| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Terrorized by 'War on Terror' |
| 2007-03-25 |
| How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America By Zbigniew Brzezinski 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. Yeah, calling it the "War on Terror" was lame. Not perfidious, as Zbiggy suggests, just lame. All the rest of this horseshit opinion piece is just Jimmeh with a Polish accent. 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. More Zbiggybabble at link... |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #9 Considering that modern Islamic fundamentalism was literally birthed on Brzezinski's watch, he really should shut his damned pie hole about any difficulties being encountered while we address the mess he left behind for us to clean up. This isn't even constructive 20-20 hindsight, it's counterproductive sniping from the sidelines. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-25 21:17 |
| #8 Interestingly, I've heard some Russians claim that Jimmy won the Cold War. They said that by losing to the USSR all the time, Jimmy encouraged them to over extend themselves so they collapsed 10 years later. Maybe we can have the Dems encourage the Moslems to overextend themselves too. /sarc off Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-03-25 13:38 |
| #7 Sooooooooo! It was Jimmuah what ended the Commie menace. Who knew? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-25 11:07 |
| #6 Wow. That's some serious denial... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-25 10:59 |
| #5 From an interview with Brzezinski Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. |
| Posted by: John Frum 2007-03-25 10:39 |
| #4 His Democratic Underground-type rhetoric is self-discrediting. Useful idiots like this are the internal menace we face every generation. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-03-25 04:37 |
| #3 I fear a future ICBM threat from wackos who shout "Death to America" and smash barbed whips against their backs. Lock me up! The last time Zbiggy and Jimmah sold out US allies from Persia to Central America to South Aftica to Korea, the Soviets began their winning streak. The enemy loved to hear Jimmah squack about "human rights" for Communists. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-03-25 03:01 |
| #2 I remember your guys foreign policy, Zbiggy. What a Golden Age it was... Click. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-03-25 02:35 |
| #1 He almost seemed like a serious person, way back (depsite his association with the slapstick Jimmah Admin.). He's now a preposterous comic figure - that is, he mouthes the stupefyingly dumb b.s. that passes for sophisticated analysis among a majority of Beltway lightweights. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-25 00:46 |