I had written a really good answer last night, but the board timed out on me and I lost it. I'll try to recall the highlights.
I think Steven's loyalties lie with people, rather than political boundaries, and that people, everywhere, be allowed to live without interference by anyone, and especially be allowed to determine their own destiny.
As far as I can tell from his own comments, he believes that Manifest Destiny as what defines the American identity has had its day. At best, it was a noble ideal, but it was an ideal that was - and is - too easily corrupted into something far less noble, and possibly more sinister. "Saving the world for democracy" is no more than a smoke screen these days for other agendas having little or nothing to do with freeing people from tyranny.
His contention is that US involvement in the affairs of political regions outside US borders has resulted in the destabilisation of those regions and contributed to more rather than less strife. Evidence would suggest that he's right.
Going to Afghanistan was not to free the Afghanis from the Taliban; it was revenge for 9/11. Freeing the Afghanis from Taliban rule was only incidental to the main objective, and that was to swat Osama bin Laden.
(Who, to date, has yet to be found and swatted, you will note, and what Steven obliquely refers to.)
What Steven seems to be saying is that people should be allowed to live and let live, without outside interference, except in exceptional circumstances as regards human rights. He is not dissing the soldiers who only do what they're told to do, and go where they're told to go; he's taking to task the political machine that sends these soldiers where they are neither wanted nor welcomed.
I doubt if Steven has ever read any Isaac Asimov, but Asimov said, and Steven seems to agree, that, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." (at least insofar as international affairs are concerned). Steven obviously thinks that it's better to negotiate than to go in and kill people, just to prove a point - that they can. (Which is completely opposite to what he does in his films, and I find that interesting.)
I can well see how his views would be unpopular given the political climate following 9/11. I think he's got a lot of guts to say what he did, since it does go against the grain of what many Americans believe, post 9/11 and post Iraq.
Good for him.
Who was it that said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (was that Daniel Webster?). I'm curious as to why it does NOT seem to be okay to say what is on one's mind, especially if it is counter to popular opinion; moreover, that the person speaking thus is suddenly no longer to be respected if the opinion given is not in step with one's own.
I think if one delves deeper into the meaning behind Steven's words, one will find someone who doesn't think in terms of loyalty to artificial political boundaries as much as faith that people will find in themselves the strength to work towards the best way to lead their lives in peace and harmony, without resorting to violence.
-TD, offering an interpretation of Steven's comments
Of course some will think I'm nuts anyway.
