War is a lie. Why is the US so fond of it?

We are supposed to be the good guys. As the so-called "War on Terror" brazenly revealed, we are just idiots at war. Who is the pilot and what is the destination?

[This article was originally published with all useful references under the title Revisiting the War on Terror on One Home Planet]

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is part of his all-out war on democracy. Yet, deciphering today the “War on Terror” narrative reveals democracy as no more than a PR gimmick for the corporatocratic regime ruling the United States.

It is not news that Putin is an autocrat. Animated by a nationalistic ideology, he makes no mystery of despising Western societies, considering democratic ideals a sign of moral decline. Trained in the 80s as a KGB operative, his formative years apparently converted him to the virtues of dictating to people what to think. That probably suited a weak character, prone to consider that only he could be the one in charge. Whatever the man’s psychological profile might exactly be, after Thechenia, Georgia, Syria, and, of course, political opponents in Russia, Ukrainians now suffer the devastating consequences of his authoritarian and imperial delusions.

Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia since 2004, has nevertheless a point when arguing that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and how it unfolded disqualifies us from taking the moral high ground. Though his reasoning is morally unacceptable—if your neighbor is a murderer, this does not allow you to become one—it bears a real question for Americans: Has the U.S. amended its ways since the “War on Terror” heydays? Given that the U.S. military budget keeps expanding year after year, reaching more than $780 billion in 2022, it definitely does not look like it. What is even more puzzling is that Congress seems unable, in the meantime, to make the country’s genuine needs in infrastructure, education, or access to healthcare a priority. Republicans are against it, and Democrats never genuinely fight for it.

One can only be reminded, in that light, that if Vladimir’s regime is at an extreme of brutal censorship against any form of dissent, both the United States and Russia are full-fledged oligarchies. Only their respective coating differ; one being overtly authoritarian and the other presenting itself as the wonderland of happy consumers. In reality, as with the invasion of Ukraine, the “War on Terror” was a master feat of propaganda toward the national population and an absolute disaster for the countries that fell under its wrath. As with the invasion of Ukraine, consequently, the “War on Terror” stands as a privileged case study about the real nature of political power in the United States.

Once we have addressed the inner contradiction of the “War on Terror” concept from a strategic standpoint, we will have to understand how its propaganda worked so well. Then we will examine how today’s ongoing persecution of Julian Assange is particularly revealing of the lengths to which our “democracies,” and chiefly among them the U.S., are willing to go against their very principles to protect power. The reason why they do will, finally, be specifically analyzed with the help of a WWII veteran who dedicated his academic life to the question of democracy—Sheldon Wolin.

I. Military deception

The United States government undertook “counterterrorism” activities in no less than 85 countries between 2018 and 2020. The financial and human cost of this global war on terror has no equivalent in U.S history, standing in 2021 at $8 trillion, 900,000 deaths, and 37 to 59 million people displaced, according to two respective reports from the Costs of War project at Brown University. Another report from the Costs of War project states that “The total death toll in these war zones could be at least 4.5-4.6 million and counting . . . Some people were killed in the fighting, but far more, especially children, have been killed by the reverberating effects of war, such as the spread of disease.” In spite of such numbers, President Biden’s decision in April 2021 to pull out from Afghanistan all US troops by September 2021 was a highly contentious one in Washington and in the media sphere. The vast majority of U.S. lawmakers had long proved by their vote to raise the defense budget year in and year out that they are adamant the U.S. was and still is on the right track.

Aren’t they missing something?

Aside from the humanitarian cost that seems irrelevant to these noble souls, the war on terror’s counterproductive results in regard to its proclaimed practical and strategical goals do not make them budge either. Yet, since hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year for defense purposes in general and against terrorism in particular, it would seem that the number of battlefronts should eventually decrease, not increase. Arguing that it is because of the way terrorists operate only implies that they have been calling the shots all along. Simply put, a war that drags on for years and requires ever more resources is not a war that you are winning. In that respect and regarding the financial bottomless pit it fell into since its inception, the so-called “War on Terror” is an absolute record failure in military history. As a long-term strategy, furthermore, it does not fare any better. How to ensure a stable future for the concerned regions, and consequently for us as well, when dozens of millions of people have been displaced after they saw the political and economic infrastructures of their countries shattered by our self-righteous war on terror?

The military option against a threat with no definite outlines and the counterproductive results it would necessarily entail lead to addressing its inanity. According to the National Institute of Justice—the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice—“Terrorists are those who support or commit ideologically motivated violence to further political, social, or religious goals.” This, of course, immediately calls into question the predominance of a military approach in fighting terrorism. In the perpetual game of hide-and-seek played by small units of fiercely determined individuals, regular troops’ involvement can only be ill-suited. Fighting terrorism has to be based on intelligence work and, most of the time, be dealt with on an individual basis. By its very nature, terrorism does not intend to defeat armies but to provoke mayhem in civil societies.

Terrorists see themselves as the fighting units of an ideological cause. They hope that it will eventually prevail thanks to a growing number of sympathizers, who will also see violence as the most effective way to convey their exclusive view of the world. To people in such a state of mind, violence is a purifying act against what they see as the world’s filth. There is no genuine rationale toward a positive goal on their part, but an absolute stance cutting them off from the rest of humanity in a purely nihilistic attitude. If and when this attitude translates into the seizing of actual territories and the persecution of populations, the case for military intervention can be made with all due care. But in any case, dropping bombs and sending troops will never address the psychological twist through which acts of terrorism appear as a sacred duty to those who commit them.

Aside from the shortsightedness of the military option as an answer to terrorism, another important consideration to keep in mind is that war is not an end in and by itself. From a basic moral standpoint, war can only be a temporary segment of a broader solution toward lasting peace. That terrorists do not want peace is not relevant in the real scheme of things; sick and crazy people will always exist. What is relevant is that we have numerous allies to rely on for peace and security: all the people of goodwill who long for both of these in the countries we so casually bomb and invade. It all comes down to our faith in humanity—or the lack thereof. Violence may appear as the ultimate answer to those who do not share this faith; the rest of us understand that war can never be a substitute for building peace and that violence for the sake of violence is counterproductive.

Unfortunately, almost all elected representatives in the U.S. see terrorism as an opportunity to compete on who will appear the toughest on crime. Instead of a genuine vision constructively framing a way out of the issue, all we get from them is a motto saying “As long as there are terrorists, we will be out there fighting them!” As if by some supreme decree, the “War on Terror” is allowed to break free from any basic requirement of intellectual honesty and moral integrity, equating terrorism to a pest that simply needs to be eliminated. Quite logically, then, questions regarding the deeper and broader genesis of terrorist organizations are brushed away. Yet, holding dear some self-satisfying moral indignation rather than trying to understand why such organizations came into existence is not part of a sound strategy against them.

Most importantly, this empty-headed stance against terrorism bears two very worrying consequences. Intellectually, the scope of action is implicitly broadened to everything and anything that might suggest even the slightest suspicion of terrorism. It is an all-out war that deserves all possible means to be used in all directions. Morally, war is not only being seen as a solution—however dubious that might be in regard to addressing the real causes of terrorism—but as the absolute and definitive answer against an absolute evil. The “War on Terror” is a crusade as much as it is an effort to defeat an enemy.

As a matter of fact, where conventional conflicts always end up with the realization that building peace is far more effective and far less costly for populations to be secure, the “War on Terror” deliberately takes the reverse course. Breaking free from both reason and rationality, the less it works as a military answer, the more we are supposed to go at it. Said otherwise, the very reason why this strategy should be questioned is masqueraded as proof that we haven’t done enough of the same yet. All with little or no consideration for the human cost.

What is the inner logic of such an attitude? Many wars have depicted the other side as evil; it is the oldest trick in the book of warfare. Killing people is not a natural thing to do; dehumanizing them is for that reason almost unavoidable and is most conveniently done by referring to them as the “enemy.” As a category, the enemy is an indistinct and diffuse mass where no individual can shine as a person with a name, a life, a family, or projects. They all deserve to be eliminated—the sanitized expression for killed—if that’s what it takes to get rid of their threat.

The “War on Terror” adds a twist to this already debilitated take on humanity. In its narrative, we confront individuals whose mindset is to kill us for the sole purpose of doing so, not for any political or territorial gain in particular. Though correct to some extent, this assertion is nevertheless superficial and can only reinforce the mental depiction of an intrinsically evil enemy. By its sole name, as many people have noticed, the “War on Terror” doubles down on this sense of moral outrage and the emotional blindness that goes along with it. In contrast to wars of the past, the “War on Terror” overtly asserts its abstract nature. Our enemy has no specific identity because it is “Terror” itself. The call to human fear and ignorance used in this way has proven to be a masterful feat of propaganda, delivering its poison and allowing business as usual in the alleys of power like no other in modern history.

How stupid are we supposed to be? Evil does not stand on its own, and, as die-hard and crazy as they might be, terrorists do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. All of them belong to a singular context of life that, at one point or another, opened them to be prepared to eventually commit the unthinkable. And, sadly, we all know that we can leave it to human madness as such, not exclusively to so-called terrorists, to commit the unthinkable. Opposing the forces of good against the forces of evil in an abstract and absolute way may be relevant in movies; in the real world, it is an insult to human intelligence.

The implicit message delivered by the “War on Terror” to the public is that it is not about going from war to peace with actual people but about indefinitely fighting against the forces of darkness. For what results? After having determined that military conflicts are not the proper answer to acts of terrorism and having understood the deeply deceptive nature of the “War on Terror,” one could only assume that, at least, some goals have been achieved in the fight against terrorism. It is a matter of perspective. Terrorists have been killed, but primarily chasing an abstraction is something very different than achieving well-defined and legitimate goals.

On the ground, the “War on Terror” battlefields have by and large nothing to do with preventing terrorist attacks. Let’s just take three glaring examples. Very few Afghans would be able to make sense of the U.S. military presence on their soil for so many years and the bombing of so many villages. No Yemeni has ever been part of a terrorist plot abroad; nevertheless, they have collectively suffered the wrath of the “War on Terror” in unimaginable ways since 2016. If most Iraqis do not regret Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, they certainly do regret that they once had a country functioning at the highest modern standards in all other respects. The “War on Terror” doesn’t care. For a very long time now, it has proven to be above any strategic accountability and above right and wrong as ordinary people understand it.

Ironically enough, the metaphysical deception of supposedly fighting terrorism as a war against some “Axis of Evil,” as Bush senior and junior would have said, contradicts the very definition of terrorism given by the National Institute of Justice itself. Stating as it does that “Terrorists are those who support or commit ideologically motivated violence to further political, social, or religious goals” leaves explicitly open the terrorists’ ideological background. Practically speaking—since this is exclusively how acts of terrorism should be looked at—what unhinged individuals believe in is not the issue; that they resort to violence to further their cause is.

As opposed to this practical approach, using “Axis of Evil” and other PR concocted abstractions to seek its justification defines the “War on Terror” itself as an ideological endeavor. Going after terrorists as some pest to eradicate is a lousy excuse for bombing entire innocent populations. Since they need an ill-defined enemy, ideological wars cannot have focus; they thrive on the opposition of good against evil, not on being an adequate, self-restrained, and quick answer to an ill. This gives them leeway to proclaim as they go who to strike next. Anyone, or any country for that matter, may end up on the terrorist list for no other reason than they are a convenient target. Contrary to the defensive goal of preventing the blind violence of terrorist attacks, which counter-terrorism is about, the “War on Terror” ideological banner makes us the lunatics.

The effective answer to terrorism, on the other hand, is necessarily twofold. One aspect is counter-terrorism itself, led professionally toward precisely and legitimately defined targets. The other relates to the conditions that breed or help terrorism. In its principle, the first aspect is no more subject to questioning than regular policing to keep everyone safe (as long as police officers do not go rogue). Preventing the conditions of breeding terrorism, on the other hand, requires defining a specific strategy. One can only wonder at how counter-productive the “War on Terror” has been in this regard.

First, pretending to stop actual terrorists by bombing the whole neighborhood where they are supposed to be hiding may not be the most efficient way to go. It could be said, on the contrary, that in its own twisted way the “War on Terror” wins by making sure that enough people will be tempted to retaliate because of their accumulated resentment and desperation. And where to turn, other than toward those who are already organized and have a doctrine giving credence to the idea that we are the evil ones? The “War on Terror” victory is not one for peace but it is a victory indeed—one for the fake legitimization of the trillion of dollars spent in its name.

The intelligence work has to go all the way in individually determining who, where, how, and when. Yet, when considering the dozens of people killed and maimed almost daily, it seems that the “War on Terror” decision process in choosing a target lies more often than not on a “just in case” or “you never know” basis. The indiscriminate spying on American citizens by their own government proceeds from that same logic of casting a broad net of suspicion instead of following leads.

Second, why not dry up terrorists’ finances as much as possible? It has long been established that 9/11 had entirely been paid for by officials and members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, their strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam has led these affluent individuals to support terrorist groups for decades all over Africa and the Middle East as well as in other parts of the world. Still, for some reason that makes sense only to people in power, Saudi Arabia is held as our regional main ally against terrorism. That not only adds insult to injury for the families who directly suffered from 9/11; it also keeps money flowing in for various terrorist groups. By this measure alone, the “War on Terror” is a sad joke.

Third, local populations plagued by extremist groups’ presence in their midst would be significantly helped by encouraging the democratic evolution of public life in their country. Rather than bombing them or toppling down their government, diplomatic action could work wonders by favoring international connections with actors of good faith. If they saw us as allies against a common threat—which, by the way, takes a much higher toll in these populations than it does in western countries—such collaboration would certainly deprive would-be terrorists of the passive resignation they locally benefit from. This would require, of course, that we believe ourselves in the universality of democratic values.

Finally—though this is far from a complete list—why not tackle terrorism at its root? For the trillions of dollars that the “War on Terror” has cost by now, how many schools have been built? If we truly thought that terrorism can and must be defeated, why do we not start where everything begins: education? Sending girls to school is surprisingly inexpensive in all countries where we are waging the “War on Terror” in such a formidable way. If we had started to help to do so a generation ago, there is no question that the threat of terrorism could be very different today. But as it might have become clear by now, this is not what the “War on Terror” is about.

Continue reading...

#tyranny, #waronterror, #propaganda, #putin, #usforeignpolicy