"war Is Not A Solution To Terrorism" (howard Zinn)
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
I completely agree with this article 100%
also, zinn has a new book out called "Original Zinn"... full of interviews with the co-author...great stuff, check it out!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/war_is_not_a_solution_for_terrorism/
War Is Not a Solution for Terrorism
By Howard Zinn
The Boston Globe
Saturday 02 September 2006
There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.
The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
I remember John Hersey's novel, "The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations - the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - and were forced to withdraw.
Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.
The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence - the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.
Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.
This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."
So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism.
For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.
also, zinn has a new book out called "Original Zinn"... full of interviews with the co-author...great stuff, check it out!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/02/war_is_not_a_solution_for_terrorism/
War Is Not a Solution for Terrorism
By Howard Zinn
The Boston Globe
Saturday 02 September 2006
There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks, inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.
The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and-awe bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
I remember John Hersey's novel, "The War Lover," in which a macho American pilot, who loves to drop bombs on people and also to boast about his sexual conquests, turns out to be impotent. President Bush, strutting in his flight jacket on an aircraft carrier and announcing victory in Iraq, has turned out to be much like the Hersey character, his words equally boastful, his military machine impotent.
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations - the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - and were forced to withdraw.
Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive. Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.
The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence - the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.
Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations, whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.
This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."
So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism.
For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile, then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to reconsider their policies.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Bonjour....welcome back.....
But I don't understand how we've seen "an utter failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq."
Stability, certainly we're battling that front still, some places are indeed stable, some certainly not.
But Democracy? Utter Failure? I can't conceed that point -- Iraqi's have a voice now in how their country is run. Voter turnout was spectacular in the face of extremely adverse conditions.
Violence is escalating every day and it shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon (ask our military, they've been saying it for awhile). "Utter failure" is a pretty accurate statement.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Iraq has no voice.. the merely get to case a vote - a meaningless vote for many reasons...
not the least of which is that they vote for the United States to leave them alone.
if the "coalition" left iraq then it'd be ripped apart by civil war/war. there is only "democracy" becuase of occupation... can that really be occupation?
something that it seems most people have forgotten is that democracy is only gained by the people of that country, not by outside powers forcing it on the country. we in england only got democracy after a civil war. you in the us only got it after kicking our asses. the people in india only got it by kicking the asses of the english and then kicking the asses out of each other. the people of france went through a number of revolutions...
i think what we ahve learnt here is iraq is not actually free. it is being held together by a very weak glue of foreign troops/mercinaries. if they left there would be no iraq. the same would happen in afghanistan.
voting is totally meaningless when the vote is only safe guarded by foriegn troops. the whole idea of democracy is that you do no need the threat of the gun to uphold the ideal, it the ideal itself...
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I admit your "outside enforcement" of democracy rings true for the most part. But then I would offer you: Japan. Utter failure in democracy and stability? Nope. Long, long occupation? Yep.
As for safeguarding democracy by outside troops: West Germany? Seemed to work well for them. But admittedly they were already supportive of a democracy, undestood the principle. But definitely needed some outside support, against an external threat, some analogies exist with Iranian influence of Iraqi events....
Both Japan and Germany are utter success stories 50 years out. It took a lot of time for that to happen. I still have a lot of hope for Iraq and Afghanistan but it's not going to be easy.
democracy as yet to be perfected, even in our neck of the woods. there is corruption and scandle in the usa and britian. democracy may be the closest thing we have to a fair system but as anyhting made by humans it is riddled with fault from the start...
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
But I do agree, our recent wars are misguided (Iraq more so than Afghan), as I posted elsewhere, when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, we didn't declare war on "Aviation." Terror is just the means, and we know who the culprits are.
I think the "investment" made in the Civil War was, sadly, very much worth it. And I imagine 2-3 years removed many people would have utterly disagreed.
Lol..
George Washington
-Agreed.
Thanks my2hands! great seein ya. do post more if you can or want.
-RStar
So much as ABRUPT action, so long it gives you security asap.
:(
Or perhaps acting with integrity and honest so as not to inspire hate and to gain the trust and help of the international community
www.amnesty.org.uk
Of course he would... Our president does daily
I guess I don't understand your point. I don't like Hamas or Hezbollah, the people in those regions voted for them. That didn't change my opinion of Hamas or Hezbollah. BUT, I'm encouraged that they got to vote at all. I'm hopeful that they will find that their newly elected representatives are not serving their interests and vote them out next round, but doubtful.
Can't I hope they would vote for a solution, a less extreme party that might actually work on the issues, you know that talk and dialogue stuff, rather than for more suicide bombs and rocket attacks?
Meanwhile in Iraq, again, encouraged that they got to vote, encouraged that all the different parties are trying to work out issues -- they're taking a stab at democracy even if only the religeous parties got votes. There were other parties and I would hope those secular parties gain a little more traction.
Again, you elect leaders, see how they work out, then vote 'em again or vote 'em out. When those leaders cancel or rig the vote, then democracy is an "utter failure."
Wouldn't you argue that one small reason to vote Bush out is World Opinion? I've heard that offered up ... Shouldn't that work both ways? (And no, I wouldn't make that argument personally....)
one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter
"David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time, found himself under increasing pressure (both international and from within Britain) to try to salvage something from the situation. This was a complete reversal of his earlier position. He had consistently referred to the IRA as a "murder gang" up until then. An unexpected olive branch came from King George V, who, in a speech in Belfast called for reconciliation on all sides, changed the mood and enabled the British and Irish Republican governments to agree a truce"
...so yes, it's probably the way to go, at least try.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
yeah, these muslims really want freedom dont they? geeze.....
also, i heard zinn say that us going to war after being attacked in ww2 was not a good idea.
Perhaps it wasn't
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
the reason why israel didnt achieve her objectives was not becouse war in and of itself could not achieve them, it was becouse of the incompitant crime mister ehud ormert that israel failed in its objectives.
perhaps if the terorist could see that there was real consiquences for there actions they would cease from them.
especially when so many innocent people are affected
Nor appeasement.
no one has mentioned appeasement...this is what your like minded folks seem to not understand... non-violence does not equal appeasement
I really dislike this quote. It implies that just because a violent terrorist is viewed as a "freedom fighter" by someone that somehow that viewpoint is valid or has any grounding in reality.
I love how people apply this quote to Islamic extremists but won't apply it to the US government. If Osama Bin Laden is someone's "freedom fighter", so is George Bush. Unfortunately, neither man actually qualifies for the term.
i wasnt saying that Osama or any terrorist was my freedom fighter...and i didnt condone violence as a legitimate action... i just think we all get caught up in these labels of "terrorist" and "insurgent"... we wonder how Hezbollah has such support in the middle east? it is not becasue everyone in the region is crazy or supports violence, but Hezbollah supports them and their causes in their eyes...much like Nelson Mandella supported the people of South Africa and their causes... not to say they are equal, just using as an example
There's nothing wrong with the term "terrorist". That's what Osama Bin Laden is. He is unable to wage a full-scale armed war so he must wage a psychological war. That's what a terrorist does.
Yes the terms are overused in the sense that they often carry loaded meanings, for example that a "terrorist" is sub-human and deserves a horrible death regardless of the purpose of his terror. But you can get just as caught up in terms like "freedom fighter". The problem isn't with the terms, it's how they're being used. The people who say things like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" in an effort to expose the hypocrisy of demanding a terrorist's execution in the name of freedom are usually the first to envoke moral equivalency and lampoon the United State's behavior as terrorism, thereby committing an equal hypocrisy.
The answer lies in the actual meaning of the words. A "freedom fighter" is someone who is fighting for the primary purpose of freedom. A "terrorist" is someone who is fighting for the primary purpose of invoking terror. It's not complicated. Osama Bin Laden is not someone who is fighting for freedom. He is fighting to inflict his own brand of facism and he does so through means of terror. It is certainly arguable that the United States is doing the same, but at the least one must recognize that the "fascism" the United States represents is a much lesser body of fascist doctrine.
The ANC in South Africa provides another good example. They were fighting against an oppressive regime and wished to impose a less oppressive regime. While certainly some of their actions merit the use of the word terror, the overall purpose of the movement was a greater measure of individual freedom for an oppressed population. The same does not hold true for Islamic radicals. Certainly one may argue that Arab populations are being actively oppressed, but one cannot get around the basic fact that these groups wish to impose more oppressive regimes, thereby making support for them self-defeating to anyone who holds freedom as a goal.