American exceptionalism and its roles in foreign intervention and culture

American exceptionalism is a multi-faceted concept with not one simple definition. These facets are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact intertwined. One facet endorses the United States as an "exceptional" nation with an equally "exceptional" story - rising from a group of British colonies to now a cultural, political, and economic global giant. Another facet propagates the United States as an "exception" to the rules - whether they be spoken or unspoken. More specifically, there is an infallibility that the United States holds with an alarmingly large amount of the population in their military and war decisions. Infallibility refers to the idea that nothing the United States does is without some moral justification or reason, no matter how heinous the outcomes of the action might be. A third facet of American exceptionalism is the voiced and unvoiced complex that many American citizens and government officials perpetuate that drives the belief that the United States is not only superior to other nations, but also that if others do things differently than the American method, there is likely something wrong with it. It is a complex that continues the idea that the American way is the best way, and that other nations who differ from the American ways should be pushed towards a more "American" and "democratic" lifestyle. There seems to be such a staunch sense of patriotism among many Americans, with many often verging on full-blown nationalism. While many nations exhibit patriotism and pride in their own manners, the sheer size and power of the United States' military allows them to more feasibly impose their ideals and will upon other nations when they so desire. Therefore, the manner in which American exceptionalism has a hold in American foreign policy (meaning war, intervention abroad, as well as immigration and the linked socio-political culture) is especially important to consider. Cultural values and foreign policy, at least in the American context, are not mutually exclusive by any means. By analyzing rhetoric surrounding the Osama bin Laden raid and abuses perpetrated by the US in Iraq at Abu Ghraib, one can see the lens of exceptionalism through which these events are often justified by politicians and portions of the American public. Analysis of rhetoric surrounding the Bush and Obama administrations, during which these events took place, suggests even more about American-style exceptionalism as a tool wielded by both extremes of the political spectrum for various purposes. Additionally, it is relevant to consider how President Trump and his suggested policies fit into the narrative of American exceptionalism. Finally, the assertion here is neither that American exceptionalism is positive nor negative, but that its origins as well as its uses reflect on American culture and values and presents a double-sided face.

ABSTRACT American exceptionalism is a multi-faceted concept with not one simple definition. These facets are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact intertwined. One facet endorses the United States as an “exceptional” nation with an equally “exceptional” story - rising from a group of British colonies to now a cultural, political, and economic global giant. Another facet propagates the United States as an “exception” to the rules - whether they be spoken or unspoken. More specifically, there is an infallibility that the United States holds with an alarmingly large amount of the population in their military and war decisions. Infallibility refers to the idea that nothing the United States does is without some moral justification or reason, no matter how heinous the outcomes of the action might be. A third facet of American exceptionalism is the voiced and unvoiced complex that many American citizens and government officials perpetuate that drives the belief that the United States is not only superior to other nations, but also that if others do things differently than the American method, there is likely something wrong with it. It is a complex that continues the idea that the American way is the best way, and that other nations who differ from the American ways should be pushed towards a more “American” and “democratic” lifestyle. There seems to be such a staunch sense of patriotism among many Americans, with many often verging on full-blown nationalism. While many nations exhibit patriotism and pride in their own manners, the sheer size and power of the United States’ military allows them to more feasibly impose their ideals and will upon other nations when they so desire. Therefore, the manner in which American exceptionalism has a hold in American foreign policy (meaning war, intervention abroad, as well as immigration and the linked socio-political culture) is especially important to ii consider. Cultural values and foreign policy, at least in the American context, are not mutually exclusive by any means. By analyzing rhetoric surrounding the Osama bin Laden raid and abuses perpetrated by the US in Iraq at Abu Ghraib, one can see the lens of exceptionalism through which these events are often justified by politicians and portions of the American public. Analysis of rhetoric surrounding the Bush and Obama administrations, during which these events took place, suggests even more about American-style exceptionalism as a tool wielded by both extremes of the political spectrum for various purposes. Additionally, it is relevant to consider how President Trump and his suggested policies fit into the narrative of American exceptionalism. Finally, the assertion here is neither that American exceptionalism is positive nor negative, but that its origins as well as its uses reflect on American culture and values and presents a double-sided face. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 BIN LADEN RAID 14 ABU GHRAIB 19 CONCLUSIONS 24 REFERENCES 27 iv 1 INTRODUCTION How has the nature of American history contributed to the idea of American exceptionalism? One can find connections between American values, some key facets of American history, and their role in the evolving concept of American exceptionalism. Why do such values bred from contexts in American history remain so strong to this day? Lipset (1963) found “the revolutionary, democratic values that thus became part of the national self-image, and the basis for its authority structure, gained legitimacy as they proved effective – that is, as the nation prospered” (p. 90). As success was achieved by guarding rather anti-statist, libertarian, and individualist values, these values were naturally applauded and became synonymous for American success. This has cultivated not only a staunch observation of these values but also a retardation of progress -- at least by global standards -- which could potentially improve American life. The US is seen, by many Americans, as being intrinsically and fundamentally attuned to a certain series of principles. Seymour Martin Lipset offers some clear causalities for the roots of American exceptionalism. Introducing lack of class, anti-statist libertarianism, and protestant moralism we see a robust groundwork (Lipset, 1996). Lipset (1996) finds, “. . . . the nation’s ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire” (p. 31). A common deduction, then, is that matters which do not seem conducive to these principles will fail due to their inherent incompatibility to what the US’s historical foundations. In short, an idea or concept that does not appear to match these timeless American principles should either not be a part of the US mindset. It then becomes quite understandable as to why the American political and 2 social cultures are resistant to ideologies that have the potential to contradict these values, and why many may attempt to impose what they value onto outsiders. There are generally no substantial remains of a rigid socio-economic class-system in the United States. This is contrary to the presence of such remnants in older European counterparts who are descended primarily from classist feudal systems. Other nations in the world tend to foster more respect for the use of state power, compared to the rather meager American respect for use of state power. This stems the robust presence of state power has being more or less a tradition for many other nations. Whereas in the US, where there has not been a history of Due to the lack of strong class division in the US, an organic belief in homogeneity has developed. What effect does a belief in homogeneity, whether true or not, have on the US? The result is that any critiques on the US, namely on particular US policy, are perceived as critiques on the US as a whole. By some explanations, American exceptionalism is a term for the so-called superiority of the United States, which some Americans would verify by US history, characteristics, values and missions. Other interpretations of American exceptionalism endorse the United States as exceptional in the sense that it is atypical compared to other developed Western countries. More specifically, the origins and subsequent development of the United States are extraordinarily unique. This has shaped the many facets of American cultural identity and esteem. In another sense, American exceptionalism can refer to the United States’ behavior - particularly in foreign affairs - which may send the message that it is “above the rules” to any extent that is regarded as justifiable. The attractive concept of an 3 altruistic Western-developed country coming to rescue an oppressed people, to topple dictatorships, and to bring freedom and democracy is particularly relevant to US foreign intervention, most notably in the Iraq War. There exists the litigious question of whether several US invasions and militaristic interventions were truly legal, justified, and proportional to their intentions. With that, the US has developed the essence of a self-imposed responsibility of being a global police officer. Post-1945, the rhetoric behind many military invasions narrates the extinction of a state who poses a threat to the United States or the toppling of a leader harming his or her people. These both appear to be reasonable motivations to invade a country with military force; but how far could either of these explanations be taken? What can be defined as a threat? How realistic is the submission of the enemy or the resolution of the threat by waging war? It should be asked, then, if there are other, less-explicit interests at play which might motivate the Americans to declare war or invade. Or, if the veritable reason is to erase something deemed as threatening, is it to be done in the most righteous manner possible? Historically, the different context of successful colonial revolutions can foreshadow much to what will remain in high-esteem amongst colonists and their descendants. Compared to the United States’ closest structural relatives, the United States has had an exceptionally unique formation. Save for the country of Iceland, who also formed into an out-right country from colonization, the United States is one of the only other examples of this type of creation. It is rare for colonies to be successful in revolutions and then to not only attain but continue to maintain political and economic stability. Instances of rampant political instability can be observed in Latin America, for 4 example, where many former colonies are now their own nations but rife with precariousness – political, economic, ethnic, and otherwise. An examination of the American Revolution narrates a history of unique values amongst the colonial inhabitants which contributed to the successes of the US. Due to the geographical orientation of the American people relative to each other, since colonialera, the anti-statist value was cultivated. There has never been significant geographic nor political centralization in the US, and in turn never an environment conducive to regard for the state. Certain US values cultivated from American colonial history exist in contrast to, for example, the values that were cultivated among the neighboring Canadian colonialists during their departure from colonial status. “Those who respected authority won in Canada, while those who were more populist triumphed in the United States” (Lipset, 1996, p. 24). According to Lipset (1996), the dominant and successful in Canadian conflicts were conservatives who guarded Tory ideology and respected the state. Conversely, the American ideologies which proved dominant and successful in conflicts were largely more libertarian and anti-statist in nature. Notably, a libertarian streak still persists within American politics in conjunction with, what is to Americans inflammatory language towards Progressive or American “liberal” agendas. Such inflammatory statements might be “socialism”, “social programs”, “welfare state”, and many more. Of course, as noted above, these would only be considered inflammatory by to Americans. How did these ideas and terms come to evoke such reactions in American society? Louis Hartz (1955) provides commentary analysis on the development of American liberalism and progressivism. 5 Hartz (1955) found: The effect of the red-scare technique as used against progressivism flowers slowly. Justice Holmes dated the ‘vague terror’ inspired by socialism in America at the turn of the century . . . Still it is a fact that the impact on Progressivism itself comes most vividly later, and especially of course after the Russian Revolution . . . and not only expanded it but sharpened it into an effective political weapon. (p. 218) How does that language determine whether someone is willing to truly listen to an idea before writing it off as “socialism”? Anything beneficial which came from a more socialized country that is revered as an example of success by the left, for instance, is typically written off immediately by the right. Nearly anything that could be seen as a potential infringement on the staunchly American individualism and the pull-yourself-upby-your-bootstraps attitude are not given much serious intellectual consideration by very many. Amongst Americans who hold esteem for small and limited government, the belief that the United States is intrinsically conducive to natural independence is very pervasive; and, therefore active and large government is not necessary for continued success. Subsequently, this indicates that anything other than the ideal limitedgovernment contradicts early American values and foundations. This remains a pervasive part of American exceptionalism. Continuing on the basis of American exceptionalism, an example of where libertarian principality has carried into current public policy is in the lack of a strong welfare state and an overwhelming disdain for substantial social programs. The 6 responsibilities of the state in the American mindset are perpetually in question between opposing political ideologies. Where more social-democratic countries, such as Canada or France, have relatively sizeable programs, such as maternity leave, a typical conservative American response emphasizes one’s personal responsibility to prepare the means by which to afford to remain home with a child after birth, not the responsibility of the state. The same sentiments are expressed in many other questions of socialization. Overwhelmingly, there still remains a lack of strong state interference compared to the United States’ social-democratic counterparts. There is no existence of great esteem for pervasive communitarian mores that are foundational in socialdemocratic nations. This is just one particularity that sets the US apart, but also contributes to the complex, double-edged idea of American exceptionalism. This American anti-statist attitude towards social programs agrees with what Lipset (1963) asserts: “Calvinism’s insistence that one’s works were signs of eternal grace or damnation’ has been transformed into a secular emphasis upon achievement” (p. 94). This assertion can depict how being wealthy is, on many levels, associated with Protestant righteousness and therefore held in high regard by the American conservative and libertarian supporters. Lipset (1963) also asserts “The emphasis upon equality, between religions as among men, which intensified after the American Revolution, gave the subsequent development of religious institutions in America its special character. Democratic and religious values have grown together” (p. 169). As seen in the quote above, moralism goes hand in hand with social programs in the US. There is a connotation among the wealthy and often among lower classes that being rich is entirely attainable through extremely hard work. Naturally, then, the poor 7 are viewed as just the opposite – likely lazy people who do not work hard enough. Explicitly and implicitly, one’s financial condition is ultimately all in their control. Therefore, any willingness among the rich to share their “hard-earned” wealth with others, who presumably did not work as diligently as themselves, tends to be met with little enthusiasm. Welfare programs and the desire for a strong social state are associated with laziness, free handouts, and stealing from the rich to give to ultimately immoral people. As a consequence, this contributes to the lack of a robust welfare state in the US. Another example of US differentiation and exceptionalism is that the United States remains the only industrialized country that has neither a substantial socialist nor labor party, and in which labor unions have had a significantly lesser role than in European countries. The reasons for the failure of socialist politics in the US are not entirely definitive but encompass many probable factors. Two possibilities in particular are asserted by Lipset (1996) that tie back to other facets of American exceptionalism – that of roots in Protestant sectarianism and the accompanying anti-statist and individualist values, and the fragmentation of the working class in the US across racial, ethnic, and religious lines (p. 85). These two ideas are not only attestations as to why the US continues to lack a strong socialist or labor party presence, but also as to how the US and its values are unconsciously and consciously reliant on Protestant sectarianism and race. How does race remain a turbulent force in American exceptionalism? What racial parameters frame American society, and how are these utilized to maintain what makes American society what it is? While the United States typically has ample resistance to progress that arises simply from class consciousness as with its European counterparts, 8 there are challenges due to race. How is American exceptionalism and its furtherance reliant on racial discord? In short, in order for the US to maintain their immunity from collectivism and a more robust federal presence, the working class needs to remain fragmented. Upon what lines is the working class fragmented? Upon those which encompass racial, ethnic, and religious differences. This suggests that to maintain deeply guarded values of individualism and to keep the welfare state diminutive, racial, ethnic and religious lines must be drawn and remain. This demonstrates how American exceptionalism, then, has roots in separation and how the US must be perpetually cultivating disharmony amongst racial and ethnic barriers as well as assert Protestant values into political and social spheres. In addition to what is stated previously, the nature of patriotism in the United States is also a peculiar matter. It is an irremovable aspect of American identity. There are strict parameters of what is considered patriotic, which are the most widely accepted by Americans. Patriotism in the US is a way of thinking, a way of acting, and a set of strictly defined values. Other countries’ national awareness are derived from a common history. In Europe, nationality is related to community, and thus one cannot become unEnglish or un-Swedish. Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American. (Lipset, 1996, p. 31) Being American requires a set of ideals and values which can be rather strict, by some Americans’ opinions. It is not at all abnormal for a people to feel patriotic about 9 their country. However, when patriotism is measured by very staunch parameters, those who does not express esteem for aforementioned principles of American patriotism are immediately considered un-American. As Lipset (1996) finds, “. . . . the nation’s ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire” (p. 31). Some of these values may appear as though they are favored by many states. However, the United States’ interpretations of these values remain atypical, even if there appears to be transnational ideological overlap. Egalitarianism in the US, primarily, does not particularly mean entitlement to equal circumstance, results, or even equal means, but more so that no one is intrinsically above anyone else and therefore has as much potential and opportunity as there exists an absence of a systemic class interdiction. This is one of the consequences which ties back to the absence of feudal roots. Similarly, these values may seem as though they would contradict the interests of the poor, struggling American at times, and that these values may be continually forced into circulation by affluent elites who indeed have “individually” made their own way to financial and material success. Rather, this is something that is especially curious about American exceptionalism. Hasian and McFarlane (2013) stated: Furthermore, we argue that American beliefs in exceptionalism are not things that are foisted onto publics by ruling elites, deceptive military leaders, or biased press corps. Rather, American exceptionalism is part and parcel of U.S. culture itself . . . (p. 8). 10 This truth about the nature of American exceptionalism – that it is reinforced by all classes of Americans and is not forced on anyone by anyone else in particular – gives it such a powerful drive. When it is being utilized to further questionable actions, for instance, it is difficult to label American exceptionalism as a malignant force used for exploitation by a specific class or type of people. When everyone in the US seems to believe in this exceptionalism in one form or another, it is often even arduous to stay aware of its presence and influence, simply because of the fact that it permeates from every walk of life. Moreover, there exist particularly Protestant moralist roots intertwined with many American values. Protestantism remains the overwhelming majority of religious affiliations in the US, with 51.3% of the population claiming Protestantism as of 2010 (Teague & Beechey, 2013, p. 61). These Protestant values originate in the Puritanical roots in some of the first colonists from England. Additionally, Protestantism provides a set of values that go hand-in-hand with warfare in the US. War is often seen, even by chief executives of state, as a moralistic issue. Two sides tend to be depicted in wars, with one being on “God’s side” and the other side on “Satan’s side.” As one may assume that the US, while justifying its waging of wars, will metaphorically depict itself as fighting on God's side and their enemy on Satan's. This shows not only flaws in justifying war but also the rather fuzzy line between religion and politics. “Separation of church and state” is perhaps not the best phrase to use here, since there is technically no official religion in the United States. Despite this fact, many Americans would be quick to fire back with retorts that the US is very much a Christian nation, or at the very least built on Christianity. While it is not incorrect that many of the first colonists and settlers 11 were Christian in one Protestant form or another, there remains, as stated, no official national religion. Deific justifications for double-edged issues, such as in the validity of waging war, are nominally reminiscent of the boom in Westward expansion driven by the phrase – reasonably labeled as a buzzword - “manifest destiny.” The concept of manifest destiny – that it was an American’s God-given right and duty to expand farther west also bred the idea of rugged individualism. This was a phase representing the necessity of self-reliance to not only survive trekking across the plains but to thrive once one finds a good place to settle. This usually entailed having to farm and in entirety make one's own living in every aspect of the phrase. This has translated to the present-day culture in the US, but in a more economic sense. This same expansion was at the expense of the Native Americans. These are examples that portray the double-edged nature of American exceptionalism – unique values cultivated in the US have been and are at the expense of non-whites. As Fong (2015) found, “The promise of a more perfect union, the realization of American exceptionalism as a nation uniquely devoted to individual liberty, opportunity and freedom, is both set down in advance and dependent upon transcending the country’s racial divides and its racial history” (p. 3). Critiques of the military and its actions are very highly frowned-upon in the United States. For many Americans, there is no grand distinction between those in charge of the military and those following orders thereof. One cannot typically criticize the actions of the US armed forces without being labeled with American inflammatory 12 language. One might hear accusations of “traitor”, “un-American”, among many others when questioning the US military’s legality, morality, or compliance with international humanitarian law. It brings to light the problem of cultural stagnation: if commentary on US foreign intervention is either pro-American or anti-American, then do the staunchly patriotic even attempt to entertain arguments that do not place the US on the morally “correct” side of conflicts? Regarding war, and its necessitating of being on a morally “right” or “wrong” side before the Protestant God, to critique the military is to critique God. This naturally leads to contention amongst those who critique and those who are not open to criticism. Furthermore, American culture today is a culmination of results and attitudes towards historical events in American history. Attitudes birthed from the American Revolution remain strong today. It must be noted, however, that what is defined as “American conservatism” is actually traditional liberalism. Traditional conservatism typically asserts the right of the community to restrain individual freedoms in the name of the common good: “The revolutionary ideology which became the American Creed is liberalism in its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century meanings, as distinct from conservative Toryism, statist communitarianism, mercantilism, and noblesse oblige dominant in monarchical, state-church-formed cultures” (Lipset, 1996, p. 31). This is another notable quality of US society and how values are labeled. By US standards of conservatism, it is often considered to be un-American and extreme for an American to esteem so-called “liberal” ideologies such as a more robust welfare state or aggrandized subsidized healthcare. 13 As illustrated above, American exceptionalism is ultimately of a double-edged nature. It can be used to overreach necessity to succeed or to help other nations and peoples. Likewise, it can be used to further US interests. Now, with all of these considerations for some key origins and factors that go into American exceptionalism, we can take a closer look at how these values project into US foreign intervention. We will see how exceptionalism is utilized by political leaders to further American interests. 14 BIN LADEN RAID AND TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB Certain controversial US foreign affairs and their romanticizing and glorification by political leaders and the media are evidence of the societal impacts of American exceptionalism. Corresponding to the sui generis nature of the United States, one can study these values and then probe them for examples as to how they are manifested in US foreign intervention. Then, after examining controversial events, the double-edged nature of American exceptionalism bubbles up again. Subsequently, the question arrives to this: how is American exceptionalism used to justify foreign intervention that is arguably unjust? Likewise, which components of American exceptionalism are utilized to get away with such actions? Reading against the grain and between the lines of these events, one begins to see how omnipresent American exceptionalism has been and will perhaps continue to be as a driving force behind US behavior in foreign affairs. Notably, the War on Terror was something which the United States commenced after the 9/11 attacks. The US had had the “threat” of terrorism looming over their heads since 9/11, and the War on Terror was a way for political leaders and the general population to feel like progress was being made towards eliminating this threat. This War on Terror prefaced such events as the bin Laden raid and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Some of the most notable examples of controversial American foreign intervention was the military action that occurred during US invasions in the Middle East. For purposes here, the primary example will be that of the bin Laden raid, in which 15 the Obama administration sent in Navy SEALS to invade Pakistan in order to locate and execute Osama bin Laden. When analyzing this event, however, an abundance of questions begin to emerge and even more difficulties arise when comparing the tangible legal issues with the bin Laden raid to the nearly inseparable emotional factors that largely motivated its occurrence. The most troubling questions arise, of course, when one compares the context of the bin Laden raid and subsequent execution to the considerations presented in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The LOAC entails concepts that complying military forces are expected to consider in the context of waging war. They are: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. The LOAC is one standard by which the bin Laden raid can be examined. One portion of the LOAC considers military necessity. When examining the bin Laden raid in regards to its military necessity. One should inquire about a potential military move: will this be carried out as a legitimate military objective? Or, will an act lead a closer or quicker submission of the enemy? If not, then it becomes questionable if something necessitates military action. The bin Laden Raid was admittedly not assuredly going to bring the entire demise of Al-Qaeda. Arguably an illegal targeted killing at worst, and the It was a fairly unspecific attack under the umbrella of the “War on Terror”. Finding bin Laden was well-known to not be the key to the destruction of AlQaeda but was the immediate desired response from many Americans after the 9/11 attacks. The Bush Administration continued to assert the necessity of finding bin Laden, as did the Obama Administration. As Hasian and McFarlane (2013) stated, the necessitation of finding and killing bin Laden became so vital to the United States that they vowed to go into Pakistan themselves (bin Laden’s commonly rumored 16 whereabouts) to find and execute bin Laden should Pakistan not do their duty to the world by finding him themselves (p. 14). This promise from the US suggests their disregard for the legitimacy and authority of other governments. This statement really is very bold because it shows the superiority complex possessed by American political leader. It attests to the continuous prioritization of American needs and desires above everyone’s else’s. American exceptionalism is seen here as Americans translating the exceptional nature of the US to exaggerated self-importance in their global interests. The seriousness of this promise made by President Obama is put more into perspective if one imagines the situation inversely. How would the American government and populace feel if a foreign military vowed to invade the United States in order to carry out a deadly terrorist manhunt if the country was unable to resolve the problem on its own? Outrage would ensue – the risk this would place upon the American public in having a foreign military on a deadly terrorist manhunt – would likely be unacceptable. The Bin Laden Raid is perhaps one of the most culturally significant events of the last decade. This is due to the manner in which the hunt for Bin Laden became symbolic for many Americans. The quest to find bin Laden became a measure of US military competence, a measure of how dedicated President Obama was in his belief in American exceptionalism, a symbol of retribution for the 9/11 attacks, and a bit of resolution for the American lives lost. Questioning the right of the US to execute bin Laden in how it was performed brings international humanitarian law to play. By general standards, even criminals 17 responsible for heinous global crimes should be entitled to a fair trial. Therefore, it begins to become clear that the United States did not fully follow protocol for international humanitarian process of law. The majority of the US, leaders and the general population were not about to question things so out rightly, though. Even Obama was aware during the months following the bin Laden raid that “. . . these were auspicious times and that Americans wanted leaders who refused to bow before the U.N. the European Union, or anyone else who questioned primacy or unilateral U.S. decision-making” (p. 159). This statement connects back to the point introduced earlier about how the homogeneity of the US due to the lack of distinct class remains makes it difficult to critique US policy. To critique the bin Laden raid, then, would have been not only an ideological attack on American policy, American political leaders, and the American people. Bowing to criticism of bin Laden raid by internally delegitimizing it would have been embarrassing and combatant for the American people and for Obama’s image amongst Americans as a proper American leader. Hasian & McFarlane found (2013) that cosmopolitans wanted to see the guilt of the terrorists established publicly in a fair trial, and if that resulted in severe sentences, with a possible death penalty, then so be it. But, if a state was truly claiming to be governed by the “rule of law,” then no one nation had the right to engage in either “extrajudicial” killings or targeted assassinations (p. 67). Conversely, even liberal exceptionalists would arguably have felt threated by bin Laden being permitted a fair trial where he could potentially pose a bigger threat. While of course it could be, and has been argued, that due to the tragedy of 9/11, the US had every right to execute bin Laden in any manner it saw fit. However, when 18 one begins to regard it as justifiable to not abide by international humanitarian law in one instance, what then would stop justification of smaller misdoings or stretching the concept of an “exception” much farther than it should? It proves to be a slippery slope in justifying human rights abuses in any case, because it opens the door to giving oneself more and more leeway with admissibility in other human rights abuse cases. If there exists a justifiable human rights abuse, then where is a line to be drawn? Furthermore, an additionally important piece of the bin Laden raid was the Situation Room Photograph Hoax, which depicts Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others of the Administration sitting in a meeting room, watching a supposed live-stream video of Navy SEAL team Six, who were hot on the trail of bin Laden while in Pakistan. The photo gained immense popularity and was circulated widely and rapidly. The photo was in fact not at all a snapshot of a live-stream viewing of the bin Laden bust, but a completely different moment of tension that occurred in an entirely different room. After the photo’s circulation, it began to be canonized as another piece of American historical photography, alongside such images of George W. Bush at Ground Zero (Hasian and McFarlane, 2013, p.107). It was another marker of American greatness, competence, and a reaffirmation of the US’s role as a global police officer – eradicating the criminals who had once terrorized the US and left fear upon the world. An interesting aspect about this incident, however, was that it garnered even more pride and enthusiasm over the success of the raid as well as praise for Obama. What exactly was this massive invasion and raid proving for Obama’s reputation? In many ways, the American commander-in-chief puzzled some of his supporters and his detractors when he pushed the boundaries of executive power in ways that rivaled or 19 surpassed those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, but the triumphant nature of this major victory trumped many of those concerns (Hasian and McFarlane, 2013, p. 91). This suggests that the bin Laden raid and its success placed Obama’s reputation on the line, besides the obvious risk of failing the mission and having nothing to show for aforementioned efforts. Obama’s legacy as president would be partly defined by this raid. While Obama certainly still left office with plenty of detractors, at the time of bin Laden’s execution, Americans generally gathered in praise of Obama over this event. For this moment, at least, Obama had won over people to join in the glorious American justice that had been done. Secondarily, the torture of prisoners of war that was condoned by such officials as Donald Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary under the Bush administration who led the US military into the war with Iraq in 2003. These abuses were arguably justified through a lens of American exceptionalism. Whether the specific phrase “American exceptionalism” was often used publicly or not, the rhetoric of American exceptionalism is evident. Other buzz words like “democracy” were used by Rumsfeld in order to make it possible to view the war through rose-colored glasses. This was a necessity and a pleasantry to avoid true confrontation of the shameful and inhumane behavior produced in war. How else must atrocities be framed when trying to uphold a desirable image of the United States and its identity as a global rescuer? What does the contradiction of committing torture while attempting to usher in freedom and democracy to the rest of the world tell us? 20 Any civilizing mission is marked precisely by this paradox: the civilizing apparatus of liberation is exactly that which delimits the conditions of its possibility. Thus, torture is at the very least doubly embedded in sociality: it is integral to the missionary/savior discourse of liberation and civilizational uplift, and it constitutes apposite punishment for terrorists and the bodies that resemble them. As I argue in this article, deconstructing exceptionalism and contextualizing the embeddedness of torture entails attending to discourses and affective manifestations of sexuality, race, gender, and nation that activate torture’s corporeal potency (Puar, 2005, p. 15). This statement argues that under the Americans’ feeling of obligation to help Iraqis, they were required to torture the identified “threats.” This illuminates the norm of using violence to end violence. Puar (2005) found, “Sexual humiliation and ritual torture of Iraqi prisoners enabled the Bush administration to forge a crucial distinction between the supposed depravity of Abu Ghraib and the “freedom” being built in Iraq” (p. 14). This indicated that to justify inhumane acts, there must be a balance and a divide between depravity and whatever “goodness” is claimed to be simultaneously being done. To categorize the people being tortured as similar to the people who were being “saved,” then there would be the creation of a stressful dichotomy that would have perhaps proven difficult to maintain both categories. Perhaps the most troubling aspect about the torture that was inflicted that later apologizes provided were not entirely apologetic. While no particularly specific comment was made to degrade the culture of the prisoners, there are definitely 21 implications. Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense under the Bush and Cheney Administration, divulged in an interview when asked about the torture cases that were being made known to the public, “. . . we are implementing it on behalf of the country . . . The fact of the matter is these are bad people” (Wallace and Rumsfeld, 2005). This comment by Rumsfeld attests to the chauvinism that is part of American exceptionalism. That then ties to the self-importance that can accompany American exceptionalism. It narrates that the American needs and the American people are inherently of a higher priority than anyone else, no matter the cost. His comment shows how it makes it difficult to critique policy because there arise excuses of protecting the American people. We then see that when someone with such authority in the US government as Rumsfeld attempts to defend human rights issues in the context of war, the pervasion of American exceptionalism is evidently powerful and irremovable from the American political sphere. We see here how by this type of narrative, torture and potentially anything else could be justified by spinning American exceptionalism to one’s purposes. Those questioned for their involvement—tacit and explicit—in torture at Abu Ghraib cited both the lack-of-training and the cultural-difference argument to justify their behavior: “If we had known more about them, about their culture and their way of life” whined one soldier plaintively on the U.S. news, “we would have been better able to handle the situation” (Puar, 2005, p. 15). As is demonstrated in the quote above, this is perhaps one of the boldest ways in which American exceptionalism is evident in the rhetoric surrounding the Americanenforced torture at Abu Ghraib. Implicitly, this suggests how grossly out-of-touch the Americans were with the culture that they were invading. They admit here that they did 22 not understand it and that it was absolutely foreign to them. Their words also suggest a bit of a superiority complex. The implication may be that for the Americans, the Muslim (which in and of itself is an unspecific conglomeration in the form of an ethnic descriptor) culture is so foreign and strange that they were unaware of the harm being caused. Obviously, this is what their words suggest, and not to say that they were actually unaware of the harm they were inflicting. The above quote also suggests that the Muslim culture is base, savage, and uncivilized in comparison to Western American culture, inasmuch that American soldiers felt less inclined to question what they were doing because of who they were doing it to. This is a dehumanization of those who were tortured. Distancing oneself from one’s victims – regardless of if the victims are themselves innocent – is a necessity to be able to carry out such atrocities on other human beings. Cultural-distancing was a manner used to dehumanize the victims – evidence that the soldiers were aware of their wrongdoing. It is evident by examination of this quote, then, that there were many justifications which were felt sufficient enough as explanations for why such humiliating, sexually violating, and physically violent acts of torture were carried out on those whom were stripped of their classification as human and labeled only as a terrorist. To mention the observation made by Hasian & McFarlane (2013), it is not just one political leaning or one demographic that believes in American exceptionalism, but people from the left, the right, and people in between believe in it. This attests, more than anything, how pervasive this idea of American exceptionalism truly is, as it is wielded by those of opposing beliefs to further ideologies. All walks of Americans employ this concept to justify, condemn or critique US actions, or to further political 23 agendas in various contexts. Some people use American exceptionalism in conjunction with the LOAC to justify American use of brute force in war – defending not only the US’s right to defend themselves by using the LOAC but then defend breaking international humanitarian law because of the extent to which the United States must apparently defend itself. In political and military domains, the idea of American exceptionalism is very much present. As Hasian and McFarlane (2013) noted, the United States sees itself as so very “exceptional” that it holds itself and its closest allies to lower standards of compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights issues. This goes hand-in-hand with the inquiry surrounding US-led torture at Abu Ghraib. It is here where the idea of American exceptionalism manifests its potential as an ideological weapon -- and a dangerous one at that. If the United States and significant portions of the rest of the world believe in the right of the US to behave in contradiction to standards of human rights, then how far could world events escalate before drawing the line? Is there even a line to be drawn if the United States is above the rules in the first place? 24 CONCLUSIONS Now, the question to ask is: how might American exceptionalism be used in the near future, or even to query to whether American exceptionalism is in decline by current political leaders. The most relevant example of current times is likely President Donald Trump. His case is particularly interesting because, while he campaigns for policies that put “America First,” he also denounces, in some ways, the mission of the United States to be the global savior. The US has for a long time been in various trade agreements and economic treaties. Trump favors a more isolationist approach to these institutions. The United States has for quite a time been fairly open to accepting refugees and immigrants, perpetually attracting those who need help or just want to broaden their horizons. Trump, on the other hand, is rather against this foreign influx into the US. This actually backtracks slightly on how American exceptionalism is characterized. The United States has often patted itself on the back for being a worldwide superhero and coming to the aid of those in need from time to time. In this manner, Donald Trump does not exactly fit the mold to be considered an advocate of American exceptionalism. Moreover, his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again” suggests that he does not believe in the current superiority of the US, but that it perhaps was “great” at some point before. In another aspect, though, his campaign slogan does ring of American exceptionalism. This reminiscence of the past, of a greater time, is a luxury from which only select people can benefit. When was the greatest time in American history to be a 25 black man, a black woman, a Native American, or even a white woman? It can reasonably be asserted that the current times are the most legally and socially free for non-whites and women in the US’s history. Those who have always benefited in America’s history have been white upper-class males. As someone who would have surely benefited from going back to another period in US history, Trump does not particularly show an understanding of the plights of those unlike himself [white, male, and upper-class]. This references the fragmentation along racial lines of the workingclass Americans, mentioned earlier, that is necessary to maintain American exceptionalism. This implicitly suggests Trump’s advocacy of American exceptionalism. Moreover, what would it look like if America abandoned American exceptionalism? In many ways, American exceptionalism has been used for and continues to be used for advocacy of improvement. It is also used as a symbol for what American potential is. There definitely can be value in holding one’s country to a high standard, and it that way the superiority-aspect of exceptionalism might be useful. However, the aspect of exceptionalism that the US employs -- as a cop, out to hold themselves exempt from the rules -- is a more dangerous one. What, then, is the overarching finding? The motive is not to define the essence of American exceptionalism. The goal was rather to analyze the ways and extent to which American exceptionalism is present around controversial US foreign intervention. As is affirmed above through examples of controversial US foreign intervention, American exceptionalism is an ideology neither inherently wrong nor right, but is absolutely and overwhelmingly powerful as a double-edged tool. It has the ability to be a standard for which Americans can aim and motivate themselves to improve and achieve success or to 26 go above and beyond to help other nations. Its ability to be applied in every which way to endorse ideas from the left, the right, and everything in between makes exceptionalism a fascinatingly unique part of American society and culture. It is used by all ideological leanings to both condemn and denounce actions which they endorse. Its potential to be used to further agendas for waging war, breaking the principles of the LOAC, and as a lens through which to deceitfully explain US history and the nature of key US military actions make it dangerous. 27 References Fong, E. (2015). American exceptionalism and the remains of race: multicultural exorcisms. New York, New York: Routledge. Hartz, L. (1955). The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Hasian, M. A., & McFarlane, M. D. (2013). Cultural rhetorics of American exceptionalism and the bin Laden raid (Vol. 18). New York, NY: Lang. Lipset, S. M. (1963). The first new nation: the United States in historical and comparative perspective. New York, New York: Basic books. Lipset, S. M. (1997). American exceptionalism: a double-edged sword (1st ed.). New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. McCarthy, T. (2015, June 09). Donald Rumsfeld denies he thought democracy in Iraq was 'realistic' goal. Retrieved March 02, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-wardemocracy-contradiction "Open the Gates that the Righteous Nation May Enter": Rumsfeld Used Biblical Quotes in Top-Secret Iraq War Briefings for Bush. (2009, May 19). Retrieved March 02, 2017, from https://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/open_the_gates_that_the_righteous Puar, J. K. (2005). On Torture: Abu Ghraib [Abstract]. Radical History Review, 2005(93), 13-38. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://rhr.dukejournals.org.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/content/2005/93/13.short Ramsey, N. (2013, October 02). Bin Laden's Death: The Headlines. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/bin-ladens-death-the-headlines Teague, G., & Beechey, A. (2013). Culture Smart!: USA. London: Kuperard. Rumsfeld, D. (2005, November 13). Transcript: Rumsfeld on 'FNS' [Interview by C. Wallace, Transcript]. In Fox News. Washington: FOX News Sunday.