The Central Truth about George Bush’s “War on Terrorism” [View All]

By taking it as the starting premise that the United States is only a victim of terrorism (rather than the world’s major perpetrator of it), one loses the opportunity to educate people to a fundamental truth about terrorism and even implicitly denies that truth. – Edward S. Herman and David Peterson from “Who Terrorizes Whom”

Herman and Peterson begin their article, “Who Terrorizes Whom”, with its major theme and perhaps one of the most important, yet least understood truths of our time, regarding George W. Bush’s so-called “War on Terrorism”:


Indeed, George W. Bush today has control of the most powerful military in the history of the world, and in wielding that power he has misused the word “terrorism” to profoundly misrepresent his policies and actions. Specifically, he has misused that word to hide the most important truth about his “War on Terrorism”: That in the name of fighting terrorism he has become the greatest perpetrator of terrorism in the world.

Few people in the world today would disagree that the attacks on the United States of 9-11-2001 were savage acts of terrorism, regardless of who was behind them. But compared to that one day of terrorism, which resulted in approximately 3,000 deaths, the United States has subsequently embarked on a rampage of terrorism that dwarfs the terrorism that it suffered on 9-11-2001.


The Iraq War as a systematic policy of terrorism

The Wikipedia defines terrorism as:


For those who would be offended by the implication that the role of the United States in the Iraq War fits this definition, let’s consider its various components and how they apply to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq:

First, more than a million Iraqis, most of them civilians, have died as a result of the war, mostly of violent deaths. Another four million have become refugees, largely because of the threat of future violence or as a result of war-related infrastructure destruction. That’s five million Iraqis out of a total pre-war population of about 25 million. And that doesn’t even count those Iraqis who have suffered and survived terrible injuries.

Have the deaths been the result of “political or other ideological goals”? Once George Bush’s initial excuse for the war (the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein) was exposed as untrue, the main excuse for the continued occupation (during which a large proportion of the deaths occurred) became the need to “spread democracy” to Iraq. Especially since few Iraqis had any desire for George Bush’s version of “democracy”, this would have to be considered a “political or other ideological goal”. So, whether the real reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was to spread democracy or, more likely, it was to enhance U.S. strategic influence in the region and the wealth and power of U.S. corporations, certainly it would be fair to say that its purpose was “political or other ideological goals”.

What about “utter disregard for the safety of ‘non-combatants’”? Well, intentions are usually difficult if not impossible to ascertain with certainty. But with nearly a million dead Iraqi civilians, it would appear that making a case that the conduct of the U.S. war in Iraq has demonstrated “regard for the safety of non-combatants” would require quite a stretch of the imagination.

Unlawful? Well, the United Nations Charter defines a “crime against peace” as the invasion of one country by another for any purpose other than self-defense. Clearly, Iraq presented no threat to our country, so the invasion was unlawful.


Bush’s “War on Terror” as a perpetuation of terror

What about the practice of rounding up thousands of “suspected terrorists” from all over the world, throwing them into dungeons, torturing them, imprisoning them for indefinite periods of time, and not giving them a chance to defend themselves against alleged crimes?

These acts most certainly constitute violence; they are unlawful according to the Geneva Convention; they are committed for political or other ideological purposes; and they don’t serve any purpose other than to create fear and terror.

But are these acts committed against civilians? The truth of the matter is that, despite the claims of the Bush administration, we have no right to say that most of our prisoners aren’t innocent civilians, since Bush has produced no information to the contrary and refuses to give them their day in court. A study of more 517 detainees at Guantanamo Bay showed that only 5% were picked up on the battlefield by U.S. forces; large portions of detainees were turned over to U.S. forces by bounty hunters in return for money; and the International Red Cross, among others, has found that the good majority of prisoners in George Bush’s “War on Terror” are “arrested by mistake”.


Why isn’t the terrorism sponsored by Bush and Cheney referred to by its rightful name?

There are several reasons why terrorism sponsored by the United States in pursuance of George Bush’s “War on Terrorism” is referred to as “anti-terrorism” rather than correctly identified as the terrorism that it is. For one thing we have a compliant or intimidated national news media in the United States. Herman and Peterson explain:


Then there is the psychological process of denial. In addition to the numerous militant nationalists who like to think that their country has the right to mold the rest of the world to its will, there are many reasonably well intentioned people for whom the idea that their country is the greatest source of terrorism in the world is just too painful to contemplate. Thus the thinking processes of many Americans are substantially impaired with respect to this issue. Herman and Peterson explain it like this:


And then, there is the related reason that most Americans, even those who recognize the terrorism perpetrated by their own country, also recognize that referring to this truth is so politically incorrect as to be unmentionable in American politics. They would be marginalized for doing that. Or worse, they would be accused of such things as “not supporting the troops” or even “giving aid to the terrorists”. Many might even be afraid of being accused of being “enemy combatants”, in accordance with the definition found in the Military Commissions Act: “an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant." Most people who understand George Bush and Dick Cheney recognize their potential to imprison American citizens indefinitely for “hostilities against the United States” based on nothing more than criticizing the decisions of their leaders. Herman and Peterson explain the reluctance to mention the politically unmentionable by even those Americans who understand what is going on by noting that these Americans:



The political benefits of anti-terrorism

It is important to understand that George Bush’s phony “War on Terrorism” has reaped enormous political benefits for him. First and foremost it enabled him to initiate the war that enabled his corporate friends to obtain access to Iraqi oil and subsequent enormous profits, as well as billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq that has fallen so far short of completion.

Secondly, the “War on Terrorism” has enabled George Bush to accumulate unprecedented presidential powers, in violation of our Constitution and international law, by intimidating Congress and the American people into acquiescence, lest they be accused of impeding his holy “War”. Those powers include, among others: a warrantless spying program involving perhaps millions of Americans; the right to indefinitely detain, torture and withhold habeas corpus from those whom George Bush deems hostile to his plans; the threatening of journalists with prison for exposing his plans; and the right to ignore subpoenas issued by Congress in their meek attempts to investigate the Bush administration’s accumulation of unprecedented and illegal powers.

And now it appears that George Bush plans to use his “War on Terrorism” to expand the Iraq War to yet another nation.


Why terrorism should be called what it is regardless of who practices it

Though few Americans are willing to point out the terrorism practiced by their own country, people from other parts of the world have few qualms about doing so. Herman and Peterson point out:


Thus, George Bush isn’t really fooling many people outside of our own country with his blatantly hypocritical rhetoric about “spreading democracy” and “fighting terrorism”. But the more important reason for us to speak plainly about what our government is doing in its so called “War on Terrorism” is that we can’t adequately address a problem until we recognize it for what it is.

It is true that most Americans have become tired of the Iraq War and want us to pull our troops out. But many of those who want the war to end are ambivalent about it or don’t wish fervently enough for its end. That ambivalence provides enough wiggle room for our elected representatives, who are unlikely to actually put an end to the war unless anti-war sentiment becomes stronger than it currently is.

Describing the Iraq War for what it is – a war of imperialism, supported by repeated acts of terrorism against the Iraqi people – carries the potential to steer the dialogue in a different direction. A different kind of dialogue is badly needed in order to help Americans to see both the “War on terrorism” and the occupation of Iraq for what they are – which would facilitate an end to both of those wars.

Herman and Peterson explain it like this:


In other words, parents can’t successfully teach their children not to be violent by violently abusing them for their transgressions. By the same token, a nation can’t combat terrorism by becoming the greatest source of terrorism in the world.