The Central Truth about George Bush’s “War on Terrorism”

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.

Bookmarking for later reading- this looks like a treasure trove of links for the points I often try to make to the "We're bringin' freedom round the world" crowd.

And I believe that he, Bush, and Cheney have a great deal in common.

The only difference is that Bush and Cheney need to be a little more careful of what they say. Since we live in a somewhat more enlightened age, they need to make more of an effort than did Goering and Hitler to disguise their intentions.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14290815/site/newsweek/




http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070214-2.html



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html

Emphasis is mine. So many Freudian slips...if indeed they were.

But two things especially come to mind when I consider the differences in how careful they need to be in their rhetoric, compared to Hitler.

First, Hitler's rhetoric was virulently racist. A national political figure in the US today could not get away with consistent racist rhetoric. Bush and Cheney may or may not be racist. But their rhetoric is decidedly NOT racist. Their policies -- such as the handling of Katrina and the disenfranchisement of black voters -- are racist, but they may or may not have racist intentions. Rather, their policies are in keeping with the Bush agenda of political gain and enriching his friends at the expense of everyone else. Anyhow, the rhetoric is very different than Hitler's though they may be just as evil as Hitler.

Secondly, Bush speaks about things like "spreading freedom" around the world. He uses that as an excuse for his imperialist war in Iraq. He would never admit that the Iraq War's purpose was to gain geostrategic influence in the Middle East, gain access to Iraq's oil and other resources, and to enrich his friends with billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer and Iraqi money. Hitler had little problem in admitting that a major purpose of his war was to gain access to more land and other resources for the German people. After all, taking land away from other peoples could not be criticized because he considered, as did much of his audience, that Germany's victimes were racially inferior.

Many Americans may believe the same thing about the Iraqis and our other victims. But these things cannot be talked about.

I see all of these slips of the tongue, all of their legislation and all of their actions, and the picture becomes quite clear.

As you say, though, the PR has to flow in a certain direction, or Bush would lose the 30% or so that support him. I don't think they are "racist" per se, but they find the anti-muslim sentiment in america("They're a bunch of ragheads!" for instance) useful for their aims, so they play that card. They themselves look down their noses at anyone not in their club, so race really doesn't play into it for them.

I suppose it's all about the effective tools, and the effect on the "tools."

William Park is someone who has a lot to say to us, whom we can learn something from. His last book is Violent Politics. K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3020472&mesg_id=3020538

I still get flamed when I bring that up, but the weapons are coming from somewhere, and the insurgents don't have the money for them.

Some of the weak minded insist that Iran is selling weapons to them, but again, with what money are they buying them?

Those are the facts.

We have created the insurgency -- which is another thing that has escaped virtually all discussion in this country. It's not just the arming of the insurgents. By Paul Bremer's orders, disbanding the army and his de-ba'athification order, we created hundreds of thousands of unemployed Iraqis, many of them armed.

The good majority of insurgents are simply fighting against those who invaded and are occupying their country.

George Bush and Dick Cheney call them "terrorists", as if fighting soldiers who invade your country is "terrorism". The good majority of them are no more terrorists than were the Americans who fought in our Revolutionary War.

But Bush and Cheney get to define what terrorism means in this country.

From the dictionary definition to "lone guy with a beard and a bomb". The mentality is that whoever has the larger force on the field is the "army" and the smaller force is a ragtag team of "terrorists" - never mind that they're both doing the exactly same thing

It's gotten to the point where you can talk to someone on the right about this and give them the textbook definition of terrorism, and you will get a "yes, but..." argument. Even they know we use terror tactics. It's simply excusable because we're us.

I have to say I am in agreement with most of the article, as many of the article's points were raised by Noam Chomsky during his lecture circuit following the September 11th attacks. Ultimately, if we want to "win" the War on Terror, we need to go about it a just and reasonable manner, which includes refraining from blatantly terrorist actions ourselves.

Frankly, though, I don't believe the White House considers its actions "terrorist", nor do its conservative supporters. It isn't that conservatives are immoral, they don't go about their days looking to deliberately do wrong, they are simply amoral, not knowing nor caring about the consequences of their actions. They see things in black and white; we are the "good guys", and can do no wrong, while they are the "bad guys", and deserving of whatever comes their way. Coupled with the conservative-typical drive to aggressively punish transgressions, this, I believe, is the core problem with having the Republicans execute the War on Terror.

Military confrontation of terrorist organizations is bound to happen, be it through raids, hostage rescue, or flat-out firefights, but under Republican guidance, we have expanded the role of the military to not simply taking on the terrorists, but taking on the citizenry of the countries in which these terrorists reside. The end result is a giant leap backward. As the innocent are punished, the terrorist ranks swell in equal measure.

The conservatives do not understand the War on Terror cannot be won through military might alone. A man willing to strap a bomb to his chest and die for his Jihad isn't likely to fear death at the hands of the American military. The real key to victory lies within the higher echelons of these terrorist organizations. They direct and acquire funding for their war, and show little interest in martyring themselves. Thus, a significant effort must be made to freeze the funding of terrorist organizations, to curb terrorist recruitment, and to extradite terrorist leaders for trial in the International Court. None of this is being done.

When viewed objectively, the War on Terror is not only an abysmal failure, but it is downright illogical and hypocritical. As Chomsky astutely observed, the American public demanded the Middle East be bombed back to the Stone Age for Oklahoma City bombing, which was later revealed to be the work of two members of a Montana militia. Then, it was business as usual. The two men were arrest, tried, and sentenced. Nobody called for a carpet bombing of Helena, and, oddly enough, nobody suggest outright war against the Montana militias.

Another case can be made by viewing the British response to the IRA. Bush has asserted any country aiding a terrorist organization will face our wrath, obviously not considering the city of Boston's financial ties to the IRA. Like many terrorist organizations, the IRA receives funding from sympathizers in other countries, and Boston is one of the organization's most important financial hubs. Using the Bush doctrine as a model, it would be perfectly acceptable for the British to carpet bomb Boston whenever the IRA detonates a bomb in the United Kingdom.

The whole thing is preposterous. Our first and primary course of action should be to discredit these terrorist organizations, to prove we, as Americans, are not "bad people". In order to do that, we need to immediately end all support of repressive regimes, end our arms trade, and use our economic and political clout to improve the quality of life in the Middle East. If we helped give every Muslim three meals a day, an education, and quality medical care, who would want to kill us?

"They don't go about their days looking to deliberately do wrong, they are simply amoral, not knowing nor caring about the consequences of their actions. They see things in black and white; we are the "good guys", and can do no wrong, while they are the "bad guys", and deserving of whatever comes their way. Coupled with the conservative-typical drive to aggressively punish transgressions, this, I believe, is the core problem with having the Republicans execute the War on Terror."

That hits the nail on the head.

The thing is, nobody "goes about their days looking to deliberately do wrong". Even Hitler told himself and everyone else that he and the Nazis were the "good guys", while everyone else was the "bad guys". In my book, that doesn't excuse anything they've done.

It just seems a distinction without any difference.

:rofl:

Seriously.

So, the Bush junta is unaware of their immorality or morality?

Seems a grossly lame excuse for engaging in criminal behavior. Doncha' think? :shrug:

Yes, that's right, I'm making excuses for Bush & Co.

Brilliant abstraction.

Since you are apparently lacking a dictionary, I have placed the definitions of "immorality" and "amorality" below. As you can clearly see, there is a distinction between the terms,


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
a·mor·al /eɪˈmɔrəl, æˈmɔr-, eɪˈmɒr-, æˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·mor·al /ɪˈmɔrəl, ɪˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

An immoral person knowingly violates social or personal ethics, an amoral person doesn't believe ethical standards apply to them.

Isn't that precisely how the most horrific of evil/criminal minds work?

:shrug:

I do hope you are not feeling the exasperation your posted words seem to be expressing.

I simply can no more accept the neocons' assertion of 'amoralism' as an excuse for their behavior than I can any mass murderer's excuse. That's all.

Though dictionary definitions may attempt to make a distinction, I too see little distinction between them in reality.

The above noted definition of amoral is "unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong".

The definition of immoral is "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."

Well, anyone who is indifferent to questions of right and wrong is bound to not conform to "the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." At least when applied to humans that is the case. I suppose that one could call a tree or an animal amoral without being immoral, but for humans I see little if any difference.

That's the way I see it anyhow.

,..they have no awareness of morals.

It just seems to me, very silly to 'excuse' their behavior based upon some, "oh, well, they are Amoral therefore their actions aren't 'bad'and/or they have no malignant intent BUT RATHER,...uh,...they misdirected or misguided or UNGUIDED or something".

Pfft. I don't see that kind of mind-wrecking, rational-wheeling bullshit applied to common people who have a record of criminal activity seriously paling to this administration's record.

OMG!!! If you consider the life and liberty and money these criminal scoundrels have criminally usurped, they would be in prison for thousands and thousands and millions of years!!!! BILLIONS OF YEARS!!!!

Yes, I am feeling exasperated, but not because of your lack of acceptance of the distinction between two words, but because of the condescending manner in which you have expressed that lack of acceptance. If I misread your intentions behind the words you chose, then we'll just chalk it up to a mistake, and I apologize for getting snippy.

Dissertations have been written about the distinction between people who intentionally do wrong (the immoral) and those who make no distinction between right and wrong (the amoral), so there's no way I'll be able to construct a concise summary of the topic. However, there are some very important case studies I think you should read.

First, read Hannah Ardent's Eichmann in Jerusalem. She covered the Eichmann trial and came to the conclusion the Holocaust wasn't carried out by sociopaths, but by ordinary people who honestly believed their actions to be normal because they worked within the norms of the state. This is referred to as "The Banality of Evil", and can be generalized to every despicable act of inhumanity history has to offer.

Second, if you can find a video of Philip Zimbardo's Prison Experiment, watch it. You can read the summary http://www.prisonexp.org/">HERE. Zimbardo is a social psychologist out of Stanford, and specializes in immoral behavior. One of his lectures, "The Lucifer Effect" is available from iTunes U. The premise is, those guilty of the most inhumane acts are predominantly ordinary people placed in specific social conditions.

Zimbardo's work expounds upon that of Yale Psychologist Stanley Milgram, who carried out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">THIS infamous experiment.

I think the reason you are unwilling to differentiate between immorality and amorality is because you are viewing them externally. Somebody who does wrong, does wrong. End of story. I understand that, but it fails to accurately describe what is going through the head of the person who is doing wrong. An immoral person does wrong despite his notions of morality, while an amoral person is placed in a situation where normative behavior no longer seems to apply. If bad deeds are carried out only by immoral people, it suggests there's a group of people out there who are just evil, monsters if you will. It belies the fact anyone is capable of great injustices if placed in social circumstances which encourage that form of behavior. It can happen to anyone, not matter how good they are.

K&R

exellent post with references - and I agree its is the central truth. In spite of the self-righteousness this is how the world sees the US, I'm sorry to say. And I mean the people, not the governments.

an education, and quality medical care, who would want to kill us?"

The Fundamentalist Muslims are not looking for a handout. They want Western Powers out of their countries. They want their countries to be ruled by Shiria Law. They want the Dictators that rule their countries, that are supported by the US/UK over thrown. They want Palestine to be an Islamic State.

Duh!!! Bush, Cheney and those who went along for the ride are the real terrorists.

that he was interested in educating anyone about anything against his serial killing policies?

The U.S. government-backed corporacrats have been engaging in terrorism for decades.

I used to care about being taken seriously and would utilize tactful language when revealing the violence our own country has waged against innocent civilian populations. But, since I still wasn't getting through, I now use blunt language. When I state, unequivocally, that the United States has engaged and is engaging in terrorism greater than that seen around the entire globe, the reaction is quite viscerous. But, at least, I am getting through.

There is no getting around the fact that the US is engaged in terrorism. If saying that is what it takes to get peoples' attention, then I think it should be said repeatedly.

When you say that the reaction you get is quite viscerous, do you mean that in a good way or a bad way?

It is AWEFUL to be associated with something so destructive.

The reactions (and, of course, they vary depending upon each person's belief system and experience) are almost always quite emotional, "cathartic".

Even though I have been exposed to "what is", I still have cathartic moments. Haven't you?

It is cathartic to tell the truth about terrible things, especially when it is a difficult truth that one has previously been reluctant to speak for fear of offending people.

I believe that there are two very different ways that people tend to look at things such as this.

One is with the type of misguided "patriotism" that characterizes so many Republicans today, and even some Dems as well. That is the kind of "patriotism" that is so reluctant to attribute bad or evil motives to our government that it is virtually beyond the pale to consider such things. That kind of thinking says that, as "patriotic" Americans, we must consider our country to be good by definition. It is unthinkable that we would accuse our government of going to war over oil or for the purpose of war profiteering.

That way that I and perhaps most DUers look at these things is very different than that. History is full of hundreds of examples of nations going to war for immoral purposes, without due consideration for the vast destruction of the lives and property of other people. Why should we believe that our own country is immune from that sort of thing, especially when our (s)elected leaders repeatedly give us evidence to the contrary?

And in order to obtain sufficient $$$$ to satisfy their greed, they need to engage in repeated acts of terrorism.