Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War-Mongering America Terrorizes the World

By Howard Zinn, AlterNet. Posted September 9, 2006.


The USA's massive military campaigns are both strategically ineffective and morally indefensible.
terrorremover
terror

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Howard Zinn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.

The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and- awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.

I remember John Hersey's novel, "The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.

The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations -- the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- and were forced to withdraw.

Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.

The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence -- the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.

Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.

The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.

This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."

So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism.

For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.

If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Howard Zinn is a professor emeritus at Boston University and the author of the forthcoming book, "A Power Governments

Cannot Suppress" (City Lights Books, Winter 2007).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
exactly
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 9, 2006 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Zinn is exactly right: the worst terrorists are the ones that kill the most civilians and the biggest killers of civilians are the Bushies. We Americans should impeach the Bushies and replace them with politicians who will not bomb civilians. The long history of USA bombings of civilians must end and those who continue bombing civilians in any nation from any nation must be brought to justice with appropriate police and court activity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 100% correct, Douglas Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: exactly wrong! Posted by: citizenjoe
» Don't abuse the English language Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: exactly wrong! Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: exactly wrong! Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: exactly wrong! Posted by: mdruss42
» Not only is it SHOUTING... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: exactly wrong! Posted by: blitzmesser
» Douglas Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: Douglas Posted by: conquerormarr
» RE: exactly Posted by: Cheeky
All Howard's Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 9, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it unreasonable for me to hope that people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky live well into their second centuries on earth? Both men are speaking to the most crucial issues in the history of the human race and that is no exaggeration! Please do yourselves a really big favor: Go out and purchase two DVD documentaries: "Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train" and "Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause". Trust me on this one, Campers; You will not be disappointed!

As Howard makes abundantly clear, and what should now be a no-brainer to all of us, War is not the answer. "The 'war on terror' is a contradiction in terms". Handing over the manufacture of military weaponry to private industry was, no doubt about it, the worst mistake human beings have ever made.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the aquisition of misplaced power, whether sougnt or unsought by the military Industrial complex. The potential for the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties and democratic processes".
Dwight D. Eisenhower
January 17, 1961

Whoa! Call it a hunch but I have a sneaky suspicion that the old bastard was on to something there!

There's no doubt about it. The "military industrial complex" will have to be shut down across the board - by force in necessary (Can you just imagine UN forces bombing the bleeding mortal shit out of a munitions factory in the mid west? Cool!). Not only in this country but around the world. We've got to realize that the human race cannot and willnot survive if we continue on the course we've set for ourselves. When John Lennon wrote "Give Peace A Chance" almost forty years ago, he kept it as simple as possible:

All we are saying is, "Give peace a chance"!
All we are saying is, "Give peace a chance"!
All we are saying is, "Give peace a chance"!
All we are saying is, "Give peace a chance"!

Say it. Repeat it. Believe it. It's our only hope.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WTG Douglas! Posted by: WhatNow?
Cigar store wooden Indians
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 9, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there’s one vital skill Democratic politicians have to learn, it’s gut punch retorts. Standing around mute like cigar store wooden Indians riddled with termites, just doesn’t cut it. Anyone too timid, dimwitted or inarticulate to refute the rabid right’s blitzkrieg of absurd lies or childish accusations of “weak on terrorism,” doesn’t belong in politics.

Voters didn’t elect them to be punching bags, we expect them to return punch for punch. If they can’t manage that, then retire, resign or commit suicide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Douglas, you are 100% right Posted by: cold2touch
Change laws to restrict U.S. military adventurism
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 9, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After Vietnam, the U.S. went through a decade of agonizing over how our government had erred. Many Americans said we must never let it happen again.

Guess what. Because no concrete steps were taken after the Southeast Asia debacle, here we are again in the same situation. And it will happen again and again, unless our laws on military involvement are changed.

War is always tempting to politicians because it's an easy way to gin up political support while diverting attention from domestic problems. Think hard about the U.S. military incursions since the Korean War. Most were simply unnecessary.

Americans should demand that Congress change our laws -- even our Constitution, if necessary -- to impose strict time limits and performance standards on U.S. troop deployments. We also must find a way to dismantle our obscene military-industrial complex, which is devouring our federal budget and driving our preoccupation with military "solutions" to foreign-policy problems.

If these changes aren't made, the next unnecessary slaughter will arrive right on schedule in ten or fifteen years -- probably in South America -- and we will see a repeat of this now-too-familiar scenario.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is Intentional, and Inevitable, Dr. Zinn
Posted by: citizenjoe on Sep 9, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Zinn needs to look-up his words in the dictionary. Here is "intentional" in the OED:

"2. Done on purpose, resulting from intention; intended."

Collateral damage when known, and understood and accepted as a result of bombing is INTENTIONAL. The US policy is terrorism not because all war is terrorism. There are rules of war which forbid intentional killing of civilians. The choice to do so makes the perpetrator a terrorist. A state which does so is a terrorist state. The USA at present is a terrorist state not because it goes to war but because it governed by terrorists. WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is no "human race" Posted by: citizenjoe
» Humanity is a good word Posted by: citizenjoe
here's a thought...
Posted by: profmarcus on Sep 9, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't it possible that wars are fought to CREATE chaos, FOSTER new enemies, and DESTABILIZE national security...? after all, there's a lot of benefits that accrue to the folks who take countries to war... i simply don't buy the assumption that wars are fought to achieve positive ends...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: here's a thought... Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: here's a thought... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: here's a thought... Posted by: cold2touch
Economic Boycotts Lead to Inevitable Civilian Deaths
Posted by: Douglas on Sep 9, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US and UN sponsored economic boycott of Iraq in the 1990s resulted in the "inevitable" deaths of numerous Iraqi civilians, including hundreds of thousands of infants and children. When asked about the loss of so many innocents lives as a result of the boycott, US Secretary of State Madelyn Albright said, "We think it was worth it." Currently the Israeli/US economic boycott of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is also leading to massive and "inevitable" civilian deaths. Economic boycotts must also be seen as an act of state sponsored terrorism and condemned by true supporters of "peace."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got war?
Posted by: Roland on Sep 9, 2006 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one war that Bush and the neocrones can win is the war for the hearts and minds of Americans. It is what they are exceedingly good at (with willful compliance from the media) and what many Americans are too confused, afraid and just too damn tired to resist.

It is the war that makes all other wars possible because we allow it to happen.

The fog is getting thicker folks. We have to be able to see ourselves through to the other side despite that the fact that we cannot see what's right in front of faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War is terrorism?!? Nonsense
Posted by: brunowe on Sep 9, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. Collateral damage involves the deliberate targeting of valid military targets where civilian deaths are unavoidable. There is a real difference in the mindset.

Further, military action was the answer in Afghanistan. The Taliban are resurgent not because it wasn't but because troops were diverted from consolidating Afghanistan to Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Collateral Damage"
Posted by: wawa on Sep 9, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The euphenism 'collateral damage' masks the truth that innocent people are most definetly TERRORIZED when ever they are caught in the crossfire,

A terrorist is anyone who targets innocent people.

The Sept. 8 edition of THE INDEPENDENT, ran a Special Report on Gaza,
the headline proclaimed:

A PEOPLE BETRAYED BY THE WORLD

Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation...A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets.

Many people are being killed by Israeli incursions that occur every day by land and air. A total of 262 people have been killed and 1,200 wounded, of whom 60 had arms or legs amputated, since 25 June, says Dr Juma al-Saqa, the director of the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City which is fast running out of medicine. Of these, 64 were children and 26 women. This bloody conflict in Gaza has so far received only a fraction of the attention given by the international media to the war in Lebanon.


The deadly toll

* After the kidnap of Cpl Gilad Shalit by Palestinians on 25 June, Israel launched a massive offensive and blockade of Gaza under the operation name Summer Rains.

* The Gaza Strip's 1.3 million inhabitants, 33 per cent of whom live in refugee camps, have been under attack for 74 days.

* More than 260 Palestinians, including 64 children and 26 women, have been killed since 25 June. One in five is a child. One Israeli soldier has been killed and 26 have been wounded.

* 1,200 Palestinians have been injured, including up to 60 amputations. A third of victims brought to hospital are children.

* Israeli warplanes have launched more than 250 raids on Gaza, hitting the two power stations and the foreign and Information ministries.

* At least 120 Palestinian structures including houses, workshops and greenhouses have been destroyed and 160 damaged by the Israelis.

* The UN has criticised Israel's bombing, which has caused an estimated $1.8bn in damage to the electricity grid and leaving more than a million people without regular access to drinking water.

* The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says 76 Palestinians, including 19 children, were killed by Israeli forces in August alone. Evidence shows at least 53 per cent were not participating in hostilities.

* In the latest outbreak of violence, three Palestinians were killed yesterday when Israeli troops raided a West Bank town in search of a wanted militant. Two of those killed were unarmed, according to witnesses.

Complete Report on
WAWA Blog
September 9, 2006

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can our thugs succeed?
Posted by: daw13 on Sep 9, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Succeed, that is, at creating a world in chaos -- an Orwellian world where Neocons claim leadership of a confederation of oligrachies dedicated to the protection of their ruling classes at the expense of the rest of us. This was a question put directly to Dr. Zinn at a recent Historians Against the War conference. He indicated that "Our Gang" probably can prevail in such a venture, if we the people of the United States don't rise up to stop them.

I felt then, and feel now that this assumption is debatable. I also feel that it needs to be debated. I fear that our citizenry may give little more than lip service to activism based on moral fervor. However, moral ferver plus full awareness that those our leaders seek to expendablize may be more than able to expendablize us back sufficiently to destroy our society, if not our military force, may constitute a powerful motive for activism. Somehow, the Progressive movement, to the extent there is one, does not wish to address this dimension of current reaility.

I wonder why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The world needs America at war
Posted by: mat38 on Sep 9, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without our pentagon and military industrila complex wreaking havoc and destruction upon the developing nations of the earth what kind of world would we be living in?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» USA is a stabilizing force Posted by: bullwhip7
Zinn speaks truth to power
Posted by: scribbler on Sep 9, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the US try to stop Israel from destroying the infrastructure of lebanon and shooting cluster bombs and rockets into families who awere at home or trying to escape their communities? If not, that is support for terrorism...no matter what the excuses or reasons for the attacks. The capture and killing of of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was terror. So was the response by the Israelis.

Why didn't the US use its power to break the cycles of violence against both Palestinians and Israelis by pressuring the UN or World Court or Arab League to negotiate release of prisoners and fair consequences, using international law, diplomacy and true coalitions against violence? Are we so weak? Or did we support the slaughter and destruction?

We also order our soldiers to destroy homes and businesses and kill civilians in the way in Iraq as we look for suspected insurgents who may see themselves as defending their country against a second wave of Crusaders. Some day a future generation will look back on our primitive kneejerk violence the way we look at historical times when cowboys could shoot each other in the street or swashbucklers could duel each other to the death at dawn because of a minor insults or rivalries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zinn speaks truth to power
Posted by: scribbler on Sep 9, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the US try to stop Israel from destroying the infrastructure of lebanon and shooting cluster bombs and rockets into families who awere at home or trying to escape their communities? If not, that is support for terrorism...no matter what the excuses or reasons for the attacks. The capture and killing of of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was terror. So was the response by the Israelis.

Why didn't the US use its power to break the cycles of violence against both Palestinians and Israelis by pressuring the UN or World Court or Arab League to negotiate release of prisoners and fair consequences, using international law, diplomacy and true coalitions against violence? Are we so weak? Or did we support the slaughter and destruction?

We also order our soldiers to destroy homes and businesses and kill civilians in the way in Iraq as we look for suspected insurgents who may see themselves as defending their country against a second wave of Crusaders. Some day a future generation will look back on our primitive kneejerk violence the way we look at historical times when cowboys could shoot each other in the street or swashbucklers could duel each other to the death at dawn because of a minor insults or rivalries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PAID RIGHT-WING "TROLL" PROPAGANDISTS AT WORK AGAIN!
Posted by: krose on Sep 9, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ONLY NOW THEY ARE MORE DEADLY, MORE PREVALENT, MORE.......EVERYTHING!

THAT IS BECAUSE THOSE STINKING "REPUKES" CANNOT WIN

WITHOUT THEM! THEY CANNOT WIN ON THEIR OWN MERITS!

DON'T "FEED" THESE PAID TROLL PROPAGANDISTS.

LET THEM WITHER AWAY, SHRIVEL UP, & DIE!


THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO "KILL-OFF" THE "SLIME" OF THE BUSH "CRIME SYNDICATE!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Violence wins again Posted by: bullwhip7
Bla Bla Bla . . Same Shit, Different Day!
Posted by: JCR on Sep 9, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok Howard Zinn and the rest have shown their righteous indignation and contempt for the US government and its nearly perpetual warmongering. We're all fired up and everyone is full of piss and vinegar - now WTF are we going to do about it? I know, I know - absolutely nothing - that's what!

The war will go on whether we elect Dems or Repubs and you all know it. Northrup, Boeing and Halliburton will keep running roughshod over this country because they are TOO BIG TO STOP NOW! The 800 lb. gorilla is out of the cage folks! It's really touching the naivete here though. That some of you actually think electing a zebra (or gorilla as the case may be) wth slightly different stripes will cause them to strip down defense spending and clamp down on corporate abuse is precious. Yeah Democrats are going to fix it because they aren't millionaires (many of them senators and congressmen i.e. Kerry/Edwards), like the Republicans. They haven't gotten rich pandering to Big Rx, Big Defense and other thugs and gangsters . . .

This site is a great place to come and blow off steam but it has had 0% net effect on changing anything along with all the other "progressive" sites that are anything but progressive. "Progressive" implies progress does it not? IS AMERICA PROGRESSING? Let's call them what they are - Stagnant. Howard Zinn is brilliant and he spins one hell of a yarn but what is he or anyone else really doing? Isn't it apparent that peaceful change in America is no longer possible? How many more civil rights need to be stripped from you? How many more "terrorist" attacks will it take to deprive you of your civil liberties altogether? When abortion is finally outlawed outright will we have the power to stop them - no! When the right to assemble is deemed too dangerous it will already be too late. The time to shut down interstates and boycott businesses is now - or maybe it's already too late . . .

Keep waiting for the elections later this year, telling yourself that they will make the difference. "If we can only get a Democrat controlled House and Senate everything will get better". When that doesn't work it will be this line: "let's just wait until 2008 when enough Americans will be disgusted with this war and Bush to elect a Democrat - he/she will fix it". When that doesn't work (and it won't) you can always wait for 2012 but by then we won't even have elections . . . Good luck America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 976-HELP Posted by: bullwhip7
THE OVERSIMPLIFICATION PROBLEM
Posted by: laime22 on Sep 9, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I agree that the US turns to military action as a knee-jerk refex, this kind of siimplistic approach to the issue does more harm than good.
In the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, egged on by the Bush administration, Israel went way too far Granted. But what do you think war is? WWII, so much touted as the 'good' war, entailed horrendous civilian casualties.
You confuse war with the PR surrounding war. If there had been a CNN camera, accompanied by the kind of clueless reporters that we saw in Lebanon at every battle site in WWII, the war would have been lost.
It would be nice if all violence in the world could be stopped. That would entail everybody agreeing to stop it. Do you seriously think this is possible in today's situation? You have to broaden your view to include all the actors in the globe, and there are very bad actors outside of the US.
So, if you don't like war, present ways of avoiding it. Support diplomacy efforts. Support returning the US to its former status as an exemplar of moral standards. But don't pretend that war is always and categorically avoidable.
And, if war is not avoidable, then you just have to accept that in any war, bad things will happen. The question is how to restrict and control the collateral damage. That is a very complicated question that won't be answered by such a simplistic approach. In fact, it does harm: by hidiing behind moralistic jargon, it prevents a realistic approach to the problems around the globe.
THE CONFLICTS AROUND THE GLOBE WILL NOT BE LESSENED BY KINDERGARTEN LESSONS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Just" and "Unjust War"
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 9, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, war should always be avoided if possible and diplomacy used to its utmost. But, if war should be necessary, then under what conditions or circumstances? There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a war in "self-defense" and a war for "national" or "strategic objectives." Perhaps, the first type of war is necessary and justifiable, the second types of war, exemplified by the US war in Iraq, is without doubt a WAR CRIME. This then is where to draw the line, in my opinion. If you are attacked, sure, defend yourself, but why go picking fights?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War and terror
Posted by: hangman on Sep 9, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War consists of causing terror to the innocent people , taking more lives than anything else.

Bush has caused more terror and disruption around the world with his so-called agenda of war on terror, when its actually Bush causing terror with war.

Terrorists cause death and chaos but so does Bush.
So it should just be called War And Terror.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War in a new world
Posted by: jearls on Sep 9, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are at a new era in militar conflict. Standing armies of nation states have the essencial function of fighting standing armies of other nation states. Winning is a function of army size, its training, the destructive power of weapons and of the economic resources available to sustain the war. While an army has both offensive and defensive capacities, the offensive structure predominates and serves as the model for defense structure.
The present world hierarchy of military power is extreme. So the powerful countries use their armies to impose their will on the weaker ones, as Israel has in its previous wars with its neighbours. The reply of the weaker countries and peoples, which will never be able to match the stronger ones and are likely to be invaded, is to decentralise defensive structure -- in what is often called assymetric war. On the other hand the conduct of nation-state warfare is totally centralised.
The ongoing offensive wars of the US and Israel are stimulating the evolution of the design and construction of decentralised defensive apparatus in all the countries that feel threatened, and as Hizbullah shows, often at the margen of the state governments. This tendency will only increase as the wars go on and in time will replace conventional armies.
For the future of world peace this is good since these decentralised defensive armies are hopeless at invading other countries and peoples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And your point is?
Posted by: bookwoman on Sep 9, 2006 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Mr. Zinn wasted his time on this article. I think there is a whole bunch of people who knew this since way before 9/11. It's too bad the remainder of the citizens of the United States didn't realize it;this would include, of course, "W" and his administration as well as the majority of the Congress who voted to let him attack Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What You Can Do!
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 9, 2006 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
October 5th willl be a special day:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

Protests in major cities and a call for a massive strike. I urge everyone to support this. Especially after so many have asked what they can do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

small numbers disagreement
Posted by: LDavistrueblue on Sep 9, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard, you're a good man. Justice for the world's poor and defenseless is non-negotiable. My numbers on Vietnam differ, however. You note one million deaths there. By "bombs," I think you are referring to overall civilian deaths. My figures are a total of four million over the Johnson & Nixon years; three million in Vietnam and appr one million in Henry Kissinger's terror campaign against Cambodians. This does not count the steady stream of landmine deaths in the region in the years since, nor does it count millions of deformities caused by direct injury or cancers and genetic damage from such toxins as Agent Orange. Between dead and injured, there were probably close to ten million people devastated in the region. As always, race hatred was broadly encouraged by both the military and the sainted flag-on-a-truck defenders of freedom. The refrain at the time was, " Russia isn't the enemy, Red China is.." Sound familiar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oldfreedomdude
Posted by: oldfreedomdude on Sep 9, 2006 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with Professor Zinn. But, how can we get people to realize that US state terrorism and militarism is a major source of world wide terrorism, not a solution for it? People all over the world are speaking this truth, but US politicians seem totally blind to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STOP SHOUTING!!!
Posted by: laime22 on Sep 9, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are in a real mess, due to a large extent to the war in Irq. We are not going to clean up the mess, if it's not too late, by resorting to inane jingoism or shouting insults at each other.
It's correct to say that old war models don't fit into the context of struggling against the threat of terrorism. It's correct to say that too many civilian lives have been lost in recent fighting, just as they have been lost in all previous wars. As long as people are aiming weapons, some civilians are doomed to die.
So, that's the problem with war.
We, and people in many, if not most, areas of the world are indeeed being threatened by terrorists, whose precise goal is to kill civilians. That's another problem.
Being timid about interfering led to Bosnia and is leading, even as we speak, to the continued slaugher of civilians in Darfur. Interfering in Iraq, in the wrong place at the wrong time, led to the mess that is Iraq.
YOU CAN NOT REDUCE THE MYRIAD CONFLICTS, PAST AND PRESENT, TO A SIMPLISTIC SLOGAN. Listening to propoganda slogans is exactly what led the nation to its current crisis.
Israel is right and Israel is wrong. The Palestinians are right and the Palestinians are wrong. Nothing is accomplished by painting one side black and the other white. If you can't live in a complex world where intentions and actions are difficult to sort out, stick to watching cowboy movies.
The best we can do is to always remember what the morals that we value are, to learn from mistakes, to hold our government responsible when it veers off course, and to hope against hope that we keep our goals intact as we get our hands dirty in the messy business of living.
Just don't reduce options to simplistic slogans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's naive to think that,
Posted by: albiegf13 on Sep 9, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's naive to think that our government's "stated aims " and "claimed objective" (s) are the real agenda justifying the means. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would still be using this as a talking point, "beating a dead horse". Outrage is still a premium emotional responce that allows us the feeling of superiority we so desire. However, like addicts, we are becoming more and more desensitized with each new event. This is percisely what happened to Nazi Germany and the Soviets after them, and now it's happening to us and we don't even know it... This is the real American Tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reasoning
Posted by: pisces87saw on Sep 9, 2006 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the article, but I think I can see why some people may be uneasy to take it too deeply. For example, you could reason using this article that because the Pentagon is such an important government building, the "soldiers" crashing the plane saw the civilian deaths of the people onboard as an "accident", much like when we bomb civilian towns to catch the terrorists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another (unreported!) reason for the invasion of Iraq
Posted by: bjerko on Sep 9, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One small issue
Posted by: johndoraemi on Sep 9, 2006 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I respect Howard Zinn as the "real deal," and I accept he means exactly what he says.

That said, it is vitally important to examine the real motivations of the US and Israeli regimes, as opposed to their claims: "freedom and democracy."

"...utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq."

Bush's first "objective" was to "disarm Saddam Hussein." Well, the guy was already disarmed, as they well knew.

Democracy sounds great as a soundbite, but that's the last thing the Bush regime actually wants. To state the obvious, Bush would not be president, today, or in 2001, if the United States had an actual democracy. Bush sued in the Supreme Court to stop the recounting of votes in Florida. This is as anti-democratic as it gets.

Similarly, the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio, no question about that. It happened.

Freedom? Does anyone think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld care one iota about the freedom of commoners in Iraq? This is laughable on its face.

Stability? That depends. Is ir more profitable to break up Iraq, continue the war indefinitely, provide political cover and newly formed ties to "terrorism" in Iraq? The answer could be in keeping Iraq's oil OFF of the market, thereby raising world prices.

Since one of their other stated goals is to attack and change the govenment of Iran, then keeping the Iraq war simmering may have some strategic value (perceived) to them.

You can find strategy papers, many with Israeli authors, that think breaking up the entire Arab world into its smaller sects is preferable. This precludes large nations from coming together, which could challenge Israel's hegemony (as Iraq and Iran have done).

Similary, the Israeli motivations need to be examined. Israel has not been interested in peace. Not since they stole the land in 1948, and have sought to expand it ever since.


"The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; "

But that is Zinn's opinion of the Israeli strategic goal.

Sixty years of evidence to the contrary, it is far more likely that Israel intends to capture Southern Lebanon, install a "settler" regime over decades, and gain access to the water from the Litani river. Israeli leaders have admitted to such plans repeatedly, over the decades.

They, of course, also want to massacre the Hezbollah resistance which seeks to thwart them.

Clearly it has been Israeli aggression against its neighbors that is the main source of conflict there. Add to that the great historical injustice done to the Palestinian people, and Israel's refusal to abide by international law, ignoring literally hundreds of UN resolutions that it pull back to its own borders.

On these issues, I hope that Howard Zinn does some more investigating.

Crimes of the State

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One small issue Posted by: vand
"Crusade Speech" by Redding, CA Mayor
Posted by: Bambi on Sep 9, 2006 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this might be relevant to your intelligent article. I've included the text of Redding's Record Searchlight article about the speech by our mayor. It is not to be believed!! I had to delete some of it for this forum.
------------------------------------------------
Speakers at 9/11 service say prayer wins spiritual war

By: Tim Hearden

Record Searchlight
Redding, CA
Published: September 8, 2006
Local elected officials and a pastor Thursday used a commemoration of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to wage spiritual warfare against those who would attack America. In a ceremony on the Shasta County Courthouse steps titled "One Nation Under God," Redding Mayor Ken Murray said Christians and Muslim radicals are engaged in "a war to the spiritual death of one of us."

Murray said Shiite Muslims believe it's acceptable to lie, cheat, steal and kill as long as it ultimately glorifies Allah.

"Folks, they're not like us," the mayor said. "They're not like us at all, and for them, their war has been going on for 1,200 years."

The Rev. Jim Wilson, whose ministry, PrayNorthstate, co-sponsored the event, characterized the conflict as "a war about idolatry -- whether or not we are sold out to the living God or sold out to some substitute for him."

Speakers said spiritual battles can be won through prayer. Wilson credited the prayer of north state residents for declines in traffic fatalities and cancer-related hospital admissions, as well as for the announced closure of the Family Planning Inc. of Shasta County reproductive health clinic in Redding.

The clinic is closing "because the spiritual climate here is more life-giving than life-taking as it used to be," Wilson said.

The agency's director, John Truitt, has cited rising costs as the reason the clinic is closing this month.

The comments came during an hourlong, noontime event co-sponsored by the county Sheriff's Department, the Shasta County Jail Chaplaincy, the Marshal's Office, PrayNorthstate, the Good News Rescue Mission and Sysco Foods.

Appearing along with Murray and Wilson were District Attorney Jerry Benito and Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, the keynote speaker. Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, was emcee.

But this year, spiritual battles were a recurring focus. Benito praised those who fought back against the terrorists on one of the hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, and said America is a nation of survivors through faith in God.

"As long as I have faith in God and submit to his will, all that happens ... will be for the best," Benito said. Victory can even come in death. "Jesus saw to that," he said.

Murray said after the program the notion of officials expressing their religious beliefs on the courthouse steps is "a free speech issue."

"I do not ... see it as government sponsoring of religion," Murray said. "The truth of the matter is if Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to come up and set up on the courthouse steps and have a campaign rally, there isn't any law that says he can't do it. Or Billy Graham. It's not sponsoring."

"Since the Crusades, there's been a spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of people," he said. "I think it's a historical reality, and the rubber's meeting the road again. Either the Judeo-Christian philosophy will survive or the Islamic philosophy will survive."

However, "I am never concerned about saying the truth," he said. "If somebody doesn't like it, it's too bad."

Reporter Tim Hearden can be reached at 530 225-8224 or at thearden@redding.com.redding.com/redding/thearden.

_Copyright (c) 2006, Redding Record Searchlight (CA)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What else is new
Posted by: Ingarose on Sep 9, 2006 7:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Zinn's article is fine and so are many of the comments. But what earthly good is going to do? The decider in chief is still going to do what he '...........' pleases And everytime he scares everyone to death again his approval ratings go up slightly. Now he wantsa to interupt the 9/11 documentary to speak to the nation. Why not? The documentary is all pro Bush and if gets to interject himself into it a lot of morons will just buy it.

He knows that he has the 'Faustian bargain' right now and that he cannot lose until he finally meets his 'waterloo'. And as long as the major media and quite a lot of cluless people still give him the benefit of the doubt, he will continue to substitute war for his manhood.

No other president I can remember has forever been seen speaking in front of the troops, military stations, aricraft carriers etc. He loves those young guys and girls who so willingly die for his baloney, so he and his cronies can get rich.

So we can all write until doomsday. And the only way doomsday arrives if he finally just totally disintergrates on the stage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Decider, The Provider, the Spider
Posted by: robmikejas on Sep 9, 2006 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's over folks. Your American Dream is ended. You are either a follower of the Decider, Jesus as your Provider or doomed to a death where you are covered in dirt and Spiders who rip your flesh into tiny shit balls. This government has become the root of all evil and your American Dream is OVER!Your grandchildren will live under and be part of a tyranny so vile that you will bless the small time you had as a free person in a free society. Thank you AlterNet for allowing me this final post in the final days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: "The War Lover"
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on Sep 9, 2006 8:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here's a good irony on the movie of that book & bush strutting in his fake cowboy outift: The movie starred Steve McQueen, who often at liest did his own stunts!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For Ways other than war to counter Terrorism Consider Gandhi's moral resistance
Posted by: Harishpuri on Sep 9, 2006 8:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Zinn is absolutely right about both the futility and immorality of War. More important , however, is thinking of ways other than war for ending terrorism including state terrorism. A few of the thinkers in India grappled with the question in all ages right from the writing of the great epic of Mahabharata , the quintessential story of human vanity in war and the futility of war. Teachings of the Buddha is another. But it came to the share of Mahatma Gandhi to translate his ideas into deeds. He honestly thought that British imperialism in India was a kind of terrorism but was equally or even more strongly convinced that patriotic counter- violence as a means for freedom could only give you a violent freedom. The method of moral resistance which he tried with a great degree of success against racial terrorism in South Africa during the last decade of 19th century and later in a series of struggles against British rule in India points to the the possible other ways. I would wish that we should seriously think about ways to reach the hearts of people and build strong force of moral resistance.
Harish K. Puri
India

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No excuse
Posted by: Roland on Sep 9, 2006 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay Douglas. I am not excusing anyone, least of all the Democrats. But if you must troll for commentary please do the rest of us the favor of reading the comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Roots of Terrorism
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 9, 2006 9:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zinn did not address this issue in this article but in other writings he has. And, I think it is important not to lose sight of why terrorism occurs. GW Bush would have us believe a milion Muslims just woke up one day and suddently decided to hate us and destroy us. The reality is much different. Osama attacked the USA largely becasue of US hatred that centered around the placement of US troops in Saudi Arabia, near Muslim holy places, after Gulf War I. Couple that with the USA's incessant support and arming of Israel and our history in the region, which includes support for many repressive governments such as the previous Shah of Iran, and the current governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. These US supported governments routinely torture dissidents and are militarily supported by the USA. Add it all up and you've got a big problem. The USA, from many Muslim eyes, is the aggressor. We have started the war. Now, unless this is understood we will never get to the roots of terrorism and how to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Sep 9, 2006 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not too long ago the business of America was BUSINES. Now the business of America is WAR. As long as corporate America and the fantastically rich approve, nothing will change. We are on our way to becoming the northernmost banana republic in the hemisphere. Si.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orwellian Media
Posted by: DoctorAndy on Sep 10, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream media in the United States has been almost without exception the propaganda force of our national masonic elite. Alternative opinion is suppressed. For example, even though it should be perfectly obvious that the WTC was blown to oblivion by preplanted high explosives, after and unrelated to the airplanes, the media myth creators continue to pump their lies. But Prof Jones of BYU, a rare 911 truther, was suspended, without the MSM giving this academic perfidy a single notice. No nation can survive this assault on truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lakoff and Orwell, two alternatives to Zinn's explanation
Posted by: leftymathprof on Sep 10, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zinn, a professor of history, says that the current US leaders have not learned the lessons of history. They have not understood that their current military tactics are ineffective. In some ways this is an optimistic view. It allows that our present leaders are well intentioned; we merely need to set them straight and the killing will be greatly reduced, or perhaps halted altogether.

Lakoff, a professor of linguistics, says that we are seeing a great clash of world views, here within the US. Language and worldview shape each other. Perhaps our leaders our well intentioned, but their view of good intentions is not the same as the view of, say, most readers of Alternet. Lakoff recently coauthored a paper saying very explicitly that Bush is not incompetent, that in fact Bush and his administration are very competently carrying out an agenda following their own bizarre values. As nearly as I can tell, their domestic values are something like Calvinism and/or social Darwinism. Repugnant though those values are to me, at least I think I have some understanding of them; indeed, I probably was a bit Calvinistic myself many years ago, when I was a small child. Lakoff makes a fairly good case that Bush is carrying out his domestic values very effectively.

I'm having a harder time understanding Bush's foreign policy values, but I think they're something like this: "The end justifies the means, and we know we're the good guys with the white hats, so it's okay for us to do whatever it takes to conquer the world and make it safe. And since God is on our side, we're sure to win." I know, that sounds really stupid, but as a professional mathematician I can tell you with great certainty that reason only comes into play after you've chosen your basic values and assumptions.

But if Bush is highly competent regarding domestic policy, he's probably not stupid about foreign policy either. Why does he persist in military policies which -- as Zinn has pointed out -- cannot win?

That leads me to Orwell's vision. In 1984, the Party wages a perpetual war, not with the goal of winning, but as a device for using up "excess" economic resources and preserving the status quo. The Party believes that the end justifies the means, but the desired end is to perpetuate human suffering, not end it. I am reluctant to believe that people can be so depraved as in this vision, but I increasingly see other aspects of Orwell's vision in the world around us -- most recently, in ABC-TV's decision to reshape history in Big Brother's favor.

I don't know whether we're gaining ground or losing it; it's really hard to see the big picture. I'm very optimistic about the democratizing potential of the internet. And Zinn himself said, in an interview a few months ago, that we just have to keep pushing: "The responses are never adequate, until they build and build and something changes ... there is no magical panacea, only persistence." I'm now trying to live by that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

too many folks on the payroll, Howard
Posted by: edith on Sep 10, 2006 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All true. But millions are on the payroll of Defense, Inc.: either defense contractors, subcontractors, housing industries in areas like Virginia and California, the millions who directly work for DOD, CIA, NSA, DIA etc.

They've bought off the working class and prevented a depression by spending the nation's wealth on a permanent security state and whipping up "threats".

I would like someone to explain to millions of Americans why they should go on the unemployment line so we can have a rational government and relationship with the rest of the world. What these militiaristic economics have done is establish a constituency that would fight in a civil war to keep the defense bucks flowing. A lot of mortgages depend on missile defense, DOD R&D, naval ports and construction, bases, Iraq and "intelligence". And a lot of our "education" spending for higher ed doesn't go for health care studies or engineering courses to build sustainable cities. Harvard, MIT, and Berkely, liberal bases all have always been trade schools and factories for the military.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE NEW ECONOMY
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 10, 2006 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument that it would be too disruptive to gut Defense and National Security is not a valid one. The new economy, after gutting the Defense/National Security Establishments, would not be that difficult to bring about and develop with proper planning. Look at how FDR transformed America to lift us out of the Great Depression. There are many things America needs. Just building New Orleans is one such project. Then, we need to look at the fact that much of military spending is wasted. A majority of the money goes to the few corporations that dominante the Defense world, the Bectels and Halliburtons. Money used properly to fund civic works, social development and related projects would emplloy thousands more then those employed currently, and with the same amount of money. Not only that, the US unemployment rate now is low, and there are many industries looking for help. We need more teachers, more doctors, more fire, police and emergency workers. The list goes on and on. Gutting the defense/national security establishment is economically not that problematic to the total US economy. Of course, I cannot argue it would not be problematic and resisted by those now who benefit as pigs at the trough now (ie, Halliburton, GE, Bechtel, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE NEW ECONOMY
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 10, 2006 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument that it would be too disruptive to gut Defense and National Security is not a valid one. The new economy, after gutting the Defense/National Security Establishments, would not be that difficult to bring about and develop with proper planning. Look at how FDR transformed America to lift us out of the Great Depression. There are many things America needs. Just building New Orleans is one such project. Then, we need to look at the fact that much of military spending is wasted. A majority of the money goes to the few corporations that dominante the Defense world, the Bectels and Halliburtons. Money used properly to fund civic works, social development and related projects would emplloy thousands more then those employed currently, and with the same amount of money. Not only that, the US unemployment rate now is low, and there are many industries looking for help. We need more teachers, more doctors, more fire, police and emergency workers. The list goes on and on. Gutting the defense/national security establishment is economically not that problematic to the total US economy. Of course, I cannot argue it would not be problematic and resisted by those now who benefit as pigs at the trough now (ie, Halliburton, GE, Bechtel, etc.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: bjerko on Sep 11, 2006 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you AlterNet for posting this. Thank you Howard Zinn for writing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disingenuous + Bullcrap = Political Agenda
Posted by: bullwhip7 on Sep 11, 2006 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Howard,

So you really believe that as a result of Israel's response to Hizbollah's katyusha's earned Israel more enemies, huh? As in who? The Japanese, the French, the Belgians, who?

I mean ALL of the Arab world is pretty much united against Israel. Even in Jordan and Egypt, there are scathing newspaper articles and prayer meetings that basically blame the Jews for all evil in the world, and Israel for every possible problem in the Middle East. So, in fact the war did nothing to change their attitude vis a vis Israel, only strengthened Hizbollah's standing in that part of the country.

In fact I object to your use of the word "invasion", since as of last week Israel is pretty much out of Lebanon, and was in there no more than 6 weeks. Hardly an invasion.

As far as the US military machine being impotent, I don't think Osama or Saddam would agree. And Ahmadi Nejad is definitely attempting to build such a war machine - he definitely doesn't believe in the impotence of a military machine, notwithstanding your cheap shot at the president.

As far as the "futility of large-scale violence", you completely miss the point of the examples you gave. In vietnam, the Chinese and Soviets were arming and training the Vietnamese, who incidentally suffered over 1.5million casualties to our 50,000 - a rout in any book.

In Afghanistan, the roles were reversed and the US financed, trained and supplied a willing Northern Afghani coalition. But, you did not mention Panama - an example of a weak nation, whose ruler decided to face up to and confront the US. That was a pretty definitive outcomes, and also within the sphere of influence of the US - another point disproved. You also don't mention Egypt and Jordan vs Israel, but those wars definitely yielded peace agreements, and stability between those countries.

In short, your whole premise is erroneous, and setting up an erroneous premise for an easy demise, is nothing more than political speech writing. So the short of it is - you're pushing for the Dims to win, and constructed this "scenario" to promote your weak and asinine agenda.

So, yeah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

U.S. Government Terrorism
Posted by: bernarda on Sep 12, 2006 12:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is fine and admirable to remember the fallen. But there are other fallen who should also be remembered.

On 911, 1973, Nixon, Kissinger, and the CIA overthrew President Allende of Chili, who was killed. Following this CIA organized coup, more than 3,000 Chiliens were tortured and murdered, including one of Chili’s most famous singers, Victor Jara.

In 1989, George Bush Senior illegally invaded Panama and over 3,000 Panamaneens were killed, this time directly by American troops.

In the 80’s, Reagan created the terrorist Contra organization which killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans. John Negroponte was responsible for organizing rightwing Death Squads throughout the region, aided by Richard Armitage and Eliot Abrams.

Not only should these victims be remembered, but those terrorists responsible–Negroponte, Armitage, Abrams, and others, like Ollie North–should be brought to justice.

You see, the U.S. has its own terrorists in the closet. Those mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg, in and out of the current junta.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: U.S. Government Terrorism Posted by: franknbeans
Who is the bad guy here?
Posted by: mom'z the word on Sep 12, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is very tragic and idiotic that very soon we will have sent 3,000 troops to their death trying to get even with a country that had nothing to do with killing 3,000 people on 9/11. Now who is the bad guy here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Agree
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Sep 12, 2006 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tend to agree that the whole 'terrorism' moniker is pretty much bs, but that, unfortunately is a product of folks like Zinn. This idea that war can be some sanitised operation that targets only military targets is hold-over from a small period of time in Europe in which the war were primarily over border issues and were between various royals (who usually were related.) The long history of war uses whatever tactics are effective. When both sides abide, or have equal ability to inflict damage, then you can fight like "civilised" people. However, there is nothing unique or unusual with killing civilians, raping, pillaging, laying seige, forced starvation, etc in the history of warfare. Terrorism has historically been a tactic of some group that lack the means to fight in other ways or in places where it is the most effective. The problem is that with modern weapons and with a modern death-cult like certian forms of islam is that the terrorism becomes an end in itself and does is not used for, or wishes, to negoiate for any political goals. The goal is death itself (whether for the martyr or of the enemy). Interestingly most of those guys, like the cult people in Europe or in the US, seem to relatively well educated and somehow, by circumstance, location, or psychology, isolated from the rest of society and seek death as a grand goal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contradictions
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Sep 13, 2006 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zinn claims that "The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations". Yet he will, no doubt, de-cry the 'massacre' of the Native American people (e.g., the "Indians"). They had nations once No more. Pretty effective I'd say. The Confederacy was crushed. Mexico was taken over and, roughly, 1/3 of its land taken. The odd thing is that his statements fly in the face of his usual diatribes against Western Imperialism and evil white guy culture. If its ineffective then how can it be so pervasive and evil?

Ask a Ukrainian how "ineffective" Stalin was when he was in charge of the USSR. Ask the ethnic-Germans in Poland, Czechslovakia, and Russia how 'ineffective' the USSR was against the small and the weak. Ask just about any minority nationality under the Soviet Union, esp under Stalin. Ask the Czech and Hungarians about how ineffective the Soviets were when they tried to rise up.

Thankfully, the US and European powers have tried to take a higher-ground and don't try to eliminate whole nations or cultures. If they really wanted too it would be very easy, even short of using nukes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
Posted by: jgamberton on Sep 14, 2006 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Middle East thru King Abdullah II eyes
Friday, September 8th, 2006
Posted Thursday, Sep. 07, 2006
Striding past ceremonial Circassian guards into a sitting room at Basman Palace, King Abdullah II is looking fresh and energetic, as if he has just come from another spin around town on his treasured Harley-Davidson. But his natural ebullience masked an uncharacteristic inner gloom that deepened this summer when the Middle East was plunged into yet another conflict with the Israeli-Hizballah war in Lebanon.

As the 44-year-old monarch settled into a stuffed sofa for a 1-hour TIME interview for a story to appear in the coming week’s magazine, he drew a dark picture of a region consumed by conflicts old and new, threatened by emerging Sunni-Shiite tensions and at risk of being completely destabilized if the U.S. attacks Iran. “I believe the Lebanese war dramatically opened all our eyes to the fact that if we don’t solve the Palestinian issue, the future looks pretty bleak for the Middle East,” he said. “I’m one of the most optimistic people you’ll come across. For the first time, I started becoming pessimistic towards the region.”

Without urgent diplomatic efforts that yield tangible results to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians, “I don’t think there will ever be a Palestinian state,” he said. “By 2007, if we don’t see something that reassures all of us–the international community, the Israelis, the Arabs and the Palestinians–then I think we are doomed to another decade or decades of violence between Israelis and Arabs, which affects everybody.”

Abdullah seemed careful not to criticize Washington directly, but he declared his disappointment that “people around the world in a way just don’t care anymore. There is a feeling I get in the international community, ‘You know what, let the Israelis and Arabs have a go at each other.’ Are we going to resign our region for another decade of violence, or are we going to put this to rest once and for all?” In Jordan’s view, he said, “There needs to be some sort of Palestinian integral, geographic state, today and not tomorrow.”

But moderates pushing for a peaceful settlement, the King complained, have been “neutralized” because of the stagnation in Arab-Israeli negotiations. “I don’t think people are taking us seriously,” he said. “A lot of the moderate countries are feeling isolated. Today the street is saying, ‘You know, we tried the peace process. We keep hoping that the Americans and the international community will step forward, we keep hoping that Israel will make a difference and reach out to the Arabs. They are only beginning to see that the only way you can get America’s attention or Israel’s attention is through confrontation.”

The King expressed concern that the region’s troubles could multiply with the crises over Iraq and Iran. He expressed fears of civil war in Iraq “if it continues to spiral,” and while voicing concern about Iran’s influence, he cautioned against the thought of American military action to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “I don’t think the Middle East could afford another war,” he said. “A war with Iran would sort of open a Pandora’s Box and one that I don’t think the Middle East would recover from.”

www.gamberton.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WELL I'm glad someone else thinks like me for a change.
Posted by: Neilium on Sep 16, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author calls the rape and pillage of the united states over the last fifty years ' military campaigns' he he... how naieve,
or is the stupididty of (and is it only?) the elected leaders of this giant leech on the world? or all about the insanity that Egotists bring into their logic? After all.. Popular elections... yes here's your method of putting deranged egomaniacs into positions of influence. I ask you, yes you reading this ' can you do it better? I know you are saying "Yes any idiot can make better decisions than the person at the top". So why do we always.. yes always get people there who want to go murder some other nation's people and destroy their economy way of life etc. Get rid of popular elections... it would be far better to have the country represented using the lottery system, you all have a number? put it in the big jar and pull em out every time you want another election, you must do better than the bunch of loonies that you end up with the current way.
My first decision of personal and national importance was the call up for vietnam war, how is it that I could realise in an instant that it was wrong and make plans for avoiding it "if neccesary' After that I became 'very 'interested in what the jokers at the top had in mind for me. Depleted Uranium in ammunition... how stupid is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

response to Howard Zinn re: "morally indefensible military campaigns"
Posted by: indee55 on Sep 17, 2006 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To Howard Zinn: What you say about indisciminate war and "morally indefensible military campaigns" resonates with me. Yet I'd like to draw an important distinction btwn US and Israel. US policy is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. Israel's war with Lebanon was one of defense - defending their citizens from direct outside attack. The bombings - not good and ultimately not defensible. And yet... The moral difference: when between a rock and a hard place, and attacked from across the border, the Israelis attempted to warn Lebanese civilians (with leaflets and cell phone calls even though this would also warn their enemy) before targeting the installations from whence the rockets came. So I get what you're saying, but believe that the fact that Israel was directly attacked and acting in defense and actively tried to save the lives of innocents makes a huge difference in moral terms.
An interesting topic for thought and discussion might be - what is Israel to do? - with neighbors who for 50+ years have called for and tried to accomplish that country's annihilation. Additionally, speaking about "morally indefensible military campaigns" it seems surprising to omit mention of Hezbollah's tactics of deliberately and without apology targeting and hitting civilian populations with their thousands of rockets. While I understand your main point concerns massive bombing, your moral point is about the death of innocents. Hezbollah's military policy is truly indefensible. You see, while I essentially agree with what you've said, I'm hoping to see a more complex and broader moral statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...so what's the plan?
Posted by: robin on Sep 24, 2006 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as i sit at this computer and read all your ideas and insights,i somehow feel hopeless...is there anything we can do, as a people,to bring about change other than throwing open our windows and screaming "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"....?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you!!
Posted by: Bambi on Nov 17, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sent this article to as many folks as I could when it came out in my local, Redding, paper. I'm so grateful it made AlterNet!!

Bambi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]