Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.
“Humanitarian” War Contradicts 200 Years of Liberal Thought
The Founding Fathers – the basis for American values – warned against standing armies and foreign entanglements, saying that overgrown military establishments destroy our liberty.
Liberal economists – such as Nobel prize winner Joe Stiglitz and James Galbraith – have demonstrated that large military budgets and war destroy our economy, and help the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Progressive University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out:
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.
***
Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined.
***
New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.
More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research [co-authored by James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies] that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.
Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.
Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.
The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.
Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).
Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as “crusaders” motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population’s way of life.
The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge’s success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country’s Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.
***
The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don’t make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.
Security experts – including many liberal doves – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Killing innocent civilians is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this). As one of the top counter-terrorism experts (the former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department) told me, starting wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism because:
One of the principal causes of terrorism is injuries to people and families.
(Indeed, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.)
Liberal icon Noam Chomsky agrees that 9/11 happened because of American imperial policies in the Middle East.
Regime Change: A Decades-Long Neocon Project
Liberals – justifiably – despised Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neoconservatives’ warmongering.
The U.S. government – and especially the neocon element – has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change for 50 years.
Why are progressives are falling for a continuance of this decades-old neocon effort?
Why Are We Fighting on the Same Side as Al Qaeda?
The Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Terrorist rebels have been responsible for much of the violence inside Syria. And outside monitors have confirmed that the situation on the ground is much different than it is being portrayed in the Western media. (And according to the large German newspaper FAZ, those recently massacred in Hama were on the same side as Syrian leader Assad).
The United States is actually fighting on the same side as 3 terrorist groups in Syria. And see this.
Reuters notes that the leader of Al Qaeda – Ayman al-Zawahri – is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.
Some of the main Al Qaeda fighters who overthrew Gadaffi – and now appear to be in control of Libya – are already helping the Syrian rebels.
Even Pat Buchanan asks:
If its good for Al Qaeda, can it be good for us?
The U.S. is arming the Syrian opposition, even though Secretary of State Clinton admits that will help Al Qaeda.
American government officials and corporate media are applauding Al Qaeda attacks in Syria. See this, this and this. Rather than condemning suicide terrorist attacks, they simply say Al Qaeda’s bombings show that the “window is closing” for Assad, and he should give up power. (Samples here, here and here – the latter tweeted by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice right after an Al Qaeda bomb attack.)
We supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. Are we going to create another 9/11 by backing Al Qaeda in Syria?
The Antithesis of Real Liberal, Progressive Values
Given that U.S. support of Middle Eastern battles increases terrorism, weakens our national security, hurts our economy, continues a long-held Neocon agenda, supports Al Qaeda, hurts freedom here in America, it is the antithesis of real liberal, progressive values.
Public Relations to Blame?
Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.
Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University James Tracy notes:
In April 1917, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson led America into the war that he promised would “make the world safe for democracy,” he called on some of America’s foremost progressive journalists to “sell” the war to a reluctant American population through the greatest propaganda campaign ever put together. Wilson’s anxiety over securing liberal support for the war effort brought him to recognize how well known “Progressive publicists” exercised credibility in the public mind through their previous work in exposing government and corporate corruption. One such journalist was George Creel, who Wilson tapped to lead the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI). New Republic editor Walter Lippmann and “father of public relations” Edward Bernays were also brought on board the elaborate domestic and international campaign to “advertise America.”
Because of Creel’s wide-ranging connections to Progressive writers throughout the US, Wilson was confident that Creel would be successful in getting such intellectual workers on board the war effort, “to establish a visible link between liberal ideals and pursuit of the war,” Stuart Ewen observes. “On the whole, Wilson’s assumption was justified. When the war was declared, an impassioned generation of Progressive publicists fell into line, surrounding the war effort with a veil of much-needed liberal-democratic rhetoric.”
Well known for his derisive critiques of big business interests, such as the Rockefellers and their infamous role in the Ludlow massacre, Creel was the perfect candidate to lead a propaganda apparatus at a time when suspicion toward “a ‘capitalists’ war’” was prevalent. “When the moment to lead the public mind into war arrived, the disorder threatened by antiwar sentiments—particularly among the lower classes—was seen as an occasion that demanded what Lippmann would call the ‘manufacture of consent.’”
The sales effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication. The CPI was not only able to officially censor news and information, but to manufacture it. Acting in the role of an advanced and multifaceted advertising agency, Creel’s operation “examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material.”
The Committee’s domestic organ was comprised of 19 subdivisions, each devoted to a specific type of propaganda, one of which was a Division of News that distributed over 6,000 press releases and acted as the chief avenue for war-related information. On an average week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried data provided through CPI propaganda. The Division of Syndicated Features enlisted the help of popular novelists, short story writers, and essayists. These mainstream American authors presented the official line in a readily accessible form reaching twelve million people every month. Similar endeavors existed for cinema, impromptu soapbox oratory (Four Minute Men), and outright advertising.
Creel himself recalls the unparalleled efforts of the thought control apparatus he oversaw to sell the war to a skeptical American public
“It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness.”
Alongside Creel’s recollections, out of their experiences in the CPI the liberal-minded Lippmann and Bernays wrote of their overall contempt for what they understood as a malleable and hopelessly ill-informed public that could not be trusted with serious decision-making. In their view, public opinion had to be created by an “organized intelligence” of technocrats (Lippmann) or “engineered” by “an invisible government” (Bernays), with the average citizen relegated to the role of idle spectator.
Anyone who doubts that the government continues to hire numerous well-known liberal reporters to act as propagandists to sell war should read this, this and the rest of Tracy's post.
Note 1: I believe that true progressive liberals tend to be against war, just like true conservatives. On the other hand, neoliberals and neoconservatives are actually very similar. The liberals who follow Obama’s justifications for war are being duped just like conservatives who followed Bush’s siren call to war.
Note 2: We are in no way endorsing the official 9/11 story. A discussion of 9/11 is beyond the scope of this essay.
amen. the founding fathers would blame us and tell us to think and act for ourselves. A small group of icelanders can do it but we're buying chips and cheetos at walmart
but we're buying chips and cheetos at walmart...
but we're exchanging JPM electronic cyphers from state issued ethreal accounts on the 1st and 15th for chips and cheetos at walmart.
Where would the economy be without these consumers? We pretend to eat, they pretend to feed us.
Liberal icon Noam Chomsky agrees that 9/11 happened because of American imperial policies in the Middle East.
====
how ironic to quote a fanatic hoaxter to argue against fanaticism
jb
Swear to God.... Feels like I landed on "Godlike Productions" by accident.
Noam Chomsky is a gatekeeper. He will never talk about the Israeli-Jewish connection to 9/11...but he will talk about the US empirical side to it.
Anyone that believes George Bush's consiracy theory is plain STUPID or is still reeling from the emotional after-affects of the crime.
That's false--you're lying about his take on 9/11. The only thing he's ever said about any of the alternative 9/11 theories is that they should be sourced and published in the relevant academic journals.
That's not a failing--that's HIS JOB. He is, first and foremost, an academic.
One of those funny things about Chomsky is that he's been called an anti-semite for 50 years by the Zionist press. Check that shit out.
"motive, means and opportunity." and i have no emotional "after effects" from it.
What the fuck is a "progressive" anyway. I have only come across two types that call themselves progressives. There are the soundbite types who don't have a clue what they are talking about, they just rehash one thing or another they were told it's the "progressive" opinion to have. Very little if any deductive thinking, usually Liberal Arts majors. The there is the other type, the closet Marxist. They are the worst, because they have an agenda, they have a clear political direction, and also know how to disguise it. They will consciously twist facts and contrive arguments, they will shout you down or label you if they run out of arguments, in general a very unpleasant thing to have around. But either way "progressive" one of the most vacuous terms I have ever come across. Unless it's code for Statist Jackass.
I'd take the label as a progressive. My belief is that we can improve the quality of life for people on this planet by using our ability to THINK when we build institutions and devise policy.
Of course there are all kinds of other "progressives" who are not particularly adept at the "thinking" part, but hey, the world is full of assholes. There are plenty of non-progressives who suck just as much.
The biggest issue I see remains the State. When the actions of the State don't align with anyone's common sense, it's gotta go.
Ahh yes, modern day "progressives", the people that know nothing about everything. They put to shame the progressives of the 18th century.
Because they want to rule the world.
War is just an extension of what statist like to do the most; they like to tell others what to do. They seem to get a thrill forcing their ideas on others. It borders on sadism.
Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. The core of "progressive" thought is that they know better than everyone else, therefore it is their right to dictate their views and institute powerful mechanisms of force to this end.
In the US prog donkeys and elephants used to be somewhat distinguishible by geography- the prog donkeys wanted to tell the domestic population what to do and how to do it but seemingly had pangs of conscience when it came to other countries. Prog elephants wanted to dictate to everyone outside the United States but were less enthused about domestic laws enabling more centralized power.
Now neither have any shame at all when it comes to forcing their views on everyone both foreign and domestic and are increasingly blatant about the drive for sheer power. Prog donkeys tell themselves that they are bombing for peace and prog elephants tell themselves that the police state is in the name of national security. As I find it difficult to believe that either are truly that stupid, I assume they are either lying to themselves, everyone else, or both.
When I was a kid the donkeys in the US used "Question Authority" as a slogan, now it is "How dare you question my authority you traitor" and they are fond of the love it or leave it mentality that the 60's left opposed. The elephants who once opposed the central planning model of the old USSR now advocate central planning to save the free market and keep them safe.
Both are unbalanced at this point and a danger to everyone else. I have wondered if the growing proportion of mental illness in the US is part of the equation and draws certain types; the donkeys seem to get the bipolars and the elephants the paranoids.
The core of "progressive" thought is that they know better than everyone else, therefore it is their right to dictate their views and institute powerful mechanisms of force to this end.
Except for the fact that the core of "conservative" thought appears to be exactly the same, I think you raise a really good point here.
You wouldn't call Rumsfeld or Cheney progressive, would you? What are they if not "conservative"? Bill O'Reilly? Sarah Palin?
Are these not people who deeply believe they know better than everyone else?
I see those types as prog elephants. They are deeply convinced that it is the mission of the US government to make life and the world fair and safe (as they define it at least) and I would consider them poster children for the sort I was alluding to. The core of their philosophy is to use the power of US government and military as a means to hammer the rest of the world into their own image because Uncle Sugar knows best and I see that as an inherently progressive concept.
I fail to see anything remotely conservative about a foreign policy based on borrowing vast amounts of money to be paid by kids in the future and using those funds to try and turn the rest of the planet into a distorted, funhouse like mirror image of the US and a domestic policy to turn the US itself into a police state that would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago.
The people you mentioned love central planning as much as their supposed opponents despite their rheotric and protestations to the contrary. They suffer from the same disease, and only show different symptoms- scratch the surface of any of them and their inner progressive totalitarian is peeking out.
I agree on the gist, but the terminology strikes me as goofy. The only way you can consider the past 30 years of foreign policy "conservative" is by pointing out that since WW1, the USA has dominated global foreign affairs, and we've been continuing in that tradition.
But if you're comfortable labelling O'Reilly "progressive," I take issue. I think the appropriate word is "authoritarian."
Well, on this issue we seem to be down to the semantics of it as opposed to the substance.
For myself, I see the urge toward using the power of the US government as being both progressive and authoritarian with no contradiction because progressivism in my view is an inherently authoritarian mindset. It seeks to use the power of central authority to compel everyone else to live under their dictates in the deeply held belief that they know best.
You of course may define things differently. I have yet to encounter a leftist progressive that is not every bit as authoritarian as the Cheneys and O'Reillys of the world. If they are not authoritarian, that undercuts the entire progressive label as it seems to me that complusion through the use of a centralized state apparatus is at the core of progressive method. Their tactic is not only to advocate for legislation that reflects their belief in their area of the US, their tactic is to do it at the federal level and compel everyone to do so. I see progressive as synonymous with statist and authoritarian, it seems that you do not.
And that is just fine with me, I'm not a prog and have little need for others to share my views much less compel them to do so.
I have yet to encounter a leftist progressive that is not every bit as authoritarian as the Cheneys and O'Reillys of the world.
Pleased to meet you.
well said. I want to think this is just a natural decomposition. mankind just has a hard tme holding to principle unfortunately and like gravity falls into corruption. another part of me believes every empire runs out of raw material and turns on its own rules and its own people. the last part of me is just pissed and tired of all the bullshit. it's as if the very act of listening to all the psychotic gymnastics is in the end more painful than the subject matter they describe
From Big Gulps, to thought & speech on universities, to little curly mercury filled lightbulbs, to subsidized pills for seniors (octogenarian or frat...lol), to the perpetual socialization of loss only.
Strange, that the thought of strangling this evil little bastard in its crib never occurred to "a liberal" before it grew up among them and anyone who pointed to the vile little slug sleeping there among us was called a "rightwing" reactionary.
Ah well, better late than never.
* Knukles' Gold Star of the Day
And if anybody disagrees we'll send 'em off to the Usbeck Metals Recycling Furnace Facility #4 for proper public service education.
I think thats you and I knukles.
Somewhere along the line the whole concept of freedom was lost on the pups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY&feature=player_detailpage
Bogus. Chomsky, Sanders, Kucinich. You can make a case that the neocons aren't conservatives, but they sure as hell aren't progressives either. And they have sucked in plenty of real conservatives.
Neo-liberal/neo-conservative, for me, who knows or cares.
What I do know is Sanders is a self identified socialist. And Chomsky has a real problem with private property (for some reason) which makes him a communist in my book. Kucinich, well what can one say about someone who has no concept of space or time or distance.
A conservative, to me, is one who goes slow on the fashion/fad of the day. Many times the fashion is fleeting or false. They are more deliberative, not prone to acting on pure emotion and having to backtrack.
Do I judge on words/actions instead of supposed intent? Why, yes I do.
Its the only thing of any known reality or consequence.
anticipation denotes intelligence. for example "the Syrian Government dispersed their chemical weapons stockpiles just prior to the assasination of their top military officials." HIGHLY intelligent. The government "anticipated the attack." Hence "what comes next" (the annihilation of Allepa) will not be a surprise. the question then becomes "what kind of intelligence"? (for the record Kucinich is all right in my book. Call me a liberal if you want...
I don't have a problem with liberals...I have a problem with "progressives".
They are sneaky little socialist pricks who have infiltrated among real liberals...the classical liberals of old. They are tolerated there because...liberals being liberal...believe they have a right to be heard, which is all fine & good.
Everyone has a right to speak, they just don't have a right to be taken seriously. What they (real liberals) forget to do is challenge them that they are completely wrong and misguided.
Thus, they give them sanctuary.
Its how we wind up with the most "progressive" president in history, working with two of the most "progressive" leaders in Congress, to pass the largest tax on the American people in our history. Actually creating law that forces someone (the young & healthy) to participate in commerce or be taxed for not doing so.
Its how we get an executive order to close Gitmo that is never enforced. Its how we wind up with defeated legislation being acted on as if it were law on the border. Its how we get strong arming of legal bond holders at the expense of established law, Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra and inane statements like we "didn't build that" to business owners.
And liberals, the real liberals, looked at each other in stunned silence with their mouths hanging open, only now finding their voice.
The "progressives" told you what they were going to do and liberals didn't believe them?
WAR! What is it good for? Making lots of money! Say it again...
WAR! What is it good for?
Wars are always about resources we just can't be candid about it anymore.
It's good for business.
GMadScientist ,
I'd love to see a "celebrity deathmatch" between Frankie Goes To Hollywood and the Village People...
Answer to GW: They have no principles.
Answer to GW ,,, We are fighting on Al Quaeda's behalf in Syria because our commander in chief orchestrated a takeover of the entire middle east by pro-islamic forces over a year ago ... the "arab spring" .. removing and replacing strongmen dictators with the Islamic Brotherhood... We are also seeing our men die in large part because our commander in chief has tied their hands with ridiculous rules of engagement... make no mistake , he is a Marxist Islamist.
Answer to GW: Because they are stupid?
Because the people he is talking too and about are not progressive liberals.
Where were you in 02-03 GW? (I can't make you out in the protester photos)
Observation, GW: I keep asking my uber-liberal People's Republic of Kalifornication Public Servant Peace-nick Golf Buds the same question and by gosh and by golly, they get madder than hell, hollier than thou, point out that somebody somewhere is being badly treated, not given his dessert, enslaved by something or other they cannot explain even to one another and vehemently disagree with which, results in a definite need for Us or the We to do something predicated upon the unspoken logic that it's fair and everybody will feel better and say "It's Bush's fault" or some such equivalent.
To wit: "Well, betcha within 25 years Iraq will be a functioning democracy"
Yes, was said by one of the most liberal Californian public servants, staunch supporter of Pelosi, Obama, etc., etc., etc that you can find.
Seriously.
Fucked up.
As one the aforementioned "progressive" (as in not tied to status quo) "liberal" (as in not having the state tell me what and how) types, my reactions to a couple events:
- 9/11: "Those fuckers finally did it."
- Invasion of Iraq: "They'll be balkanized within a year and never get it back together without another Saddam." also "Shinseki was right."
It appears that world wide Central Bankers have joined the printing race to buy everything that anybody will sell at any price, taking a closer look reveals that there is in fact only one really. really, really big Bank. And they just bought the last roll of toilet paper
Since empire, rule patrician class elites and standing militaries have been the dominant condition of mankind throughout most of history, it would be more correct to say that Liberty is the threat ... especially given the concerted effort to stamp it out all over the world.