William Blum: Myth and Denial in the War Against Terrorism

[eablair3]

I thought this was one that should be read more widely. Blum tells it directly. I liked his ending where he states that if he was President, he could end terrorism against the U.S. in a few days, or like 3 days ... and then on the 4th he says he'd be assassinated.

it's pretty decent article with lots of detail and footnotes for sources. it's worth clicking over, and reading.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4065


Myth and Denial in the War Against Terrorism
by William Blum
August 19, 2003


It dies hard. It dies very hard. The notion that terrorist acts against the United States can be explained by envy and irrational hatred, and not by what the United States does in and to the world -- i.e., US foreign policy -- is alive and well.

The fires were still burning intensely at Ground Zero when Colin Powell declared: "Once again, we see terrorism, we see terrorists, people who don't believe in democracy ..."{1}

George W. picked up on that theme and ran with it. He's been its leading proponent ever since September 11 with his repeated insistence, in one wording or another, that "those people hate America, they hate all that it stands for, they hate our democracy, our freedom, our wealth, our secular government." (Ironically, the president and John Ashcroft probably hate our secular government as much as anyone.)

One of Bush's many subsequent versions of this incantation, delivered more than a year after 9-11, was: "The threats we face are global terrorist attacks. That's the threat. And the more you love freedom, the more likely it is you'll be attacked."{2}

In September 2002, the White House released the "National Security Strategy", purported to be chiefly the handiwork of Condoleezza Rice, which speaks of the "rogue states" which "sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands."

As recently as July of this year the spokesman for Homeland Security, Brian Roehrkasse, declared: "Terrorists hate our freedoms. They want to change our ways."{3}

Thomas Friedman the renowned foreign policy analyst of the New York Times would say amen. Terrorists, he wrote in 1998 after terrorists attacked two US embassies in Africa, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam."{4}

This idée fixe -- that the rise of anti-American terrorism owes nothing to American policies -- in effect postulates an America that is always the aggrieved innocent in a treacherous world, a benign United States government peacefully going about its business but being "provoked" into taking extreme measures to defend its people, its freedom and democracy. There consequently is no good reason to modify US foreign policy, and many people who might otherwise know better are scared into supporting the empire's wars out of the belief that there's no choice but to crush without mercy -- or even without evidence -- this irrational international force out there that hates the United States with an abiding passion.

snip

As I've written elsewhere: If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year.
That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4065

[JohnyCanuck]

1. He is being a little bit over-optimistic IMHO,

to believe that he would be allowed 3 days as president to implement his proposed platform. He would be bumped off before he ever took office.

[chesley]

2. I'm sure that

he is absolutely correct that terrorism is in response to American foreign policy decisions. This does not mean, however, that we should change these decisions in the face of terrorism. In fact, until the terrorists are utterly destroyed and cast down into HEll (if it exists), the policies should not be changed in their favor. Giving into extortion only invites more extortion. Who will be the next group that wants us to change our policies. American policy should reflect American interests.

[eablair3]

5. i disagree

I think we should change the decisions to make it a just foreign policy. It doesn't matter whether it's in the face of terrorism or not. If you're wrong, you're wrong. Make it right.

After making it right, if you are unjustly attacked or threatened, then I'd be in favor of taking action.

What the heck does this mean "American policy should reflect American interests"? What exactly are "American interests"?

To me, American policy should reflect American ideals, such as the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, the right to free speech, the right to dissent, real democracy, freedom, etc, ... and not just giving lip service to those terms and then supporting (economically, militarily and otherwise) repressive dictatorships or monarchies that violate all those principles, ... not to mention assassinating and overthrowing democratically elected leaders of other countries.

[paulthompson]

3. Blum? Rings a bell

When I saw the above, I wondered why the name sounded familiar. At the end of the article is says he's author of the book, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II."

That how I know of him. I highly, highly recommend reading this book. It helped change my life and caused the scales to fall from my eyes as to the real role of the US in the world. It's extremely well researched, nothing but annotated facts, and completely irrefutable.

[eablair3]

4. Killing Hope is excellent

Killing Hope is an excellent book. I also read another similar book he had out as well, which I think was called "Rogue State". Not as detailed as Killing Hope, but still a real good read.

I haven't read the other book mentioned at the bottom of the article about the Cold War dissident of the West. Guess I'll have to check that one out.

he has some interesting websites:

http://www.killinghope.com
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

I liked Oliver Stone's testimonial for Killing Hope:
""I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone"

It ought to be required reading in school. It would certainly cause a lot of discussion, which is really needed.