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.
Our War on Terrorism
Also in War on Iraq
The Bush Administration's Bogus Claims About Iran's Weapons Smuggling
Gareth Porter
Food Crisis Hits Fallujah
Dahr Jamail, Ali Al-Fadhily
Fighting For Survival, Muqtada al-Sadr Orders a Ceasefire
Patrick Cockburn
Veteran Suicides Continue to Rise
Greg Mitchell
Battle Against al Qaeda in Iraq Has Turned Mosul into a Ghost Town
Patrick Cockburn
Misogyny Rampant in the Armed Forces: 1 in 3 Military Women Experience Sexual Abuse
Nancy Van Ness
I am calling it "our" war on terrorism because I want to distinguish it from Bush's war on terrorism, and from Sharon's, and from Putin's. What their wars have in common is that they are based on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries that you can deal with terrorism by war. These rulers say you can end our fear of terrorism – of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to Americans – by drawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists come from (Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with (Iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever lives within that circle.
Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. Is it strange, or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?
Even within their limited definition of terrorism, they – the governments of the United States, Israel, Russia – are clearly failing. As I write this, three years after the events of Sept. 11, the death toll for American servicemen has surpassed 1,000, more than 150 Russian children have died in a terrorist takeover of a school, Afghanistan is in chaos, and the number of significant terrorist attacks rose to a twenty-one-year high in 2003, according to official State Department figures. The highly respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London has reported that "over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq."
With the failure so obvious, and the President tripping over his words trying to pretend otherwise (Aug. 30: "I don't think you can win" and the next day: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning"), it astonishes us that the polls show a majority of Americans believing the president has done "a good job" in the war on terrorism.
I can think of two reasons for this.
First, the press and television have not played the role of gadflies, of whistleblowers, the role that the press should play in a society whose fundamental doctrine of democracy (see the Declaration of Independence) is that you must not give blind trust to the government. They have not made clear to the public – I mean vividly, dramatically clear – what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.
I am speaking not only of the deaths and mutilations of American youth, but the deaths and mutilations of Iraqi children. (I am reading at this moment of an American bombing of houses in the city of Fallujah, leaving four children dead, with the U.S. military saying this was part of a "precision strike" on "a building frequently used by terrorists.") I believe that the American people's natural compassion would come to the fore if they truly understood that we are terrorizing other people by our "war on terror."
A second reason that so many people accept Bush's leadership is that no counterargument has come from the opposition party. John Kerry has not challenged Bush's definition of terrorism. He has not been forthright. He has dodged and feinted, saying that Bush has waged "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Is there a right war, a right place, a right time? Kerry has not spoken clearly, boldly, in such a way as to appeal to the common sense of the American people, at least half of whom have turned against the war, with many more looking for the wise words that a true leader provides. He has not clearly challenged the fundamental premise of the Bush administration: that the massive violence of war is the proper response to the kind of terrorist attack that took place on Sept. 11, 2001.
Let us begin by recognizing that terrorist acts – the killing of innocent people to achieve some desired goal – are morally unacceptable and must be repudiated and opposed by anyone claiming to care about human rights. The Sept. 11 attacks, the suicide bombings in Israel, the taking of hostages by Chechen nationalists – all are outside the bounds of any ethical principles.
Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »
| More Opinion: | ||
|
After Gitmo: The American Government is Legally and Morally Responsible for Giving Innocent Prisoners a New Life in the U.S. Rights and Liberties: When it comes to Guantánamo, the most pressing problem is not how to "store" dangerous prisoners; it is the fate of those who are innocent. By Aziz Huq, The Nation. May 15, 2008. |
The Case For Tibet Rights and Liberties: Indigenous people around the world see in the struggle for Tibet their own struggles for recovery of land and autonomy. We must not remain silent. By Bill Weinberg, AlterNet. May 14, 2008. |
Will Bush Crony Scott Bloch's Gay-Hating Finally Catch Up with Him? Reproductive Justice and Gender: The FBI is now investigating the man who declared war on equal protection for gays in federal workplaces. By Bill Berkowitz, Talk To Action. May 13, 2008. |