Bill Griffen
Terrorism is another word for political violence on a large scale. Terrorists legitimate their violence as noble and necessary,in the interest of freedom and humanistic and/or religious goals. The label of “terrorism,” however, is totally absent from descriptions of past and present U.S. military and foreign policy. In the use of state violence we choose to see our role as always noble, or a response, never as an initiator. In recounting the chronology of violence and terrorism, is it possible to identify “who started it, who threw the first rock, spear, grenade, bomb or missile?”
What could be more predictable than each belligerant claiming the retaliation role, never the initiator? As media critic Norman Solomon explains, “when terrorists attack, they’re terrorizing. When we attack, we’re retaliating. When they respond to our retaliations with further attacks, they’re terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we’re retaliating again.”
The historical record is very clear and troubling when it comes to the pervasive character and magnitude of force to accomplish U.S. foreign policy ends and global economic domination. It is difficult to claim the high moral ground on matters of state violence, war and terrorism when we continue to ignore the U.S. record. That record includes the fact that we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against civilian populations, and have violated international Law by our terror and aggression in the Middle East, Southern Africa, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, and Vietnam. The U.S. is the leader in producing, storing, selling and using weapons of mass destruction. But most Americans, encouraged by their leaders and the media, continue the nation’s amnesia on this well-documented violent past and present.
This amnesia serves our leaders well, and the list is long of dictators as allies or dictators to be demonized. Now, Osama bin Laden is a “terrorist,” but in the 1980s when the U.S. through the CIA pursued counter-revolutionary policies against the Afghan people, he was useful: he served as our terrorist and received U.S. support. He was a good terrorist.
The horrible attacks of September 11th will unify the nation in grieving for
the victims of the tragedy. Tragically, however, this genuine reaction will
be used to rally the mourners and the flag around the real agenda: the national
devotion to the American dream and “the good life” through consuming,
developing and conquering nature – the basic mission of the World Trade
Center and its military protector, the Pentagon. The war cry will be amplified,
as anything less than violence and more killing will be dismissed as surrender
in our new war against terrorism. The new war will be dignified as a defense
of civilization. No choices will be offered or debated unless the rush to retribution
and revenge is resisted.We must challenge the repeated claim that this was an
attack on all Americans. Might the targets have symbolic meaning? Might the
World Trade Center represent the attempt to monopolize the earth’s resources
by a few? Might the Pentagon symbolize the violent/terrorist means to secure
and protect the global designs of these few, what in earlier times were termed
colonialism and imperialism? Might the symbol of the aborted attack – the
White House, Camp David, or the Capitol Building – symbolize the legitimating
arm of the global rulers’ forces?
The emerging national reaction, orchestrated by our political, economic and military leaders and delivered by a faithful, uncritical media, guarantees continued terrorism and chaos. The reporting to date has two dimensions: one is the necessary news of heroic aid to the immediate victims, their families and loved ones as the healing process begins; the other is the reduction of a complex world problem to a succession of violent military “fixes” while ignoring attempts to place these problems in an accurate historical context whose roots lie in centuries of colonialism and violence against people in the Islamic world. Unless voices of reason are raised, the war on terrorism will become our new Cold War, and peace, social justice and the possibility of an ecological future will once more be denied. The mantra that all Americans have been attacked, all Americans are unified behind the President and one policy, and all Americans are at war with an unspecified enemy is being used to discourage and deny alternative reactions. There is now an opportunity for a changed direction in our lives. Something will fill the void created by the collapsed World Trade Towers.
But the present outrage, anger, fear, concern, undirected patriotism, militancy,
and instant “evil or good” analyses overwhelmingly serve to block
opportunities to hear a range of ideas on the larger meaning of Black Tuesday.
There are two dimensions to this “fill-the-void” question. What will
actually physically replace the destroyed structures and, more importantly,
what purposes will the new edifices serve? The unchallenged “answer”
to the second part is that at ground zero of the attack, the financial epicenter
of the globalization project will rise from the ashes to continue to prevail
(violently when necessary) over a world-wide economic system at war with the
environment and human race. The powers that created and now sustain that system
may talk of fighting for freedom, but it is a freedom to protect a system and
the powerful individuals who rule it.
The greatest opportunity for increasing security throughout the world is by
lessening injustices and replacing war cries for revenge with caring cries for
social justice. What greater memorial to the victims of Tuesday’s killings
than the start of a reexamination and redirection of our social lives and priorities;
to recognize the undeclared wars now being waged against the poor, the powerless
and the voiceless, and the environment as the real threat to freedom and civilization.
End those wars; resist marching into the “new war.”