Five years into the “war on terror,” it’s still at the core of
American media and politics.
Yeah, I’ve seen the recent polls showing a drop in public support for
President Bush’s “war on terror” claims. And I’ve read a spate of
commentaries about Bush’s current lack of political traction on the
terrorism issue, like the New York Times piece by Frank Rich on Aug. 20
triumphantly proclaiming that “the era of Americans’ fearing fear itself
is over.”
That’s a comforting thought, hovering somewhere between complacent
and delusional.
Reflexive fear may be on vacation, but it hasn’t quit. The “war on
terror” motif is fraying -- but it remains close at hand as a mighty
pretext for present and future warfare.
The U.S. war effort in Iraq is, if anything, more horrific than it
was a year ago. Back then, in late summer, Frank Rich wrote a Times column
-- under the headline “Someone Tell the President the War Is Over” --
mocking Bush’s assertion on Aug. 11, 2005, that “no decision has been made
yet” about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Responding in print days later, Rich concluded: “The country has
already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We’re outta there.”
A year later, are we “outta there”? Only via the intellectualizing
gymnastics of punditland.
More Americans are aware that the “war on terror” -- as an umbrella
excuse for making war -- is a bunch of lethal baloney. But can anyone
point to a falloff of active U.S. militarism as that realization has
dawned? Did the Pentagon’s warfare dissipate in the slightest while
disdain from mainstream anti-Bush pundits went through the roof?
Looking ahead, does anyone credibly think that Democratic Party
leaders can be relied on to stand up against rationales for a huge air
assault on Iran -- in the face of predictable claims that a
massive attack became necessary to forestall the development of
nuclear weapons by a Tehran regime that supports the “terrorist”
Hezbollah organization and has pledged the destruction of Israel?
In late summer 2006, all you’ve got to do is read the news pages of
the New York Times to see systematic agenda-building for an airborne
assault on Iran. Right now, in front of our eyes, the propaganda
blitz is rivaling the kind of war groundwork laid by the same
newspaper four years ago, replete with endless coverage of the U.S.
government’s supposed “diplomatic” efforts.
“The era of Americans’ fearing fear itself is over”? Don’t make me
laugh to keep from crying.
A war against a defined enemy can end; a war against an undefined
threat can’t.
In late November 2002, appearing on the “Washington Journal” program,
retired U.S. Army Gen. William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: “Terrorism is not
an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to
say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re
going to win that war.”
Continuing his heretical comment, Odom said: “We’re not going to win
the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never
brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have
closed a few.”
The Bush administration, of course, has bypassed -- and frequently
vilified -- any such insights. Meanwhile, few Democrats on the
national stage have gone near challenging the themes of the “war on
terror(ism).” And while some journalists have grown to express
skepticism about the nonstop “anti-terror” rhetoric from the White House
and its supporters, the overall stance of news media has
involved routinely embracing the assumption that the USA is at war with
terrorism. Along the way, that means ignoring how American
firepower has been terrorizing civilians -- directly in Iraq and
Afghanistan, indirectly in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.
The movie “Good Night, And Good Luck” dramatized Edward R. Murrow’s
decision to (finally) take on Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting
tactics. For those who wonder why so many journalists hung back and
declined to directly challenge those tactics, which ran roughshod
over the American political process for years, we can look around the U.S.
news media of 2006 and get a partial answer.
Yes, we can point to quite a few journalists who have gotten tough on
Bush’s refusal to address substantive criticism without reverting to the
anti-terrorism pitch to tar his critics. But on the whole -- and most
egregiously in routine news coverage on front pages and news
shows -- the reporting accepts and propagates the basic world view of the
Bush administration.
Typically, under the headline “Number of U.S. Troops in Iraq Climbs,”
an Aug. 23 story from Associated Press reported matter-of-factly: “No more
than 2,500 Marines will be recalled at any one time, but there is no cap
on the total number who may be forced back into service in the coming
years as the military helps fight the war on terror.” But the assertion
that the U.S. military is fighting a “war on terror” amounts to rhetoric,
not fact.
Only as journalists stop cowering and start reporting on the basic
flaws of the “war on terror” concept will the body politic benefit from
the free circulation of ideas and information -- the lifeblood of
democracy. And only then will there be appreciable media space to really
explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.
_____________________________
The paperback edition of Norman Solomon’s latest book, “War Made Easy: How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” was published this
summer. For information, go to:
www.warmadeeasy.com