Steve Walt has a useful primer on why military occupations generate so much visceral hatred from those who live under them. It may be a bit basic to most readers, but elite foreign-affairs audiences may not think too closely about the issue, so it’s a positive contribution. But I think it goes wrong in at least one way.

Walt recounts how a friend who grew up in the American South during the 1960s was still taught an anti-union ditty (“Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust/ We got three hundred thousand, before they conquered us”) as a way of underscoring how deeply anti-occupation sentiment can persist. But then he draws a straight-line connection to Lynrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama,” using the verse that responds to Neil Young’s diss track “Southern Man.” Walt writes:

This is what defeat in war and prolonged occupation does to a society: it generates hatred and resentment that can last a century or more.

Yes! Yes that’s true. But “Sweet Home Alabama” is an example of something more subtle.

The crucial verse in “Sweet Home Alabama” is the third one, where Skynyrd sing, “In Birmingham they love the governor,” a reference to George Wallace, and then chant out, “Boo! Boo! Boo!” before asking if the conscience of Alabama is untroubled by Wallace’s racism. That’s as direct a confrontation of southern white racism as you could expect for a song glorifying the south, and it’s a credit to Skynyrd for taking the subject on. But the reason why they went after Neil Young is simple: “Southern Man” treats all southerners as Wallace. As a result, it risked marginalizing anti-racist white southerners who needed all the authenticity-cred they could get it into Wallace supporters’ heads that they shouldn’t back the demagogue. Lyrnrd Skynyrd, in other words, represented an Alabama Awakening. But Neil, in his zeal, treated reconcilable elements as irreconcilable. Skynyrd took him on as a step of taking back the south for their mutual and admirable goal.

I’m not saying Walt is wrong and “Sweet Home Alabama” isn’t a reflection of “what defeat in war and prolonged occupation does to a society.” It reflects a distinctly southern perspective, forged in what Walt describes. But it’s much more subversive than Walt gives it credit. Anti-occupation sentiments can be claimed and reclaimed for all kinds of worthy goals. As much as occupation warps the perspectives of those who bear its force, we’re not locked in a hopeless dialectic between occupation and demagoguery.