Your browser may have trouble rendering this page. See supported browsers for more information.

|<<>>|302 of 714 Show listMobile Mode

Our Gift to the World

Published by marco on

Updated by marco on

In a very well-written piece, The Quiet American (Antiwar.com), by the always thoughtful Israeli journalist, Uri Avnery, the “War on Terror” is taken to task as an expression as well as a concept. Though the Obama administration has officially consigned the phrase to the dustbin, the policy it represents is nearly unchanged from the Bush era. The concept as a shining light leading America through the inky blackness of an ever more dangerous world lives on with a vengeance.

At the press circus after the thwarted attack by Abdulmutallab, Barack Obama describing an organization that puts together one half-assed attack on the U.S. in the last decade as “an organization bent on our destruction.” The only way to squeeze out a turd of a statement like that with a straight face is if you’re drinking the Kool-Aid. The only one there with any grounding in reality was Helen Thomas (see Helen Asks Why by Ray McGovern (Antiwar.com)). “She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did” and pressed further when answered with “al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland”. So determined that they make an attempt every ten years, like clockwork. How can we ever hope to win against relentless perseverance like that?[1]

But, as Avnery points out, after the U.S.S.R. was so rude as to leave the party so abruptly that the frat-boy host was left swaying uncertainly in the middle of the living room, illuminated by the weak light of a misty dawn filtering through the half-pulled and dusty curtains and wondering what justification was left for even continuing the party, said frat boy quickly reached for the phone and blearily ordered more booze, more pizza and a fresh passel of enemies, and soon “[t]he crushing of “World Terrorism” became the overriding American aim.”

“That aim is nonsense. Terrorism is nothing but an instrument of war. It is used by organizations that are vastly different from each other, which are fighting in vastly different countries for vastly different objectives. A war on “International Terror” is like a war on “International Artillery” or “International Navy.””

Indeed, it is purely because of America that the phrase “Al Qaeda” has any meaning. Minor, purely local groups with real grievances but no attention can quickly and easily catapult themselves into the limelight of a world press and leadership ever hungry for something new to be very afraid of. Thanks to the various interest groups and their need to secure funding in the early 90's[2], the brand name “Al Qaeda” is like an unlicensed franchise. If Timothy McVeigh were to commit his heinous act of terrorism today, you can be dead sure that he would be quickly promoted to a colonel in the ranks of Al Qaeda or perhaps even to the position of Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, a position occupied by nearly everyone with turban as far as the U.S. military and the American mainstream media is concerned.[3]

The recent attempted bombing on Christmas day was also supposedly perpetrated by a member of Al Qaeda. But, seriously, how organized was the whole effort? Any country without ulterior motives—or notions of empire—has long since written off fighting terrorism as some sort of messianic crusade and much more sensibly concentrated on using police work to thwart what are primarily very violent crimes (or attempted ones). It’s the only thing proven to actually make the world safer; attacking the source countries only pisses everyone off and exacerbates exactly the terror which such attacks are purportedly supposed to end. It’s either criminal stupidity or villainous colonialism, but it certainly isn’t enlightened or democratic or moral or any of those other good things.


[1] Holy sarcasm alarm, batman! These sarcasm alerts are provided for readers known to have trouble following along when things get hairy, ironically speaking.
[2] It’s used to be quite difficult to get money for fighting terror, in general, especially when it was very difficult to explain how aiming the massive firehose of American military supremacy at a few irate goat farmers was going to accomplish anything. Ah, but if those goat farmers were part of a larger, globe-encircling organization—think James Bond’s S.P.E.C.T.R.E. or G.I. Joe’s Cobra—that was a different story.
[3] Seriously, ask yourself how many times “Al Qaeda’s number two man” has been captured and killed in the last several years. To be fair, once #2 is dead, #3 becomes #2 and, if you kill the former #3, you’ve actually killed the current #2 and have, in effect, killed the #2 man twice, but it’s still ridiculous. I’ve played video games with more realistic plots.