The “War on Terror” is a War OF Terror
By Kenneth J. Theisen
The government of the United States has been involved in the so-called “global war on terrorism” (GWOT) for over seven years now. The leaders of your government and its apologists have justified this war as a legitimate response to attacks allegedly launched by Islamic extremists on September 11, 2001.
Many have been critical of how the Bush regime has conducted this war, but relatively few Americans have really challenged the underlying assumption that there is legitimacy to the GWOT itself. Even fewer have delved into the real reasons behind the GWOT, which have nothing to do with the U.S. actually rejecting terrorism. Bush and other political leaders of the U.S. use the words “terror,” “terrorism,” “terrorist” to defame essentially any and all who oppose them, and to create the justification for their own use of overwhelming military power. But if the word “terrorism” has any meaning, it is the use of military force against civilians to serve political ends – and the United States stands second to none in that sordid competition.
For instance, Barack Obama has criticized tactics of the Bush regime in the GWOT, particularly the invasion of Iraq. But at the same time, Obama upholds the general premise that the U.S. must be engaged in the GWOT, or he at least uses it as a cover for achieving U.S. interests. This is why Obama is behind escalating one aspect of that war in Afghanistan. This is why Obama will not take military options off the table in dealing with Iran. (Obama chose Clinton as his Secretary of State only months after she threatened to “annihilate” Iran.) This is why he wants to increase the size of the U.S. military. This why Obama may close down the U.S. torture chamber known as Guantanamo, but allow the other hell holes run by the Pentagon to go on torturing and killing prisoners in the GWOT.
Let us be clear from the start. The U.S. government is not adverse to using terrorism as a tactic to achieve its ends. From the genocide that killed millions of Native Americans, to the enslavement of African Americans, to the massacres conducted in the Philippines between 1899 and 1915, to the fire bombings of civilians in Germany and Japan, to the dropping of atomic bombs on Japanese, to the atrocities committed in Vietnam the U.S. has committed terrorist acts as a matter of official government policy. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of such acts could be listed, from the beginning of the U.S. government. And official U.S. government terrorism continues to this day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, all conducted under the guise of the GWOT.
We need to recognize that there are enemies of the U.S. government that use terrorist tactics. Many of these are reactionaries that fight under the guise of religion, including Islam. Like the U.S. government, they kill innocents in their war against the U.S. We also need to realize that many of these “terrorists” were created as the result of blowback from previous U.S. policies, such as the support of Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviet Union. (See current Secretary of War, Robert Gates’ memoir to see how he and others in the U.S. government supported the jihadists. With the active encouragement of the CIA, some 35,000 Muslim fundamentalists from 40 Islamic countries joined in the fight to oppose the Soviet Union. Gates will remain in Obama’s cabinet for the foreseeable future.) Osama bin Laden is just one of these jihadists that fought in Afghanistan on behalf of the U.S. in the 80s. The people of the world have no interest in supporting these reactionaries, just as we have no interest in supporting the reactionaries running the U.S. government. Neither side represents the interests of the vast majority of people of the world.
So if the U.S. government is really not against terrorism, since it is an active and long-term practitioner of using terrorism, why is it engaged in the GWOT?
The War Machine
The U.S. is the dominant imperialist power in the world. It has a war machine that spends more money than all the other governments of the world combined on military expenditures. It has over 700 military bases and sites in more than 130 countries. No previous imperialist power ever had such a global reach.
The U.S. is actively engaged in two major wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is waging undeclared and covert warfare in other countries such as Pakistan and Syria. It is actively engaged in military operations aimed at Iran, along with diplomatic attacks, intelligence operations, and economic sanctions, with the goal of removing the Iranian regime. Iran is continuously presented as a threat to world peace.
The U.S. government is bent on achieving total domination of the region known as the Middle East and control over certain areas in Central Asia, which includes Afghanistan. Not only does this area contain some 70 percent of the world’s oil and gas resources, but it is in a strategic geographical area as well. It is necessary for the U.S. to control this area in order to achieve hegemony over the rest of the world. Reading any of the national security documents, studies, and reports from the Pentagon or imperialist think tanks will confirm this.
But standing in the way of this domination are Islamic fundamentalists ranging from those in al-Queda to those running the theocratic government in Tehran. Also the people of the various countries in this region are an obstacle to the U.S. as they fight the occupations led by the U.S., or of the U.S. ally, Israel. U.S. leaders have been aware of the need to dominate this area for decades. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing into the present, the rise of fundamentalist Islamic forces posed certain obstacles to U.S. hegemony. When these forces first began to compete for power in the Middle East, the U.S. supported many of them, especially when they were counteracting Arab nationalism, or leftist movements in the area. The U.S. also used them to counter Soviet influence as we have seen in Afghanistan. But as the Soviet empire dissolved and leftist and nationalist forces receded, the Islamic extremists began to challenge the U.S. on certain levels. When these forces came to power in Iran they toppled one of the U.S. puppets, the Shah of Iran. This was and still is a serious challenge to U.S. hegemony.
The attacks on 9/11 in many ways became a gift to the U.S. imperialists. Suddenly, many in the world and a majority in the U.S. at that time perceived the U.S. as the victim of the reactionary Islamic fundamentalists. (It was considered virtual treason to even think about who was behind the attacks or why they were allowed to occur. We were to accept the Bush regime version and keep our mouths shut.) Just like Hitler capitalized on the burning of the Reichstag to pursue the Nazi agenda, the Bush regime did so with the 9/11 attacks.
The Deceit Machine
The U.S. government unleashed its propaganda machine and before the year was out, it had invaded Afghanistan and had begun preparations to invade Iraq, which it did in 2003. But we were told that these invasions were not the acts of an imperialist power invading sovereign nations, but rather were now the acts of a victim nation responding in self-defense against a world-wide terrorist network. Good Americans were expected to symbolically enlist in this war and cheer for the good old home team of America. And like the good Germans, millions did as they were instructed and backed these imperialist wars. Yes, the Bush regime manufactured lies to justify the attacks, but the regime was aided by Congress and the mainstream media who went along with the justification. Democrats as well as Republicans rallied around the flag. The Bush regime was just making us safe from terrorism and deserved our support — or so we were told.
So what if tens of thousands and then later a million died as collateral damage in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq? After all, they are not Americans. We all know how “they” do not value life as much as “we” do. And somehow “they” must have helped the terrorists launch those attacks on 9/11 and “they” also threatened to attack “us” again. George W., Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Colin Powell told us so. As Condi Rice told us repeatedly on news shows, we had to attack the enemy now, before the mushroom clouds proved our leaders right.
But now, seven years later, only a fool would believe all the lies told to justify the war on terror by the Bush regime. Bush has been totally discredited. So given that the war on terror has been falsely justified with lies, why are we supposed to go along with a new pied piper named Barack Obama? Obama tells us we need to fight the “good war” in Afghanistan. We need to pour in more troops there in order to make America safe. We need to use our military might to also go after terrorists in nearby Pakistan … because Obama says it is so. We need to do “everything, everything” to keep Iran from acquiring nukes–so sayeth our incoming Commander-in-Chief. Why do we believe a new imperialist leader any more than the outgoing one?
Is it because we believe that the U.S. is not really imperialist despite its domination of the world? Will those 700 military bases and sites in 130 countries turn into child care or food distribution centers on January 20th when Barack takes the oath of office? Will the victims of U.S. attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria suddenly stop becoming collateral damage on January 21st? Will the tens of thousands of prisoners of the GWOT currently held in hell holes run by the U.S. or its allies stop being tortured, abused, or killed, and be freed after Obama takes office? Will the arsenal of the most destructive military in the world be turned into plowshares? Will thousands of nukes used to threaten the world and maintain U.S. domination over the last 50 plus years be dismantled? Of course not! The GWOT will continue under a new leader. He may be more articulate or smoother when he lies to us, but the death and destruction will continue. Thousands will die to “protect” us. We will be told that this is necessary. We will be convinced that others must die to make us “safe.” We will be convinced that this is right and just. Others must die that we may live. We must be better than “they” are because we are AMERICANS.
Our Responsibilities
But what if we are not? What if the life of an Iraqi is just as important as the life of an American? Does a child in Afghanistan have just as much right to life as my children do? What if a farmer in Pakistan wants to be free from predator missile strikes even though he lives across the border from Afghanistan? Shouldn’t a man walking the streets of Italy be free from being kidnapped by the CIA and then rendered to Egypt for “outsourced” torture because he is an alleged terrorist? Do not all these people have the right to be safe?
And what if you know your government does torture, kill, maim, and generally commit all kinds of crimes in your name under the guise of the GWOT? What duty do you have to prevent this from continuing?
Should you be allowed to say, “Well, yes, I know this has gone on for years, but now we have a new guy in charge and I want to give him time to change things. Yes, I know he says he wants to escalate in Afghanistan. Yes, I know he does not mind violating Pakistani territory to win the war on terror. Yes, he refuses to commit to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013. Yes, I know he has appointed people to his cabinet that are either from the old regime, or maybe supported the war, or threatened to annihilate an entire nation. But hey, let’s give him a chance.”
No! Such a response is not acceptable. The GWOT has never been legitimate. It was initiated and continues to be justified by a pack of lies to serve U.S. imperialist interests. American lives are no more valuable than the lives of others. The GWOT is American imperialism dressed up in a new guise. The invasion of other nations, violations of international law, inhumane treatment of prisoners, death, torture, rendition, media disinformation, etc. are all justified to prosecute the GWOT. Here at home the massive spying, the violations of human and civil rights, the attacks against immigrants, and all the other violations of the Constitution are said to be necessary to the GWOT. None of these were legitimate under Bush and they will not be any more legitimate under Obama. The “global war against terrorism” is nothing more than a war of terrorism against the people of the world. It must be resisted and defeated regardless of whom is the Commander-in-Chief directing it.
“George W. Bush: Google’s #1 Failure” (Retrieved December 4, 2008, from http://austinist.com/2006/08/24/george_w_bush_googles_1_failure.php).
Bush’s failed “war on terror” has something to do with this.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
…and besides, the fact that other studies have been done is not proof of your assertion that the participants in the Johns Hopkins study fabricated or inflated the numbers, which was the one question I asked. If you can’t prove that, don’t just change the subject. Do try and prove your points if you’re giong to bother to make them.
Actually, if you “know anything about statistics”, you know that just arbitrarily picking a middle number between a high and a low estimate doesn’t tell you anything about reality–it just says you’re too lazy to think about it for very long. You have to look at how these estimates were arrived at, what methods were used, and how reliable they are. You haven’t done this. You’re just choosing to believe what you want to believe. So if we’re not going to talk about reality, why are we having this discussion?
The evidence is the fact that there have been numerous other studies done on the number civilian casualties, and none of them come even close to the numbers of the Johns Hopkins figures. If you know anything about statistics, you know that when there are numerous conclusions that have been come to about something, the highs and lows are usually fairly unreliable. So yes, the actual reasons for the inflation of the figure are speculative (though fairly common sense) but the fact that when their are numerous conclusions that have been come to the highest one is usually not the most reliable is based in statistical concepts. But you’ve also dodged my point about who is actually responsible for those deaths, which I assume is because there’s nothing you can say to that.
OK, let me narrow it down to one question: Do you have any piece of evidence whatsoever that the Johns Hopkins study fabricated or inflated the death toll? Let’s talk about reality. Actual facts, statistics or reports.
Because if all you’ve got is some prejudiced belief of what some Iraqis whom you’ve never may or may not think about the US…well, how is anyone supposed to argue with that? Those are inventions of your own mind if you don’t have any concrete evidence to back them up.
So please: one piece of evidence (that exists somewhere outside of your own mind) that the study is compromised.
Sorry sir, you’re the clueless one. That’s not “my” definition of empire–it’s as old as time, and neither war had ANYTHING to do with access to resources. Show me PROOF that ONE DROP of Iraqi or Afghan oil or other resources has ended up in the hands of the U.S. (Hint, there’s NONE!!) I’ll spell it out for you so that even you can understand it. The U.S. attacks countries that it has reason to believe pose a direct threat to its citizen’s lives.
Afghanistan: fought to remove the Taliban, who were the direct funding sources and safe haven providers for Al-Qaida, who carried out the 9/11 attack.
Iraq: fought on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be faulty but seemed credible at the time, and not just by the U.S.
“Encouraging the sectarian violence”–interesting, then why did we attempt to control it with the additional forces, and by all objective accounts are succeeding too? We didn’t benefit from it. We had our heads up our asses for a while, but finally removed them.
The John Hopkins study–POLLING VILLAGES AND HOSPITALS??? Hmmm, no motivation for inflating those numbers by those villagers or hospital staff, is there?? Let’s see, you live in a village where during an attempt to take out a terror cell some of your own innocents are accidently caught in the crossfire. Or you work at the hospital where some of these victims were taken So you now hate the U.S. You’ve got a U.S. based study now wanting to find out how many got killed. Gee, great chance to….naw, you’re too honest, you’d NEVER inflate the death totals to make the people you’re angry at look even worse, would you? And YOU’RE the one who wants to accuse ME of believing “parrotted” information. HAHAHA!! ROFLMAO!!!!!
The five million stat, number one, that’s probably prone to the same inflations as the death tolls. But furthermore, the important part here too is who is actually doing the displacing, same as with the killing. Again, it’s mostly Iraqi on Iraqi, insurgents pushing people of their homes and taking over their neighborhood. Not ok with me, but not the U.S.’s fault either. Speaking of which, funny you should bring up the Klan earlier, (which yes, indeed, they are racist, what kind of a bullshit statement was that???) would you have blamed the Union Army or the abolitionists for the Klan’s crimes? After all, if the slaves hadn’t been freed there never would have been a Klan. Ridiculous? Of course, but no more ridiculous than you blaming the Iraqis actions against each other on the U.S.’s presence.
Anonymous…factually and analytically, every part of your answer is wrong. There’s no nice way to put it. But you had the wherewithal to answer, so I’ll respond.
I don’t know where you got your definition of empire, but it misses the essence of what an empire is entirely (though I’m interested that you at least tacitly accept that the US has an imperialist past). You don’t have to “expand territory” to be an empire–you have to use political, economic, or military means to attempt to expand access to and control of resources for the benefit of the imperialist class (Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, Check!).
Whether or not one succeeds at such ventures (or as you put it, makes “a PENNY of profit”–which of course, many corporations have) is not the standard for determining whether or not a venture is motivated by imperialism. For example, if a Klansman, attacks a Black man but doesn’t actually kill him, it’s still a racist attack, right? (Or maybe you think the Klan isn’t racist, I don’t know.) The point is, empires invade, occupy, and set up subservient governments in countries that have something they want.
It’s true that the invasion and occupation of Iraq didn’t go down like the imperialists thought it would. It’s cost them a shit ton of money, and the way they initially squeezed out other imperialists isolated them politically. So they had to change tactics. That happens. You get the iron fist for a while, then the iron fist puts on a velvet glove, which in my opinion is pretty much what we’ve got now with Obama.
And lastly, the US is benefiting from and encouraging the sectarian violence in Iraq, taking advantage of and even promoting religious and social contradictions that exist among the people. As far as the number of people killed, the most reliable information comes from the Johns Hopkins study, which is the most rigorous and exhaustive accounting of deaths in Iraq from violence. Their study was done by polling villages, hospitals, and morgues in Iraq, at great risk to themselves. No one else has done anything close to what they’ve done…the UN and others have relied almost exclusively on press reports. Their scientific rigorousness in counting victims in OTHER countries (like Rwanda and Kosovo) has been upheld internationally and even in the US. But in this case, using the same methods, the researchers came to conclusions that the imperialists didn’t like, the imperialists dismissed their methods as “flawed” and the press parroted these dismissals. You, without even bothering to investigate for yourself, believed them.
I notice that you didn’t take issue with the number of five million displaced. Does that mean that that particular atrocity is OK with you?
Ok, the answer to that question is a resounding NO! The definition of an empire is a nation that tries to expand its territory across the world–something the U.S. hasn’t done since the McKinley administration. We’re not interested in colonializing anybody. Wars for empire don’t involve the element of aiming towards withdrawal, which in case you haven’t noticed, just happened with Iraq. You people’s paranoid vision of the motivations behind all of this is absolutely pathologically insane. This country hasn’t made a PENNY of profit off any of these wars. We have LOST billions, actually approaching trillions of dollars on them. I’m not buying into any ruse–what I’m doing is acknowledging the fact that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11, and recognizing the fact that this is no accident. I am also recognizing that the “million” Iraqi civilians killed is 1. a complete ruse figure–not even the UN, certainly no U.S. lapdog, goes that high and 2. Mostly not the U.S.’s doing–it’s Iraqis killing other Iraqis is the Sunni-Shia civil war. Furthermore, if you’re suggesting that our anti-terror methods are not acceptable, then offer us an alternative, and it better not involve giving in to demands made by terrorists.
The point, anonymous, is that the rulers of this country AREN’T defending us. By launching unprovoked invasions and unjustifiable occupations, they’re making the world much more dangerous for everyone who lives in it. That includes us in the US, of course, but I’m referring especially to the close to one million Iraqis who have died violent deaths as a result of the US invasion and occupation of their country, and the five million more driven from their homes. The US and its rulers do those things to maintain and expand an empire…not to make the world “safe” for anyone or anything but their profits.
I think you should take the time to actually read the article and try to respond to that main point…that the GWOT is a ruse. You’re not helping anyone by buying into the bullshit that the ruling classes are spewing through their political parties and the media.
Wanna give it a shot? Go ahead…read the article, and answer this question: Is the United States an empire? Why, or why not?
So this country has no right to defend itself and its citizens, right? Our job is to just roll over, let them destroy us as they will (not something the evil government told us, by the way, that’s right from the terrorists’ mouths themselves, in their statements and in their writings) or make concessions to these thugs and send a big, fat signal to them that the more of our innocent citizens they slaughter, the more we’ll give them exactly what their sick minds desire, right? Get a clue.