Larry Everest has covered the Middle East and South Asia for over 20 years as an author, regular contributor to Revolution, and radio commentator. His most recent article is filled with essential talking points on a propaganda meme that's confused far more than it should have.
He writes: There is no "war on terror." The invasion and occupation of Iraq are not part of a "war on terror." Neither are the current threats and war preparations against Iran. The "war on terror" doesn't exist—no matter how many times the Bush administration cites it to justify its aggressions, no matter how often Republicans and Democrats debate how to best carry it out, and no matter how frequently it's referenced in the U.S. bourgeois media.
What does exist is a horrific and criminal U.S. war OF terror against the people of the world for greater empire. The attacks of Sept. 11 gave the U.S. rulers an opening to launch this war, but it has nothing to do with halting unjust violence or "terror," nor is it fundamentally aimed at stopping future Sept. 11's (and the full truth about the U.S. government's role that day is still not known—see 9/11: New Doubts on the 'Official Story in Revolution #13) or "protecting" those living in the U.S. or anywhere else. Instead, it has everything to do with waging unbounded war to solidify and extend the U.S. imperialist system's killing grip on the planet and its people. (continued)
The evidence is abundant and clear. For instance, this plan for "reshuffling the whole deck and reordering the whole situation," as Bob Avakian puts it, was openly discussed by imperial strategists for over a decade before Sept. 11, including most blatantly by the Project for a New American Century, and openly articulated at the highest levels afterward, particularly in the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy. [See The New Situation and the Great Challenges by Bob Avakian]
Second, neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with Sept. 11 (and the U.S. rulers have known this all along). So why have they become focal points in a war supposedly springing from Sept. 11? This doesn't prove Iraq is a "diversion" from a "war on terror," it proves that the "war on terror" is a fraud. In fact, Iraq shows what this war is really all about. The Bush regime saw conquering this ancient land as a key step in unfolding its broader global agenda: "shocking and awing" the world, strengthening the U.S. grip on the Middle East, turning Iraq into a military and political platform for further aggression, gaining tighter control of international energy supplies, controlling and reshaping the entire arc from North Africa to Central Asia, and strengthening the U.S. hand against rivals—current and future.
Third, Bush and his criminal cohorts refuse to define"terrorism" so they can label any who stands in their path "terrorists"—whether Palestinians fighting Israeli ethnic cleansing, radical nationalists, Maoist guerrillas, reactionary Islamist forces with their own conflicts with U.S. imperialism, states standing in the way of U.S. designs, or even Iraqis resisting the invasion and occupation of their own country.
They also avoid defining "terror" to obscure their own war crimes and crimes against humanity. When former Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2001, he said, "Since 1983 the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetuate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets." Applying this definition, and taking into account both the motives and the toll of all its wars and interventions over the past 50 plus years including Iraq, the United States government emerges as the largest and most violent terrorist organization on earth.
You can't seriously oppose, much less stop, Bush wars of aggression by accepting the need for, or legitimacy of, the "war on terror," or debating the pros and cons of U.S. actions within that framework—as the Democratic Party insists on. Its criticisms of Bush are not based on telling the truth about the nature, aims, and objectives of Iraq and other U.S. aggressions; instead they accept, agree with, and promote the whole "war on terror" rationale (and they DO know what it’s all about). Their "criticisms" are over how to best carry it out.
This isn't being spineless or confused; it's being an imperialist party that agrees with the goal of deepening and extending U.S. global power but has differences over strategy and tactics—and is energetically working to keep the anti-war movement within these killing confines. This is why they talk of Bush lies, but not of Bush war crimes and crimes against humanity—including the Iraq war and occupation. This concern for U.S. global dominance, including dominance in the Middle East, is why they insist that now the U.S. is in Iraq, it can't "precipitously" withdraw, and it’s why they're raising the specter of civil war should U.S. forces withdraw.
In fact it's the U.S. invasion and occupation that have unleashed and fueled a possible civil war. And even if civil war were to intensify with the end of U.S. occupation, which could be a nightmare for Iraqis, continuing that occupation and allowing the U.S. to complete its "mission" in Iraq would be even worse; it would not only guarantee ongoing bloodshed and torture by the U.S. and its Iraqi puppets, but also strengthen the oppression of the Iraqi people in many ways, for decades to come. And even beyond that, the consolidation of the US occupation of Iraq serves a strategic plan to make that country a "model" of US domination in the region, a reliable staging area for more aggression, more plunder and more oppression in a part of the world that has been subject to a dreadful legacy of a hundred years of savage colonial and imperialist domination. (For a history of imperialism in Iraq, see Oil, Power, & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda by Larry Everest [Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2003].)
On the other hand, forcing the U.S. out of Iraq would remove the primary obstacle to genuine liberation for the Iraqi people. It could help change the present horrendous dynamic in Iraq and strengthen secular progressive and revolutionary forces there. Beyond Iraq, a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be a serious blow to the U.S. war on the world and could make further U.S. aggression more difficult.
The most important way people in the U.S. can come to the aid of the oppressed people of Iraq is to build a powerful movement demanding the U.S. get out—NOW!
You can't seriously oppose U.S. wars of aggression by framing things in terms of "national security" either. However any individual may wish to define this, the reality is that this term has already been defined by the U.S. ruling class—and is understood broadly in society—as its predatory interests and power.
Nor can "protecting Americans" be our starting point. The Bush regime's actions have increased hatred for the United States and in various ways put people from this country in harm’s way. But why should American lives be worth any more than others? Start from this and you're on a very slippery slope to justifying the murder and torture of others. The U.S. rulers want people to accept a foul, Faustian, and ultimately phony bargain: it will supposedly protect us in exchange for our acquiescence in whatever killings, interventions, or wars it decides to wage, wherever and whenever.
The U.S. rulers have used the fact that currently their main targets are Islamic theocrats, who often have sharp contradictions with the U.S., and whose politics offers no future to the people, to justify aggression in the name of democracy and progress. First, it must be said that the U.S. is increasingly dominated by its own backward-looking ayatollahs. And, the imperialists often build up Islamic reactionary forces in opposition to secular movements in the Mideast, even though that in turn creates unintended problems for them when these forces come into conflict with the U.S. And what the U.S. is bringing to the Middle East is no better. The answer to Islamic reaction is not U.S. imperialist domination.
What is called for is the moral clarity articulated by former UK Ambassador Craig Murray before the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity by the Bush Administration: "Evil begets more evil. If we're supporting a regime—and you must remember most of the people being tortured were Muslims, and most of them were being tortured because they were religious Muslims. If we're supporting a regime like that, is it any wonder some Muslims come to hate us? No, it's no wonder at all. And my charge before this commission is, not only that the CIA knowingly and openly uses information got from torture, that this administration has introduced a dehumanization of our Muslim brothers and sisters which means that anything done to them doesn't count. And that is a step along the road to the ultimate evil. and that, ladies and gentleman, is I believe where we are…Which is just to say I don't believe it works, but even if it did work, I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life."
Larry Everest is great. He really studied this situation deeply, and I have been really impressed by his books. They're really wonderful, and provided me a clearity and insight I didn't have before, and in a scientific way.
Posted by: celticfire | March 17, 2006 at 03:10 AM
The War on Terror is just an Orwellian catch-all for whatever war they want to unleash, whatever rights they want to steal and a license for total impunity for the ruling classes.
If anyone doesn't understand why the Democrats march in step, it's because the State is showing.
This system is the problem and it can't be reasoned with.
Posted by: fact checker | March 18, 2006 at 01:56 PM
Remembering Rachel Corrie - A Supporter of Terrorism
Three years ago Thursday, Rachel Corrie was accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer after she entered a closed Israeli military zone to protect Palestinian homes that were sitting on top of tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle illegal weapons to be used against Israeli civilians. Rachel Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISD), a firm supporter of Palestinian terrorism (what the ISD calls “resistance”), “by any means necessary.”
There has been a lot of heated debated about the New York Theater Workshop’s recent postponement of the play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie.Some folks have suggested that the theatre caved intoIsrael supporters. Other, more paranoid types, have suggested that the infamous “Israel Lobby” had something to do with the postponement.
The photogrpahs on the right show Rachel Corrie burning an American flag to show her support of Palestinians and choosing to lay in front of an Israeli Bulldozer in the hopes of protecting tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle illegal weapons.
One of the reasons that the Israeli army closed the area that was being bulldozed was because Palestinian snipers often shoot at bulldozer crews. This endagers not only Israelis, but "peace activists" as well. Palestinian terrorism insures that Israeli bulldozers have very litlte visibility because of the need to protect the driver with metal shielding. Ms. Corrie chose to lay down in front of a bulldozer. Her act was not one of peace, but of suicide. Clearly Ms. Corrie spent too much time in the company of suicide killers and their supporters.
Perhaps the New York Theater Workshop simply realized that they did not want to be associated with Rachel Corrie because Ms. Corrie supported terrorism and allowed herself, either knowingly or unknowingly, to protect Palestinian terrorists. Perhaps the theatre company did not want to be associated with Ms. Corrie because she was eager to publicly burn American flags. Or perhaps the theater simply did not want to be associated with the left’s obsession with supporting anti-Semitism.
http://whypalestiniansgetitwrong.blogspot.com/
palestiniansgetitwrong@yahoo.com
Posted by: Palestinians Humiliate Themselves | March 18, 2006 at 08:48 PM
Gee, what did the Israeli people ever do to deserve such contempt for them by those dirty Palestinian terrorists? I suggest we Americans put together some money to aid them a bit. What do you think?
Posted by: ZACK | March 18, 2006 at 09:33 PM
Now that I've let the basic Zionist narrative get posted, that's about it. We respect the righteous here with all the love we have for life.
Rachel Corrie lives.
The psychic killers who agitate for ethnic cleansing and denying even a pretence of justice won't be engaging here. Please see the Rules of the Road if you have any confusion about what the comments here are for and the prescribed range of discussion.
No room for haters in this corner of the blogosphere.
Posted by: the burningman | March 18, 2006 at 09:41 PM
burningman, I just wanted to verify with you that you in fact know that I was being overtly provocative to try to prove a point. I do see how that can be seen as petty, but I thought it should be said. Feel free to edit/delete. I'll read those rules, too.
In solidarity,
ZACK
Posted by: ZACK | March 18, 2006 at 11:05 PM
"Now that I've let the basic Zionist narrative get posted, that's about it. We respect the righteous here with all the love we have for life.
Rachel Corrie lives. "
_________________________
These things have a way of backfiring. Like any typical American, I was brought up to believe that the Israelis were the good guys and the Palestinians subhuman bestial terrorists.
But the hate campaign around the death of Rachel Corrie by the extreme right on the internet revealed a whole seamy underside to the pro-Israel lobby I'd never been aware of.
It's one thing to see Hillary Clinton or John Edwards defend the pro-Israeli point of view. These people are slick and know how to moderate their language.
But one thread on LGF about "St. Pancake" can reverse all of it. Dig into the internet hate campaign against Rachel Corrie by the pro-Israeli lobby and you're bound to see all sorts of simularities between them and white supremicists in general. Their war dance over her body reminds me of the way the female "race traitors" are punished in the "Turner Diaries".
They're their own worst enemy.
Posted by: srogouski | March 19, 2006 at 09:19 AM
Of course this is also off topic and doesn't really address Larry Everest's article.
Quite frankly it seems so obvious I'm confused how people on the democratic left can continue to support people like John Kerry or the Democratic party in general, who argue that the only thing wrong with the "war on terror" is that Bush is incompetent in prosecuting it.
I'm actually more interested at the reasons for the obvious blindness, the ability of people not to see the obvious.
The US government supported the Islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Everybody knows this. And yet it was magically excised from the debate over the "war on terror".
We supported Saddam against the Iranians in the 1980s. Once again, outside of activist circles, it's simply dropped out of the debate.
We propped up the Shah in Iran's monstrous regime and the demands of the Iranians to be able to try him in Iran were utterly reasonable.
And yet nobody discusses the trials of Milosovic or Saddam in this context.
Posted by: srogouski | March 19, 2006 at 09:24 AM