losses on the enemy. But it is still “care.” American military commanders don’t hesitate to kill the enemy. They just don’t like seeing Americans get killed. It actually really bothers them.

I mention this because care for soldiers reflects a peculiarly benevolent, well-intentional government paternalism. In America, that is rare. In civilian life, for example, Americans learn to be independent economic creatures. They learn to “make their own way” without State help. They don’t get free health insurance; they bear the full price of irresponsibility, bad luck and failure. American civilians depend on themselves, not State apparati. In fact, Americans are patriotic largely to the extent that the American “Nation” provides them a “liberty sphere” in which they can pursue their own interests without interference from the government. They like America because America “leaves them alone” and lets them get rich. They don’t want help, because help is for weaklings. They want to be happy, independent economic producers who pursue their own self-interest. For the most part, the government lets them do exactly this. It does not step in when civilians suffer hardship or loss. It lets them bear suffering with remarkable indifference. It does not really “care” for them like a watchful parent does.

Not so in the military. The military is a governmental institution that shows incredible care for its members. In the military, the emphasis does not lie on the individual; it lies on the group. There is a “group mission” and “group ethics” that bind everyone to common—and noncommercial—goals. There is common care for each member. It may be harsh care, but it is still care. If a solider gets sick, army hospitals care for him. He does not have to worry about rent, food, clothing or bills. The military provides him everything he needs, leaving him free to focus solely on the “group mission.” Finally, American commanders truly care that their troops do not die in battle. This represents true government care. Symbolically, when military commanders actively worry about their soldiers’ lives, it represents government caring about its citizens. This differs from civilian life. If a civilian encounters unavoidable circumstances that put his life in jeopardy, that’s his problem. The civilian authorities do not care.

Should we be proud about this? Why does government care not extend throughout all of society, not just certain institutions like the military? Do we have to confront mortal danger in combat before the government starts really worrying about our well-being in life? The United States spends half its gross national product on maintaining the military. This includes all the fancy technology that gives the military the “overwhelming firepower” it needs to preserve its “manpower.” People complain that the government spends too much on things like stealth bombers, unmanned robot tanks and sophisticated airstrike guidance systems. But all these expenditures reflect care for individual soldiers’ lives, not just a desire to defeat potential enemies. Stealth bombers efficiently destroy things so that military commanders do not have to put American soldiers in jeopardy to fulfill a particular objective. The pricetag for stealth bombers, then, indirectly saves American lives by insulating American soldiers from combat risks.

For a country that prides itself on “self-reliance” and “making your own way,” it is quite striking that America spends so much money protecting those who are not self-reliant. After all, military personnel are quintessentially dependent: They depend on the military for everything, from equipment to food to accommodations to emotional support. In essence, the Armed Forces represent a massive welfare State dedicated to the safety and well-being of its members. It is ironic that most military personnel consider themselves conservative when they directly benefit from extravagant government largesse on every level.

In fact, they get the best. There are less than 5 million Americans in the Armed Forces, yet half the GDP goes to support them. The other 295 million Americans have to make do with the other half.

America can be socialistic when it wants to be. American support for the military—and the military’s obsessive care for its own members—proves this. That is why I do not think that “socialism” and “America” exclude one another. Our military is a shining example that Americans can truly care about each other from a social perspective. American commanders do not like to see their soldiers die; they take great, expensive pains to ensure that they do not. That spirit should permeate our entire society, not just the military. Yes, it costs a lot. But it bears tangible benefits. When individuals know that they have recourse to assistance when they need it, they feel good to be part of a larger community that cares about them. Soldiers feel proud to be in the Armed Forces for the same reason; they know the military will support them as long as they do not commit some gross infraction.

Considering all these factors, the military is a socialistic institution. It is not capitalistic at all. It might fight to protect capitalistic ideals among civilians, but capitalism in the military would destroy its cohesion and esprit de corps. If the military practiced capitalistic ideals, soldiers and officers would struggle to exploit one another for personal gain, not to advance “common goals” or “the mission.” Soldiers would fight for “themselves,” not their “buddies” or great principles such as “freedom,” “honor” or “sacrifice.” If the military were capitalistic, soldiers on the battlefield would say to their wounded comrades: “That’s your problem, pal.” Some Lieutenants would be richer than other Lieutenants, even though the regulations say that everyone with the same rank is equal. And if the military practiced capitalism, it would not really care if some undifferentiated soldiers died in a battle as long as it did not impose a cost “on profitable operations.” This is certainly not the case in the military as it exists in the United States. It cares too much about others’ lives; that is why it is not a capitalistic institution. Rather, it is a socialistic institution within a capitalistic society. And it would not be effective in battle if it were not essentially socialistic.

America can learn from the military. Military life is in many ways a rarefied existence. Military personnel are insulated from the pernicious “buy, sell, make money” cycle that typifies civilian life. Every soldier has a chance to advance based on his merit, not his money. He does not worry about bills, rent, clothing or electricity. Instead, he focuses his mind and body on larger “missions” that transcend his own commercial gain. And he knows that his officers truly care that he lives. These are not bad ideals. In fact, they are quite noble compared to the usual impulses that drive civilian life. Soldiers are not “on their own” in a society that could care less whether they live, die or go bankrupt. They are part of a family that cares. It may care harshly, but it still cares.

In the American military, commanders care so much about their soldiers’ lives that they are willing to level whole cities in order to protect them. We do not have to go that far in order to care about our fellow citizens. The military experience proves that America can actively care about its own people, even if it professes “self-reliance” and “total independence.” I would find it refreshing to know that civilian authorities cared as much whether individual citizens live or die as military commanders care whether their soldiers live or die. This might be socialistic. But it is also quintessentially humanitarian.

TORTURED PERSPECTIVES : GERMANY

AN ESSAY

Living in the United States, you could be forgiven if you truly thought that all Germans were militaristic killers who secretly worship Hitler. You could be forgiven if you thought that Germans were all icy technocrats who prize efficiency over all else. You could even be forgiven if you thought that all Germans hate Jews. In a word, the American media--through television, film and press--has perpetuated a dangerous stereotype linking "Germans" to "Nazis." Television programs involving Germany typically focus on some barbaric cruelty inflicted during World War II, while most movies involving Germany show Germans murdering innocent civilians, or at least goose-stepping around in slickly-polished boots. The image alternates between the savage and the ruthlessly efficient. If these are the only images an American sees, he can be forgiven for thinking that all Germans are like the sadistic concentration camp commandant in Schindler's List or the treacherous soldier in Saving Private Ryan who slowly stabs an American Jew to death. If this is all you see, what impression will you form?

At the outset, I must be very clear: the Holocaust DID happen and I cannot condemn more strongly the conduct of Germany's National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945. But I find it unfortunate--and historically unfair--to judge Germany solely on these 12 years. By focusing exclusively on Nazi atrocities during World War II, we blind ourselves to earlier German history. That history reveals an image far less brutal than the one so often shown in movie theaters.

World War II fascinates virtually everybody; and for good reason. There has never been such a cataclysmic encounter between clear "villains" and "the forces of freedom." No war in history has even approached the immense scale and horror experienced between 1939 and 1945. But for all our fascination, we cannot view World War II in a vacuum; earlier events led to the war. The key "earlier event" was World War I.

Almost no one talks about World War I anymore. Almost all World War I veterans are dead. Hollywood does not make movies about it, and it all seems impossibly remote to a modern listener. This is a terrible mistake, because World War I is the key event in modern history. World War II--along with the villainous Germany that facilitated it--would never have happened had World War I never taken place. No other war in history has so altered accepted political and social systems as World War I. Before 1914, monarchs held sway over vast European and foreign empires. After 1918, monarchy was out. The true "modern age" had begun, along with all its intractable modern complexities and industrialized violence. World War II continued the battles left unfinished in 1918. Yet because its scale and drama was greater than World War I--and because it came later--it overshadowed its predecessor. World War II is like the noontime sun, while World War I is like a star that cannot be seen during the day: The light from the sun overpowers the light from the star, even though the star is right there next to the sun.

What does all this have to do with Germany? Just because World War II has burned itself more intensely into our collective memories does not mean it should blind us to other history. If we use World War II as our only historical guide, we would be right to think that Germany was always an intolerant, brutal Nation, even in World War I. But this would be utterly inaccurate. I have often asked acquaintances what they think would have happened had Germany won World War I. Most say that Germany would have conquered all of Europe and subjected all Nations to Hitler-style persecution. I disagree with this assessment, but I know where it comes from: The superimposition of World War II onto all other historical inquiries concerning Germany.

So what was Germany like in the years preceding World War I? Was it a ruthless, intolerant dictatorship as so many Americans believe? Absolutely not. Germany was a constitutional monarchy ruled by a Parliament and an Emperor. The Emperor--like an American President--had Executive power but could not make laws. All males could vote, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Polish or Muslim. The fact that only males could vote at the time should not be seen as repression; even in the United States women were excluded from voting during the same period. Beginning in the 1880s, Germany guaranteed health care, unemployment insurance, social security pensions and accident compensation to all its citizens. Germany dedicated an immense part of its budget to caring for wounded veterans. In 1901, Germany had the third-largest Jewish population in Europe, thanks to a State policy of religious tolerance and excellent commercial opportunities. In 1912, Marxists composed the largest contingency in Parliament. Although the Emperor was unelected, he depended on the democratically-elected Reichstag to enact legislation. There was even a constitutional free press guarantee.

Does this sound like Nazi Germany? Religious freedom? Freedom of the press? Universal health care and unemployment insurance? Marxists in Parliament? Democratic elections for representatives in Parliament? It is hard to imagine a starker contrast. Although Imperial Germany vested executive power in a monarch, virtually every European country embraced monarchy in some form during this period. Even "democracies" like the United States did not provide social care to their citizens, nor did they so readily tolerate left-wing political expression in government.

Why does no one remember these liberal traditions in German history? Again, World War II has poisoned foreign understandings about Germany. It would not fit the barbaric stereotype about Germany if Americans suddenly learned that Germany had universal health care and unemployment insurance in 1884. After all, barbaric governments do not provide such compassionate assistance to their citizens. Nor do tyrannical governments allow political expression and universal suffrage. Yet Imperial Germany provided all these things to its citizens at a time when even the United States did not.

World War II also poisoned foreign understandings about Germany's motives in World War I. Under the "World War II" view, Americans think that Germany was a belligerent Nation bent on world domination. In 1939, Germany launched a war of aggression against its neighbors. It initiated vicious racial purification programs in the conquered territories, eradicating both ethnic and political opposition. It appeared to have no intention to relinquish the countries it conquered. But in 1914, Germany blundered into war without any intention to permanently annex new territory, let alone to exterminate millions in ethnic and religious minorities. Germany invaded France because it had treaty obligations to Austria-Hungary, which foolishly triggered war with Russia, France's ally. Throughout World War I, Germany was not fighting to exterminate "Untermenschen" or expand Germany's "Lebensraum." It was fighting due to a failed system of European alliances. If Germany had won World War I, there would have been no World War II-style oppression. Most likely, Germany would have taken some punitive steps against its adversaries, but would certainly not have begun slaughtering Jews, Poles, gypsies, homosexuals and Communists. After all, Jews, Poles, Communists and--although not declared as such--homosexuals formed essential parts of Germany's political system. In a word, Germany in World War I was not an intolerant Nation bent on world domination. Yet through the lens of World War II, many Americans assume that Germany "has always been" both intolerant and repressive.

I do not hide the fact that I am partial to Germany for several reasons. First, I am of direct German descent. Second, based on my studies I believe that Germany has borne an unfair stigma for a very limited period in its history. While this does not excuse Germany for its actions between 1933 and 1945, it also does not excuse us from simplistically assuming that Germany "has been and always will be" a violent, repressive society. Indeed, any fair investigation will reveal that precisely the opposite has been true for many centuries. Germany has a long history of liberalism, from artistic excellence to religious tolerance to intellectual freedom. The corrupt legacy of World War II has unfairly overshadowed all these cultural achievements. True, Germany also has a profoundly militaristic history, but its unique position in central Europe--caught between at least three powerful foreign enemies--partially explains its insistence on military strength. Furthermore, it is unfair to brand Germany "militaristic" for its actions during a time when all European powers jockeyed for military dominance, whether at home or in overseas colonies. In that sense, Germany's military prominence in the 18th and 19th Centuries is hardly unique. If military power alone signified a tendency toward repression, then Great Britain must certainly be counted as a "naturally repressive" State. Indeed, Britain waged nearly constant war during the 19th Century, from North America to Belgium to Portugal to South Africa to the Crimea to Hong Kong to India. It constantly maintained the world's most powerful navy, yet few Americans today view Britain's military prominence as proof that it was a naturally repressive State.

In sum, I think German history has suffered from gross historical distortion. Modern media has perpetuated this distortion. Unless Americans do their own research about German history, they will have no reason to think that Germany has been--and always will be--something akin to the Third Reich. Germans are profoundly aware of this distortion. While virtually all Germans deeply regret the darkest part of their history between 1933 and 1945, many now feel that continued prejudice against them is unwarranted. For generations now, Germans have been instructed to be ashamed of themselves for actions they never took. They have been instructed to suppress patriotic expression because they are told it is "dangerous" to have nationalistic feelings for Germany. These impositions have led to greater and greater resentment, precisely because Germans understand that they should not be over-punished for a discrete period in their long history. They know that for generations Germany has been a beacon for liberalism and tolerance in Europe. Yet in world media they see themselves portrayed as inveterate Nazis. These portrayals ignore all German history aside from World War II, perpetuating a lasting historical distortion.

Once living links die, media and second-hand accounts shape public understanding. We no longer have a living link to World War I, and the trauma of World War II has so dominated popular thought that it allows little room for reflecting on what came before. But it is dangerous to rely on popular history, because history will always reflect a distinct political or social perspective. Only by investigating all the evidence can we gain a clearer understanding about historical events. That means looking beyond stereotypes forged from a single historical experience. When it comes to German history, it is essential to examine more than just the National Socialist experience. We must look further back to see what Germany truly was. It is not an exaggeration to say that postwar Germany simply picked up the pieces scattered by the Nazis in 1933. Modern Germany--like Imperial Germany before it--enshrines many of the liberal ideals that have traditionally found expression in German life. Postwar Germany broke radically from the Nazi regime, but it did not break radically from overriding German political and social traditions. Today, Germany is again one of the most liberal Nations on earth. But that is nothing new; it only seems surprising because many Americans think that before 1945 Germany had never been anything but a savage, repressive State.

America has a perplexing interest in maintaining the idea that Germany is a dangerous, habitually violent Nation. In 1999, I applied for a Fulbright scholarship under which I proposed to explore many of the ideas raised in this essay. I wanted to illustrate that America has distorted the historical record about Germany by creating a stereotypical understanding about Germans that fixes all inquiry on World War II. My application was denied on "political grounds." It was too inflammatory. Apparently, the American government did not want me to disturb the fabric underlying German-American relations, or to expose the embarrassing cultural myopia that plagues most Americans' understanding about Germany. In America today, many still equate Germans with Nazis, thanks in large part to the endless media bombardment that reinforces that connection.

In hindsight, I am happy that I did not receive funding from the American government. I have given up on America's ability to conduct fair foreign relations. Perhaps Obama will restore some of America's credibility on the world stage. But I doubt he will influence the endless tide of negative press and media about Germany. Only time will tell whether the historical distortion about Germany will ever subside.