[wvns] 3-Word Mantra Undermined America
TERRORIZED BY 'WAR ON TERROR'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html
The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush
administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra
since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on
American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the
world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to
effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may
use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted
wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the
fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting
against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless.
It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies.
Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political
intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was
deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant
reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It
stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason,
intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to
mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The
war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional
support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of
9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also
mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change
its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but
otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically
expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."
To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted
a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling
prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S.
struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact
that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military
powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the
administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war
would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq,
Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.
The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its
bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing.
America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that
responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its
leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words "the only
thing we have to fear is fear itself"; nor is it the calm America that
waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a
real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the
death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now
divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the
event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.
That is the result of five years of almost continuous national
brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted
reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany,
Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful
terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq,
President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it
lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the
United States.
Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass
media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The
terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are
necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence
their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That
puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of
ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints
for their implementation.
That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly
debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified
160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be
terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the
list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to
77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000
items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois
Apple and Pork Festival.
Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic
office, I had to pass through one of the absurd "security checks" that
have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings
in this capital -- and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me
to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing
the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in
writing that the purpose is "to blow up the building"? Would the guard
be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To
make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds
of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert
halls or movie theaters. Yet such "security" procedures have become
routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further
contributing to a siege mentality.
Government at every level has stimulated the paranoia. Consider, for
example, the electronic billboards over interstate highways urging
motorists to "Report Suspicious Activity" (drivers in turbans?). Some
mass media have made their own contribution. The cable channels and
some print media have found that horror scenarios attract audiences,
while terror "experts" as "consultants" provide authenticity for the
apocalyptic visions fed to the American public. Hence the
proliferation of programs with bearded "terrorists" as the central
villains. Their general effect is to reinforce the sense of the
unknown but lurking danger that is said to increasingly threaten the
lives of all Americans.
The entertainment industry has also jumped into the act. Hence the TV
serials and films in which the evil characters have recognizable Arab
features, sometimes highlighted by religious gestures, that exploit
public anxiety and stimulate Islamophobia. Arab facial stereotypes,
particularly in newspaper cartoons, have at times been rendered in a
manner sadly reminiscent of the Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. Lately,
even some college student organizations have become involved in such
propagation, apparently oblivious to the menacing connection between
the stimulation of racial and religious hatreds and the unleashing of
the unprecedented crimes of the Holocaust.
The atmosphere generated by the "war on terror" has encouraged legal
and political harassment of Arab Americans (generally loyal Americans)
for conduct that has not been unique to them. A case in point is the
reported harassment of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) for its attempts to emulate, not very successfully, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Some House
Republicans recently described CAIR members as "terrorist apologists"
who should not be allowed to use a Capitol meeting room for a panel
discussion.
Social discrimination, for example toward Muslim air travelers, has
also been its unintended byproduct. Not surprisingly, animus toward
the United States even among Muslims otherwise not particularly
concerned with the Middle East has intensified, while America's
reputation as a leader in fostering constructive interracial and
interreligious relations has suffered egregiously.
The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights.
The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and
the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of
justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone,
with some -- even U.S. citizens -- incarcerated for lengthy periods of
time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no
known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts
of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have
been few and far between. Someday Americans will be as ashamed of this
record as they now have become of the earlier instances in U.S.
history of panic by the many prompting intolerance against the few.
In the meantime, the "war on terror" has gravely damaged the United
States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough
treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the
Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of
hostility toward the United States in general. It's not the "war on
terror" that angers Muslims watching the news on television, it's the
victimization of Arab civilians. And the resentment is not limited to
Muslims. A recent BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries that
sought respondents' assessments of the role of states in international
affairs resulted in Israel, Iran and the United States being rated (in
that order) as the states with "the most negative influence on the
world." Alas, for some that is the new axis of evil!
The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity
against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates,
including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to
extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the
political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more
productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S.
"war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism." Only a confidently
determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international
security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.
Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop
this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the
likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us
be true to our traditions.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy
Carter, is the author most recently of "Second Chance: Three
Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower" (Basic Books).
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment