http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1529&mode=thread&order=0
August 21, 2003
"Myth and denial in the War on Terrorism"
by William Blum
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist
"One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per
hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year."
It dies hard. It dies very hard. The notion that terrorist acts
against the United States can be explained by envy and irrational
hatred, and not by what the United States does in and to the world --
i.e., U.S. foreign policy -- is alive and well. The fires were still
burning intensely at Ground Zero when Colin Powell declared: "Once
again, we see terrorism; we see terrorists, people who don't believe
in democracy..." [1]
George W. picked up on that theme and ran with it. He's been its
leading proponent ever since September 11 with his repeated
insistence, in one wording or another, that "those people hate
America, they hate all that it stands for, they hate our democracy,
our freedom, our wealth, our secular government." (Ironically, the
president and John Ashcroft probably hate our secular government as
much as anyone.)
One of Bush's many subsequent versions of this incantation, delivered
more than a year after 9-11, was: "The threats we face are global
terrorist attacks. That's the threat. And the more you love freedom,
the more likely it is you'll be attacked." [2] In September 2002, the
White House released the "National Security Strategy," purported to be
chiefly the handiwork of Condoleezza Rice, which speaks of the "rogue
states" which "sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic
human values and hate the United States and everything for which it
stands."
As recently as July of this year, the spokesman for Homeland Security,
Brian Roehrkasse, declared: "Terrorists hate our freedoms. They want
to change our ways." [3] Thomas Friedman, the renowned foreign policy
analyst of the New York Times, would say amen. Terrorists, he wrote in
1998 after terrorists attacked two U.S. embassies in Africa, "have no
specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a
generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of
Islam." [4] This idie fixe -- that the rise of anti-American terrorism
owes nothing to American policies -- in effect postulates an America
that is always the aggrieved innocent in a treacherous world, a benign
United States government peacefully going about its business but being
"provoked" into taking extreme measures to defend its people, its
freedom and democracy. There consequently is no good reason to modify
U.S. foreign policy, and many people who might otherwise know better
are scared into supporting the empire's wars out of the belief that
there's no choice but to crush without mercy -- or even without
evidence -- this irrational, international force out there that hates
the United States with an abiding passion.
Thus it was that Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and invaded with
seemingly little concern in Washington that this could well create
many new anti-American terrorists. And indeed, since the first strike
on Afghanistan, there have been literally scores of terrorist attacks
against American institutions in the Middle East, South Asia and the
Pacific, about a dozen in Pakistan alone: military, civilian,
Christian, and other targets associated with the United States, the
latest being the heavy bombing of the U.S.-managed Marriott Hotel in
Jakarta, Indonesia, the site of diplomatic receptions and 4th of July
celebrations held by the American Embassy.
The word "terrorism" has been so overused in recent years that it's
now commonly used simply to stigmatize any individual or group one
doesn't like for almost any kind of behavior involving force. But the
word's raison d'etre has traditionally been to convey a political
meaning, something along the lines of: the deliberate use of violence
against civilians and property to intimidate or coerce a government or
the population in furtherance of a political objective. Terrorism is
fundamentally propaganda, a very bloody form of propaganda. It follows
that if the perpetrators of a terrorist act declare what their
objective was, their statement should carry credibility, no matter
what one thinks of the objective or the method used to achieve it.
Let us look at some actual cases. The terrorists responsible for the
bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New
York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for
the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in
response for the American political, economical, and military support
to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator
countries in the region." [5]
Richard Reid, who tried to ignite a bomb in his shoe while aboard an
American Airline flight to Miami in December 2001, told police that
his planned suicide attack was an attempt to strike a blow against the
U.S. campaign in Afghanistan and the Western economy. In an e-mail
sent to his mother, which he intended her to read after his death,
Reid wrote that it was his duty "to help remove the oppressive
American forces from the Muslims' land." [6]
After the October 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, which destroyed
two nightclubs and killed more than 200 people, one of the leading
suspects told police that the bombings were "revenge" for "what
Americans have done to Muslims." He said that he wanted to "kill as
many Americans as possible" because "America oppresses the Muslims."
[7]
In November 2002, a taped message from Osama bin Laden began: "The
road to safety begins by ending the aggression. Reciprocal treatment
is part of justice. The [terrorist] incidents that have taken place
.. are only reactions and reciprocal actions." [8] That same month,
when Mir Aimal Kasi, who killed several people outside of CIA
headquarters in 1993, was on death row, he declared: "What I did was a
retaliation against the U.S. government" for American policy in the
Middle East and its support of Israel. [9] It should be noted that the
State Department warned at the time that the execution of Kasi could
result in attacks against Americans around the world. [10] It did not
warn that the attacks would result from foreigners hating or envying
American democracy, freedom, wealth, or secular government.
Similarly, in the days following the start of U.S. bombing of
Afghanistan, there were numerous warnings from U.S. government
officials about being prepared for retaliatory acts, and during the
war in Iraq, the State Department announced: "Tensions remaining from
the recent events in Iraq may increase the potential threat to US
citizens and interests abroad, including by terrorist groups." [11]
Another example of the difficulty the Bush administration has in
consistently maintaining its simplistic idie fixe: In June 2002, after
a car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, killing or
injuring more than 60 people, the Washington Post reported that "U.S.
officials said the attack was likely the work of extremists angry at
both the United States and Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez
Musharraf, for siding with the United States after September 11 and
abandoning support for Afghanistan's ruling Taliban." [12]
George W. and high officials of his administration may or may not
believe what they tell the world about the motivations behind
anti-American terrorism, but, as in the recent examples just given,
other officials have questioned the party line for years. A Department
of Defense study in 1997 concluded: "Historical data show a strong
correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and
an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." [13]
Jimmy Carter told the New York Times in a 1989 interview:
We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to
Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many
people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and
unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children
and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As
a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those
who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our
hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist
attacks. [14]
Colin Powell has also revealed that he knows better. Writing of this
same Lebanon debacle in his 1995 memoir, he forgoes clichis about
terrorists not believing in democracy:
The USS New Jersey started hurling 16-inch shells into the mountains
above Beirut, in World War II style, as if we were softening up the
beaches on some Pacific atoll prior to an invasion. What we tend to
overlook in such situations is that other people will react much as we
would. [15]
The ensuing terrorist attacks against U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon
took the lives of 241 American military personnel. The assault upon
Beirut in 1983 and 1984 is but one of many examples of American
violence against the Middle East and/or Muslims since the 1980s. The
record includes:
the shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981;
the furnishing of military aid and intelligence to both sides of the
Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, including materials for chemical and
biological warfare to Iraq, so as to maximize the damage each side
would inflict upon the other;
the bombing of Libya in 1986;
the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987;
the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988;
the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989;
the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991;
the continuing bombings and sanctions against Iraq for the next 12
years;
the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, the latter destroying a
pharmaceutical plant which provided half the impoverished nation's
medicines;
the habitual support of Israel despite the routine devastation and
torture it inflicts upon the Palestinian people;
the habitual condemnation of Palestinian resistance to this;
the abduction of "suspected terrorists" from Muslim countries such as
Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania who are then taken to places
like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where they are tortured;
the large military and hi-tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi
Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region;
the support of anti-democratic Middle East governments from the Shah
to the Saudis.
"How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is
vitriolic hatred for America?" asked George W. "I'll tell you how I
respond: I'm amazed. I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of
what our country is about that people would hate us. I am -- like most
Americans, I just can't believe it because I know how good we are."
[16]
To what extent do Americans really believe the official disconnect
between what the U.S. does in the world and anti-American terrorism?
One indication that the public is somewhat skeptical came in the days
immediately following the commencement of the bombing of Iraq on March
20 of this year. The airlines later announced that there had been a
sharp increase in cancellations of flights and a sharp decrease in
future flight reservations in those few days. [17]
In June, the Pew Research Center released the results of polling in 20
Muslim countries and the Palestinian territories that brought the
official disconnect into question even more dramatically. The polling
revealed that people interviewed had much more "confidence" in Osama
bin Laden than in George W. Bush. However, "the survey suggested
little correlation between support for bin Laden and hostility to
American ideas and cultural products. People who expressed a favorable
opinion of bin Laden were just as likely to appreciate American
technology and cultural products as people opposed to bin Laden.
Pro-and anti-bin Laden respondents also differed little in their views
on the workability of Western-style democracy in the Arab world." [18]
The Washington mentality about alleged terrorist motivations also
manifests itself in current U.S. occupation policy in Iraq. Secretary
of War Donald Rumsfeld has declared that there are five groups
opposing U.S. forces -- looters, criminals, remnants of Saddam
Hussein's government, foreign terrorists and those influenced by Iran.
[19] An American official in Iraq maintains that many of the people
shooting at U.S. troops are "poor, young Iraqis" who have been paid
between $20 and $100 to stage hit-and-run attacks on U.S. soldiers.
"They're not dedicated fighters," he said. "They're people who wanted
to take a few potshots." [20] With such language do American officials
avoid dealing with the idea that any part of the resistance is
composed of Iraqi citizens who simply do not like being bombed,
invaded, occupied, and subjected to daily humiliations, and are
demonstrating their resentment.
Some officials convinced themselves that it was largely the most loyal
followers of Saddam Hussein and his two sons who were behind the daily
attacks on Americans, and that with the capture or killing of the evil
family, resistance would die out; tens of millions of dollars were
offered as reward for information leading to this joyful prospect.
Thus it was that the killing of the sons elated military personnel.
U.S. Army trucks with loudspeakers drove through small towns and
villages to broadcast a message about the death of Hussein's sons.
"Coalition forces have won a great victory over the Ba'ath Party and
the Saddam Hussein regime by killing Uday and Qusay Hussein in Mosul,"
said the message broadcast in Arabic. "The Ba'ath Party has no power
in Iraq. Renounce the Ba'ath Party or you are in great danger." It
called on all officials of Hussein's government to turn themselves in.
[21]
What followed was several days of some of the deadliest attacks
against American personnel since the guerrilla war began. Unfazed,
American officials in Washington and Iraq continue to suggest that the
elimination of Saddam will write finis to anti-American actions.
Another way in which the political origins of terrorism are obscured
is by the common practice of blaming poverty or repression by Middle
Eastern governments (as opposed to U.S. support for such governments)
for the creation of terrorists. Defenders of U.S. foreign policy cite
this also as a way of showing how enlightened they are. Here's
Condoleezza Rice:
[The Middle East] is a region where hopelessness provides a fertile
ground for ideologies that convince promising youths to aspire not to
a university education, a career or family, but to blowing themselves
up, taking as many innocent lives with them as possible. ... We must
address the source of the problem. [22]
Many on the left speak in a similar fashion, apparently unconscious of
what they're obfuscating. This analysis confuses terrorism with
revolution.
In light of the several instances mentioned above -- and others can be
given -- of U.S. officials giving the game away, in effect admitting
that terrorists and guerrillas may be, or in fact are, reacting to
perceived hurts and injustices, it may be that George W. is the only
true believer among them, if in fact he is one. The leaders of the
American Empire may well know -- at least occasionally when they're
sitting alone at midnight -- that all their expressed justifications
for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and for their "War on Terrorism" are
no more than fairy tales for young children and grown-up innocents.
Officialdom doesn't make statements to represent reality. It
constructs stories to pursue interests. And the interests here are
irresistibly compelling: creating the most powerful empire in all
history, enriching their class comrades, remaking the world in their
own ideological image.
As I've written elsewhere: If I were the president, I could stop
terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days.
Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very
sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the
tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American
imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military
interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it
is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a
foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least
90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and
repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and
sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military
budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since
Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first
three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
***
[William Blum is a former State Department official. He is the author
of: Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War
II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power, and
West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.
Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
See url for citation, Notes:.
__________________
fwd//Starman