Who Are the ‘Terrorists’?
ANGLO AMERICA, 19 Mar 2012
The pattern of American atrocities in wartime
In the early morning hours of March 11, a US soldier assigned to “special ops” in Afghanistan, stationed near Kandahar, went into a local village and gunned down 16 people – including nine women and three children. At least three others were wounded. He went from house to house, in the predawn darkness, systematically murdering people while they slept in their beds: he then doused them with a flammable liquid and set them ablaze.
What is it about American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? From Abu Ghraib [.pdf] to the Mahmudiyah killings to the Hamdania murder of a crippled old man to the horrors of the Haditha massacre, it’s been one atrocity after another (see here, here, and here). More recently it was the “rogue” team of killers that murdered Afghan civilians in the Maywand district for sport. Then it was US troops urinating on corpses, followed shortly afterward by the Koran-burning incident, the second such example of American contempt for the people they are supposed to be “liberating.” Now we have this, which – we’re told – is the result of a US soldier having a “breakdown.”
Was it a breakdown, or merely the logical extension of the soldier’s training and inclination, that caused him to go on a murderous rampage? That hardly a month goes by without some kind of atrocity being committed should tell us something.
What it tells me is that America is a depraved nation, a country where the very worst-of-the-worst flock to join the military, free to kill and maim and rape to their heart’s content.
And Rachel Maddow wants to give these guys a “welcome home” “victory” parade?
Of course she does: even the “liberals” in our country are corrupted by the ugliness that pervades the national consciousness and poisons everything we do. “Honor the troops” is a given on the left as well as the right, because the above-mentioned atrocities are just “isolated incidents,” examples of soldiers who had “breakdowns” and went “rogue.” Their actions have nothing to do with our mission [.pdf], our mentality, or our decadent culture, which glorifies violence and disdains foreigners – especially if they’re Muslims. Oh no: these are all anomalies, there’s nothing to see here so please move along …
I’m not buying it. There is something wrong – very wrong – here: a trend, a significant uptick in the savagery that is part and parcel of every war. During World War II, American atrocities were relatively few and far between, although no less reprehensible. As the American presence abroad grew more substantial, however, and the cold war heated up, such incidents increased in number, and took on a more horrific – and systematic – character.
In Korea, American troops massacred hundreds of Korean civilians at No Gun Ri, and stood aside while their South Korean allies did the same at Kwangju. During the Vietnam war, vast areas under Viet Cong control were deemed a “freefire zone,” and entire villages were wiped out by US troops. The My Lai massacre revealed how American policy had ended in an orgy of brutality, and support for the war plummeted to new lows.
Embarked once again on an international crusade to save the world, our demons are unleashed – and they are more bloodthirsty and sadistic than ever. Why is that?
To begin with, American culture is more violent and sadistic than ever. When it comes to mass entertainment and the level of acceptable violence, there appears to be no limit: how else could a movie like Kill Bill or Natural Born Killers even get made, let alone generate millions in profits? In a healthy society, such films would be marginal: in America, they are hailed as great “art” and go on to become box office hits. Rome had its gladiatorial contests; we have Hollywood to excite our bloodlust.
Secondly, the state of perpetual war in which we find ourselves, a decade after 9/11, has led to increased multiple deployments for our professional soldiers: from Iraq to Afghanistan to wherever our crazy foreign policy takes them, US military personnel are shipped from one trouble spot to another with dizzying speed and little regard for their mental equilibrium. This has resulted in a record number of suicides and dismissals from the armed services on mental health grounds. In addition, criminal activities in the ranks are on the upswing, with gang members actively seeking to be deployed to combat areas: they consider it on the job training.
It makes sense that, as publicity about US atrocities abroad is circulated, the most brutal and sadistic members of society will be attracted to the military: you know, like child molesters are drawn to the Boy Scouts or necrophiliacs consider working in a morgue a dream job. So you want to kill people and collect their bones as “trophies”? Well, then, son, the US Army is the place for you!
Thirdly, the craziness spreading through the ranks is a function of the policy, which – consciously or not – encourages and even rewards brutality. In spite of all the BS about “winning hearts and minds” which is part of the “new” counterinsurgency doctrine of the US military, the reality is that American troops are occupiers surrounded by a hostile populace which hates them and wants to see them gone. Soldiers returning from the front tell us how they feel surrounded by enemies on every side, and that’s because it’s true: they are surrounded on every side by people who hate them and want to see them dead. No wonder some go crazy and start killing people randomly.
This will go on as long as our crazed foreign policy continues to target nation after nation for “liberation,” occupation, and “democratization.” By the time we get around to attacking Iran, our homicidal maniacs in uniform will be so hopped up that we’ll be getting atrocity reports shortly after the first American soldier sets foot on Persian soil.
A major factor in the increasing level of criminality in our armed forces has got to be the apparent immunity of our political elites from the rule of law. In spite of the boasting of former Vice President Dick Cheney that he personally approved and authorized torture, the Obama administration has refused to indict him – even though he has violated US law. Others who participated – the lawyers who justified it, the officers who covered it up – have been granted similar immunity. In short, these guys are getting away with it – so why shouldn’t the grunts? When the rule of law is relaxed so that the elites can literally get away with murder, why should anyone expect their underlings to be on their best behavior? A fish rots from the head down.
I have the sinking feeling we’ll be seeing a lot more of this American horror show, while – under the pretext of “fighting terrorism” – we act out our sadistic fantasies all over the world. As these outrages against human decency and morality provoke worldwide revulsion at the perpetrators, perhaps one day we’ll go looking for “terrorists” in the vicinity of a mirror – and see ourselves for what we’ve become.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The above article shows: What the US is doing is to prove that the US is allowed to do anything and that what the US does is justified. Besides, the US is out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. What has been done in “Guantanamo” that still exists and is still out of jurisdiction? Nonetheless, President George W. Bush said, “Justice should be done.” That President Barak Obama decided not to indict the American soldier who committed the slaughter of the 16 civilian villagers near Kandahar (as mentioned in the above article) implies that “justice has been done.” But what justice? Justice for whom? Whose act to be justified?
How did it actually happen? Let me summarize what was reported by mass media on that incident as follows: The US Headquarters in Afghanistan received some information that there were some terrorists in that village. So, a team of the US soldiers was ordered to kill the terrorist-villagers. They did not know which villagers were terrorists. They killed those villagers whom they believed terrorists, their families, relatives and supporters. It did not matter if those villagers were really terrorists or not. Probably the team was told by their superior(s), “Terrorists are among those villagers. Terrorists are pretending as if they were innocent civilians. Terrorists and other civilians are no difference at a glance. You don’t know which one is a terrorist and which one is a civilian. Therefore, kill anyone in doubt. It is safer for the American forces to kill other civilians together with terrorists than to let terrorists alive in order to avoid to kill civilians.” Accordingly, their mission was accomplished. After this incident, survivors in the village reported the incident to the Afghan authorities that, then, inquired about it to the US Headquarters in that country. Then, one of the soldiers of the team declared that he had done it all by himself. He played as the role of the scapegoat in that incident in order to defend his teammates and his superiors at the headquarters. It is no wonder, therefore, that President Obama did not indict that soldier. It is also no wonder even if the “scenario” as such – one of the teammates to declare as the scapegoat to rescue the team from public accusations and legal problems and to be acquitted by the President — was prepared in advance, prior to that mission.
But if American soldiers consider Afghans as “Muslim terrorists“, reciprocally the Afghan relatives of the victims might consider those American soldiers as “American Christian terrorists.” How many times have American soldiers killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan so far? If the same soldiers did the same thing in the US, what would happen to them? What Americans are actually doing in Afghanistan is to convert innocent Afghan citizens, by killing their loved ones, into potential terrorists who might revenge on Americans sometime in the future. Why do you create new potential enemies? Do not convert innocent local Afghan citizens to your potential/future enemies or you will be in a danger more. What you saw, what you get.
“Who are really terrorists?” It is very often that a discussion turns to become another discussion on the definition of the term – “terrorist” in this case, to be used in the first discussion. Some people say, in brief, that a discussion tends to become a discussion on the definition of the term. Needless to say, there are no central authorities, accepted by the international community in general, that determine the definition of the word, “terrorist,” for instance. This means that anybody or any authorities can determine any other person (or any group/organization) as a terrorist (or a group/organization of terrorists). Accordingly, the “government X” can determine that the “government Y” is terrorists; vice versa, the “government Y” can determine that the “government X” is terrorists.
But labeling as such produces only negative outcomes. It damages the friendly relation between nations, communities or individuals. It exacerbates the already damaged relation. The reversal of the damaged or broken relation takes many decades (or centuries) of Herculean tasks. Meanwhile, many people’s blood may be shed; many people may be left in abject living conditions.
Such situation raises at least two main problems, among others:
First: Such situation could create room for an excuse for a certain country to invade other country “in the name of the war on terrorism.” In that regard, please be aware of the term “war on terrorism.” It means the “violence (=war) against another violence (=terrorism).” If both warring parties consider that the other party is a terrorist state, it will be a “war on mutual terrorism.” For instance, Israel and Palestine could consider each other as terrorist- states/authorities. The United States and Afghanistan could consider each other as terrorist-states. War on mutual terrorism might escalate and might be very difficult to end it. Look at the Afghan War that has been engaged since 2001. Afghan-Taliban soldiers, for instance, could consider the US as a terrorist-state. From Afghan-Taliban soldiers’ point of view, it can be said that they are fighting a war on terrorism (or a war on mutual terrorism) against the US. As such, it is obvious that the “war (violence) on terrorism (violence)” is a very dangerous concept for peace. Can “violence on violence” bring about peace?
Second: Does the just war (“jus ad bellum” → what justifies to begin war = the just cause for the war) theory allow the “war on terrorism”? The just war theory is one of the most classical and controversial subjects in international law. While some scholars of international law are proposing some criteria that allow the so-called “humanitarian intervention” as a just war, the justification of war on terrorism in the just war theory is more difficult and controversy. I have no intention to discuss this tremendously huge issue in this small space here. Discussions on this issue will make a book or books.
But let me reminds you of these words: “Only self-interest makes a war worthy cause for a major state.” (Otto von Bismarck) Did President George W. Bush know Bismarck’s words as such when he decided to invade Afghanistan and then, Iraq subsequently? Also, while remembering Bismarck’s words, think of the current attitude of the UN and that of the major countries in the world toward Syria. And then you will be able to understand many things about Syria, including those related issues and of the international community in general. For instance, NATO supported rebels of Libya. (Libya has allegedly the biggest oil reserves in Africa.) The US asserts that it invaded Iraq because of the WMDs. It is reported that the US is now considering the possible invasion of Iran to destroy nuclear facilities but Iran has no nuclear missiles. Both Iraq and Iran have a wealth of oil reserves. On the other hand, North Korea, poor in natural resources including crude oil, has already nuclear missiles. But have you ever heard of any intention of the US to invade North Korea, for instance? So, Bismarck was right?
“War on terrorism” is an excuse for the US and its allies to begin a new war and/or to continue the on-going war for the three main reasons as follows, among other reasons:
First: They can begin, in the name of war on terrorism, a new war and/or continue the on-going war, meaning that they can consume weapons and other relevant items. This is not just a military issue; this is an “economic issue” — an essential part of the contemporary economy of the US. Let me elaborate on it a bit more as follows: Without “consumption,” “demand” does not exist. Without “demand,” a large economy of a large nation will get stuck. A large economy requires a large demand. A large demand requires a large consumption. A large consumption requires a large demand. Thus, the economic cycle is completed as such. And that is how a large economy survives. War is an “appropriate opportunity” to consume a large amount of products, including weapons and other items. Know that a military operation, especially a large one, requires a huge amount of consumption not only of military products but also of civilian common products. Periods, time or occasions of real battles are actually very limited. In most cases, however, military personnel are living in non-battle situations, and they need common products for their everyday living. Their huge amount of consumption of common products boosts the economy of their home land. Therefore, in a sense, it can be said that a huge amount of the consumption of civilian products in a relatively short period of time is a key to “successfully boost the national economy of the US.” It can be said, therefore, that war is another form of “New Deal” to boost the American economy.* But this economic structure is far from healthy; it is rather malignant. Remember that “New Deal” was implemented during the Great Depression. That is to say, a large scale economic intervention by the government in the market economy is an exceptional measure, to be done only in a very grave national economic situation. Then, how can you say that the economic structure (in the market economy system) which constantly requires an ultra-huge scale of the intervention by the government is a healthy economic structure? Meanwhile, regardless of what, the above mentioned economic cycle, therefore together with its economic structure as well, grows bigger every time one cycle finishes. When this economic structure grows into the global scale, some people call it, the “global economy.” [* Conventional peace studies has focused mainly on how to solve a conflict by its transformation. Contemporary peace studies is required to focus not only on conflict resolution/transformation but also more on the transformation of the economic structure as mentioned above.]
Second: Oil. For Western countries, especially for the US, the energy issue is their survival issue. As already discussed previously, they do not invade North Korea even though North Korea has already developed nuclear arsenals, but they invaded Iraq even though Iraq did not have WMDs. NATO supported the upheavals of Libya, the largest oil reserves among African countries. So far, there has been no substantial military intervention from Western countries to Syria, suffering from declining rates of oil production; 600,000 barrels per day in 1995, and 425,000 barrels per day in 2005. But Syria produces 22 million cubic meters of gas per day; estimated gas reserves are 8.5 trillion cubic feet (240 km3). Western countries, including the US, are wondering what to do to Syria now. (Here, Bismarck was right?)
Third: War is an “appropriate opportunity” to suppress human rights. “Human rights” are some of the main obstacles for almost any rulers, especially for those who are contemplating the so-called “global domination.” (See “Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia” on this website this week.) War gives an “appropriate opportunity” to justify the suppression of human rights. As mentioned above, “Guantanamo” is one of the strong examples for that. By removing human rights, the rulers’ act over people will become less difficult. So, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and relevant human rights norms are vestiges of the 20th Century?
As such, it seems that the interest made by war is bigger than the interest made by peace. Again Bismarck was right?
But I dare to raise a question in that context as follows: If Bismarck knew that “self-interest made by peace” was bigger — far much bigger — than “self-interest made by war,” what would he say?
Let’s begin to make a world in which the interest made by peace is much bigger than that made by war. It will take time, centuries, a millennium or more, but we, the humanity especially peace-loving people, can make it. In the beginning, everything was a dream. But they were realized. The airplane was a dream. The space rocket was a dream. The audio recording was a dream. The television was a dream. The computer was a dream. A peaceful world is a dream now. But, let there be a peaceful world! One day it will be the reality if the whole humanity will never give up in constructing such a world. It is a world in the distant future. But the preparation for the future should start now, today. If not now, when? If not today, which day?
In the contemporary context, Martin Luther King, Jr., would say, “I have a dream.” One day, American children and Afghan children will play together and they will become good friends. It is a dream today. But someday, one day, it will be their reality. No more labeling. No more hatred. No more enemies. Friends only.
But I am not referring to a “fairy tale” here. Rather, I would say that it is already necessary for any peoples or any nations – not to mention Americans and Afghans — on this planet to cooperate together to tackle their common problems. There are many common problems in front of us already now; air pollution, climate change, conservation of natural resources, natural disasters, international finance, economic development, technical cooperation, crime prevention and more. In the future, the necessity for the whole humanity to cooperate together will drastically increase. Our future generations will face unimaginable challenges on the global scale, perhaps on the solar system scale or on the galaxy scale. Time for the global scale cooperation of the whole humanity has already come.
May peace and friendship be with you. May peace and friendship be with Americans and Afghans.