FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Rejecting the Language of Terrorism

by MIKE WHITNEY

 

I don’t believe this is the Third World War. Nor is it a “war on terror”. Nor is it a “war of civilizations”. But our own leaders are willfully leading us into a period of appalling suffering because they will not address the causes of injustice in the Islamic world.

Robert Fisk

The War on Terror will persist until its flawed logic is challenged. As long as the root of the deception remains unexposed the global situation will continue to deteriorate.

The driving force is ideas, not bombs. The Bush Administration has carefully disguised these ideas in the language of deception.

Of the many misleading notions propagated by the Bush Administration, the most lethal has been the War on Terror. It is an idea that is every bit as fraudulent as “preemption” (which is the legitimizing of unprovoked aggression) or Israel’s “Security Barrier”; the patently dishonest description of the 20 ft. high behemoth that snakes through Palestine, savaging all hope of a just solution to the ongoing crisis.

The War on Terror is the truest expression of the calculated dishonesty of the Bush White House. It is grounded on “unproved assumptions” and, then, disseminated by an aggressive campaign of fear mongering. These are the weapons of choice for controlling a timorous public, and Bush has proved to be quite adept in their application.

Terror is an inescapable reality in the modern world; a world where a small fraction of the population will respond violently to grievance and injustice. This is a situation that has been dealt with quite successfully through normal “investigative-police” work. Even Mr. Bush admits this, although only when it suits his purposes.

Consider this; Abu Zubayda, Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Ramsi bin al Shibh (alleged Mastermind of 9-11), have all been captured and imprisoned through conventional detective work. The results of their interrogations have undoubtedly provided a clear understanding of the inner workings of al Qaida.

This is how you measure success. This is how you get to the root of terrorist organizations.

Additionally, according to the Administration’s own admissions, more than two-thirds of the al Qaida leadership has been caught and incarcerated.

Again, conspicuous success.

These achievements are much more impressive then the poorly conducted Afghanistan war where the principle characters (bin Laden and Mullah Omar) were able to escape and thousands of innocent Afghanis were either killed or displaced in the hostilities.

So, why does the administration conceal its own successes?

And, why do they downplay the methodology that is putting a dent in terror?

The reasons are obvious.

Without the War on Terror, that source of all demagoguery, the real political objectives of the administration would never be realized.

They need a credible “Monster” to continue their drive to secure the world’s dwindling resources and to abridge the rights of American citizens.

The idea that we are combating “terror” suggests that we are dealing with an irrational force that cannot be appeased, only defeated. The Bush Administration has done everything in its power to cultivate this now widespread belief. The terrorist attacks on America have been stripped of all their political significance and translated into the ravings of bloodthirsty Islamic fanatics, whose sole purpose in life is to kill innocent Americans.

Even the al Qaida communiqués, (which are offered regularly in the European press) are scrupulously omitted from American media, so that any vestige of “reason” will not attach itself to the terrorists.

The perpetrators must be demonized in the harshest, medieval terms. (“Evildoer”)

This is in direct odds with what we already know.

For example, following the Madrid bombings, al Qaida sent this message:

“Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land, we will stop attacking you. The people of US allied countries have to put pressure on their governments to immediately end their alliance with the US in the war on terror (Islam) If you persist we will continue.”

Regardless of what we think of the terrorists, this is a straightforward political directive that expresses a “reasoned” approach to injustice. We do not agree with the bombings, but we certainly don’t dismiss these claims as the ravings of religious maniacs who “hate our freedoms.”(Bush’s painfully inane assessment of the cause of terrorism)

Instead, their claims match up quite nicely with those of reasonable American’s who entertain the notion that we should simply pay for oil, rather than stealing it; that we should stop occupying Muslim countries, and that we should look for sensible alternatives for negotiation rather than pelting the desert with Cruise Missles.

The idea that we are at war works to the advantage of the Bush Administration. We have already seen how the war on terror conveniently morphed into the war on Iraq. Mr. Bush never misses an opportunity to conflate the two in his attempts to confuse the public.

But is it a war, or just a shabby public relations ploy to achieve an alternate political objective?

We have already demonstrated how the real progress in dismantling terror cells has been through routine police work. So why is the War motif invoked?

First, it suggests that we are responding to aggression.

But, is that the case?

Was 9-11 a flagrant act of unprovoked hostility, or was it retaliatory?

We can see from the communiqué above that the architects considered it “striking back” not “striking out”.

This does not vindicate the action, but at least it points to the fact that there are underlying grievances that motivated the attacks. It wasn’t simply blind rage.

This implies that there may be some type of remedy.

Mr. Bush has no remedy.

He is Armstrong Custer charging into harms way with the full might of the US military machine at his beck and call.

We cannot afford such transparent stupidity.

Our life as American’s is threatened by the idea that we are at war. It vindicates the policy decisions that Bush has made that are reshaping the social contract.

If we accept the language of Mr. Bush’s crusade, we must accept its logic. That means that we must accept the further curtailing of civil liberties;

We must accept the increased and “unchecked” power of the Presidency;

We must accept the idea of permanent war.

This is the devil’s bargain we make when we accept the “language” of the War on Terrorism.

We should be more focused on the language of resistance; a language that articulates our stubborn resolve to thwart Mr. Bush’s desperate plan; a language that rejects a vision of a world order that is predicated on lies and murder; a language that points us towards reconciliation with the world community and away from further carnage.

As for terrorism; the most effective tool in undermining terrorism is justice; justice that applies beyond our borders and is not circumscribed by the petty limitations of nationalism.

MIKE WHITNEY may be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

 

 

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail