Howard Zinn: Our War on Terrorism

[Guest DubWiser]

Howard Zinn: Our War on Terrorism

 

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 September 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 (August 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 September 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 September 11 attacks, the suicide bombings in Israel, the taking of hostages by Chechen nationalists--all are outside the bounds of any ethical principles.

 

This must be emphasized, because as soon as you suggest that it is important, to consider something other than violent retaliation, you are accused of sympathizing with the terrorists. It is a cheap way of ending a discussion without examining intelligent alternatives to present policy.

 

Then the question becomes: What is the appropriate way to respond to such awful acts? The answer so far, given by Bush, Sharon, and Putin, is military action. We have enough evidence now to tell us that this does not stop terrorism, may indeed provoke more terrorism, and at the same time leads to the deaths of hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people who happen to live in the vicinity of suspected terrorists.

 

What can account for the fact that these obviously ineffective, even counterproductive, responses have been supported by the people of Russia, Israel, the United States? It's not hard to figure that out. It is fear, a deep, paralyzing fear, a dread so profound that one's normal rational faculties are distorted, and so people rush to embrace policies that have only one thing in their favor: They make you feel that something is being done. In the absence of an alternative, in the presence of a policy vacuum, filling that vacuum with a decisive act becomes acceptable.

 

And when the opposition party, the opposition Presidential candidate, can offer nothing to fill that policy vacuum, the public feels it has no choice but to go along with what is being done. It is emotionally satisfying, even if rational thought suggests it does not work and cannot work.

 

If John Kerry cannot offer an alternative to war, then it is the responsibility of citizens, with every possible resource they can muster, to present such an alternative to the American public.

 

Yes, we can try to guard in every possible way against future attacks, by trying to secure airports, seaports, railroads, other centers of transportation. Yes, we can try to capture known terrorists. But neither of those actions can bring an end to terrorism, which comes from the fact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere are angered by American policies, and out of these millions come those who will carry their anger to fanatic extremes.

 

The CIA senior terrorism analyst who has written a book signed "Anonymous" has said bluntly that U.S. policies--supporting Sharon, making war on Afghanistan and Iraq--"are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world."

 

Unless we reexamine our policies--our quartering of soldiers in a hundred countries (the quartering of foreign soldiers, remember, was one of the grievances of the American revolutionaries), our support of the occupation of Palestinian lands, our insistence on controlling the oil of the Middle East--we will always live in fear. If we were to announce that we will reconsider those policies, and began to change them, we might start to dry up the huge reservoir of hatred where terrorists are hatched.

 

Whoever the next President will be, it is up to the American people to demand that he begin a bold reconsideration of the role our country should play in the world. That is the only possible solution to a future of never-ending, pervasive fear. That would be "our" war on terrorism.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

What a delightful piece of garbage. Howard Zinn is quick to point out problems, yet he cannot seem to give one feasible solution. Saying the U.S should re-examine its Middle East policy, or else they will live in fear is a bunch of crap. Why should the most powerful nation in the world be held to ransom by a bunch of terrorists? This is just passiveness (Is that a word?) at its worst, and the sooner the world is rid of people who don’t want to stamp out terrorists and the people who harbor them, the better the world will be.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Hmmmm, let me get this right. Whats the best way to solvve a problem? Even better whats the best way to solve a fight? Don't we teach our kids that NOT fighting is a better alternative? Hehe, its those little morals that seem to carry the most weight.

 

Hmmm, the enemy seems to think we are being disingenous when it comes to our being benevolant. I wonder why? Maybe if we gave them a REASON to not WANT to kill us then we wouldn't have a problem of them parking planes into fucking buildings. Or a stupid ass war for money scam. Or over a 1000 dead soldiers, one of whom I was informed a few weeks back, was a freind of mine. But hey, not wanting someone dead and then NOT killing them has ALWAYS led to more deaths. So have at it.

 

The families of the 10,000 or more dead Iraqis are sure gonna be mad for a LONG time. I wonder who they will listen to the most when they get a knock on the door? US military or the AQ.

 

I wonder how the families of the VICTIMS of the 9-11 attacks feel whenever they turn on the news and so little is said about any progress Afganistan. You know, the assholes who actually DID attack us? Perhaps a better list of priorities would serve us better as a solution to what AMERICANS want to get out of this WAR "on terror". Namely the capture of OBL.

 

 

 

 

"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?"

 

 

No, it is not strange. But when there is money to be made...

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, another anti-Semitic piece from the left. It's shocking how not shocking it is.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

What a bunch of bullshit. You need both, not one or the other. If you want to eliminate "the root causes" of terrorism you might as well eliminate the root causes of crime, bigotry, and, hell, bad TV and noisy children while we're at it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wait a minute...I thought the root cause of terrorism was the terrorists' hatred of our freedom?!?!

 

So...confused...

[Swift Terror 0]

Well, the great Matt Damon gave praise to Zinn in "Good Will Hunting". When a Hollywood Idiot speaks...

 

Don't we teach our kids that NOT fighting is a better alternative?

 

We teach them to avoid a fight and to not start a fight. If the other kid throws a punch, we teach them to defend themselves and throw a punch back. It's the only way to stop a bully. If you begin to believe that your behavior alone will get them to stop trying to dominate you, you will submit to them and you'll never fight. You will want to follow their dictates, essentially becoming their lapdog.

 

Wishy-washy baby-boomers are the only idiots in our society telling their children that fighting is universally bad. And a few religious nuts who take the Bible literally when Jesus said to turn the other cheek.

 

 

Maybe if we gave them a REASON to not WANT to kill us then we wouldn't have a problem of them parking planes into fucking buildings

 

Part of that reason would involve you converting to Islam, or, if you refuse and you are not killed, living under a government ruled by the text of the Koran.

 

 

I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend. I hope you will one day come to believe that his death was for a very good and noble cause.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I like how re-thinking our Middle East policy always means cutting Israel loose.

[Guest MikeSC]

I like how re-thinking our Middle East policy always means cutting Israel loose.

Well, considering how much we love our oil, our support of Israel makes a TON of sense.

-=Mike

...Funny, the left's solution always seems to be "Fuck the Jews"...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Part of that reason would involve you converting to Islam, or, if you refuse and you are not killed, living under a government ruled by the text of the Koran.

 

I don't think that is the goal of most of the Islamist terrorists--at least they don't want to "convert" the US.

 

Muslim society has historically been more tolerant of minority religions than Christian society.

[Justice 0]

Part of that reason would involve you converting to Islam, or, if you refuse and you are not killed, living under a government ruled by the text of the Koran.

 

I don't think that is the goal of most of the Islamist terrorists--at least they don't want to "convert" the US.

 

Muslim society has historically been more tolerant of minority religions than Christian society.

Um... Historically doesn't add up to much at the moment. If we look at things like the Talibans destruction of Buddhist Statues and other intolerence shown from Muslim countries (and many foreign Muslims in general; see France) to Hebrews, it gets entirely thrown out of the water. You can't argue that Islam today is more tolerant than Christian Society today. Perhaps a while ago, but not today.

[Swift Terror 0]

I don't think that is the goal of most of the Islamist terrorists--at least they don't want to "convert" the US.

 

 

They do want the U.S. to become an Islamic state. They want the entire Earth to be governed by Islam. They may sound nuts, but it is true. They are nuts.

 

And if they cannot accomplish an Islamic government in the U.S., they would rather us be destroyed.

 

 

Muslim society has historically been more tolerant of minority religions than Christian society.

 

I'm sure that is what is taught in most high schools and colleges/universities.

 

Spend some time at a large city's central library and take a look at books written during the period of 700 through the Renaissance (subject: Islamic states), then take a look at several books by contemporary authors (1850 through today) on the same subject. Do not dismiss a book simply because it was written in, say, 1880 or 1935. These are particularly valuable. Try to avoid books from the 1990s.

 

Do this and you will learn otherwise.

[Guest MikeSC]

Part of that reason would involve you converting to Islam, or, if you refuse and you are not killed, living under a government ruled by the text of the Koran.

 

I don't think that is the goal of most of the Islamist terrorists--at least they don't want to "convert" the US.

 

Muslim society has historically been more tolerant of minority religions than Christian society.

Um, that is provable bullshit. That is not even close to being accurate.

-=Mike

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

whats the best way to solve a fight? Don't we teach our kids that NOT fighting is a better alternative?

 

So if someone came up to you and punched you in the face, you would wanna sit down and talk right?

 

Maybe if we gave them a REASON to not WANT to kill us then we wouldn't have a problem of them parking planes into fucking buildings.

 

What the fuck does that mean. If they had no reason, you wouldn't have a problem with them attacking America

 

Or a stupid ass war for money scam

 

Sure Mikey, you got that tin foil hat on tight. Im sure it was so stupid getting rid of Saddam Hussein, how pointless is that. People are quick to demonize the U.S for problem in Iraq now, but forget that in the past 20 odd years, Saddam did much worse

 

But hey, not wanting someone dead and then NOT killing them has ALWAYS led to more deaths

 

Again, what the fuck do you mean. Do you read what you are typing?

 

The families of the 10,000 or more dead Iraqis are sure gonna be mad for a LONG time. I wonder who they will listen to the most when they get a knock on the door? US military or the AQ.

 

why yes, Im sure they will open their arms wide open for Al-Qeada, because you know they haven't killed any civillians in Iraq with their bombings.

 

I wonder how the families of the VICTIMS of the 9-11 attacks feel whenever they turn on the news and so little is said about any progress Afganistan. You know, the assholes who actually DID attack us? Perhaps a better list of priorities would serve us better as a solution to what AMERICANS want to get out of this WAR "on terror". Namely the capture of OBL.

 

What brings in more ratings, news about the good being done in Afghanistan, or the pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq? They have had their elections, but how much of it was reported on the news? Remember the old phrase "Bad news is good news"

 

 

Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism

 

Than WWI & WWII was just the Allies commiting giant acts of terrorism

 

But when there is money to be made...

 

Just double check that tin foil hat.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

whats the best way to solve a fight? Don't we teach our kids that NOT fighting is a better alternative?

 

So if someone came up to you and punched you in the face, you would wanna sit down and talk right?

 

 

~No, I wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. Then again, Iraq isn't exactly a DEFENSIVE move is it? As much as you'd like to paint it as one.

 

 

Maybe if we gave them a REASON to not WANT to kill us then we wouldn't have a problem of them parking planes into fucking buildings.

 

What the fuck does that mean. If they had no reason, you wouldn't have a problem with them attacking America

 

~Of course it pisses me off that they killed so many people. But I'm not so narrow minded and stupid to go flying off the handle lynch mob style. I want real justice AND I want to know WHY it happened. It pisses me off even more how we got to be were we are! You'd think we'd at least send the Afgani's a thank you card for fighting our proxy war with the russians.

 

 

Or a stupid ass war for money scam

 

Sure Mikey, you got that tin foil hat on tight. Im sure it was so stupid getting rid of Saddam Hussein, how pointless is that. People are quick to demonize the U.S for problem in Iraq now, but forget that in the past 20 odd years, Saddam did much worse

 

~I won't subscribe to the "yeah, this was wrong but THIS is worse which makes this other shitty thing ok." No way. I don't vote that way nor would I support it as policy.

 

But hey, not wanting someone dead and then NOT killing them has ALWAYS led to more deaths

 

Again, what the fuck do you mean. Do you read what you are typing?

 

~Read it again, as I am low on pie charts. Kill someone, somebody dies. Don't kill someone and no one is being murdered. Simple math.

 

The families of the 10,000 or more dead Iraqis are sure gonna be mad for a LONG time. I wonder who they will listen to the most when they get a knock on the door? US military or the AQ.

 

why yes, Im sure they will open their arms wide open for Al-Qeada, because you know they haven't killed any civillians in Iraq with their bombings.

 

 

~Who knows. Enough bombs come out of the sky and destroy enough neighborhoods....

 

I wonder how the families of the VICTIMS of the 9-11 attacks feel whenever they turn on the news and so little is said about any progress Afganistan. You know, the assholes who actually DID attack us? Perhaps a better list of priorities would serve us better as a solution to what AMERICANS want to get out of this WAR "on terror". Namely the capture of OBL.

 

What brings in more ratings, news about the good being done in Afghanistan, or the pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq? They have had their elections, but how much of it was reported on the news? Remember the old phrase "Bad news is good news"

 

 

~Doesn't make it right OR a good thing. BTW, what pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq? I remember there being something of a BAN on taking those pictures.

 

 

Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism

 

Than WWI & WWII was just the Allies commiting giant acts of terrorism

 

 

~Yes, you see that was a real WAR. By the definition. THIS is more like the DRUG WAR. Not the same thing. At least its similar in how it should be handled. But its too late to go covert now. You can't fight this fight like you can when you have an opposing army. Get yourself ready, cuz this is going to last a long time. generations of terrorists are going to come and go and this thing is still going to be there. Cuz now we don't just have AQ against us we have so many more.

 

But when there is money to be made...

 

Just double check that tin foil hat.

 

 

~Dick Cheney isn't under CRIMINAL investigation?

Sorry in advance for my lack of messageboard savvy. I don't know how to cut up my quotes. This ~ marks my answers.

[Guest DubWiser]

Why should the most powerful nation in the world be held to ransom by a bunch of terrorists?

 

Zinn advocates capturing known terrorists (You know, like Osama Bin Laden...that guy in the crazy gold outfit running free and filming wacky infomercials three years after ordering the murder of thousands of American civilians). It's right there above your post.

 

If you want to eliminate "the root causes" of terrorism you might as well eliminate the root causes of crime, bigotry, and, hell, bad TV and noisy children while we're at it.

 

I agree. Let's get started today.

 

Well, the great Matt Damon gave praise to Zinn in "Good Will Hunting". When a Hollywood Idiot speaks...

 

So the fact that someone is praised by a "Hollywood Idiot" negates anything they say or write? Interesting. Just this morning I saw the Terminator opening up for the President before he gives one of those down home, man of the people speeches that his aides write for him.

 

If the other kid throws a punch, we teach them to defend themselves and throw a punch back. It's the only way to stop a bully.

 

Once again, I agree. Osama Bin Laden punched us, and we responded by...punching Saddaam Hussein? Wait a minute...

 

...Funny, the left's solution always seems to be "Fuck the Jews"...

 

So Zinn, who was born and raised a Jew, is endorsing your imaginary left wing "Fuck the Jews" conspiracy? Take a break from your 10,000 posts, go outside and get some air.

 

What brings in more ratings, news about the good being done in Afghanistan, or the pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq?

 

I'm sure that pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq would draw better ratings, but the Pentagon doesn't allow images like that to be shown. Might get people thinking...

[Swift Terror 0]

Once again, I agree. Osama Bin Laden punched us, and we responded by...punching Saddaam Hussein? Wait a minute...

 

I was responding to Cheesalaisgood's general comment about teaching our kids not to fight, nothing more.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Once again, I agree. Osama Bin Laden punched us, and we responded by...punching Saddaam Hussein? Wait a minute...

 

I was responding to Cheesalaisgood's general comment about teaching our kids not to fight, nothing more.

It's an analogy Swift. Of course people are allowed to defend themselves. Our beef with AQ is entirly justified. I have never said otherwise. But I don't confuse any issue with Iraq with OBL and co.