Why War Fails (H Zinn)

[katty]

Why War Fails
by Howard Zinn

excerpt:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15395.htm

Overwhelming Israeli military power, while occupying the West Bank and Gaza, has not been able to stop the resistance movement of Palestinians. Israel has not made itself more secure by its continued use of massive force. The United States, despite two successive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not more secure.

More important than the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the fact that war in our time always 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.

The repeated excuse for war, and its toll on civilians-and this has been uttered by Pentagon spokespersons as well as by Israeli officials-is that terrorists hide among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon) is "accidental" whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (9/11, Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.

This is a false distinction. If a bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the ground that a "suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word "suspected" as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), it is argued that the resulting deaths of women and children is not intended, therefore "accidental." The deaths of innocent people in bombing may not be intentional. Neither are they accidental. The proper description is "inevitable."

[LZapata]

1. Taking Zinn's criticism to the next step

The same argument could be used for the attack on the World Trade center. Ben Laden certainly didn’t know that the planes hitting the building would cause that much death and destruction. He was attacking it because it was a symbol of Western/U.S. dominance, and the deaths were coincidental. Therefore to use Pentagon-speak, those deaths like the coincidental deaths resulting from our air strikes in Iraq, should be classified as "accidental."

[katty]

2. point taken and U.S. gov mantra could be....

'do as I say-not as I do'

[bloom]

3. welcome to DU

:hi:

[bloom]

4. While I agree with Howard

esp. "To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms."

The problem with his argument- is that he is arguing against the false propaganda reasons - not the real reasons for the invasion/occupation.

Of course the propaganda reasons are all nonsense. The whole "war on terror" is nonsense. There probably still are a few people who still believe those reasons - but in the long run - it's all just nonsense, anyway.

It seems to me that the reasons to argue with are the reasons that the war-mongers will never state anyway - so there is never a real debate on the subject.

Most of us understand the reasons to be some sort of combination of gaining control oil and gas resources/distribution - together with protection for Israel - and global dominance in general. The "reason" is that some consider it to be a duty and a right to take what other countries have when you have the opportunity - the argument has to be something along the lines that we don't have that right - morally, legally, or any other sort of thing. That there are far better solutions to all of those problems.

Looking at it from the Bush POV - the war could appear to be enormously successful. Halliburton is doing great - their stock is way up - they have gotten away with all sorts of fraud and such. Same with many other US contractors. Bases have been built - the beginning of a stronghold. The invasions/occupations have gotten money for Bush and Cheney and their friends and for the Republicans through donations and perks. And Saddam Hussein is no longer helping out the Palestinians. The Palestinians seem to be forced into ever more isolation and such.

BushCo has undoubtedly also been successful at terrorizing the Middle East - as well as Americans. I think that was also part of the plan.

If the war is about what we mostly think it is about - it has been unfortunately all too successful. Just because it looks like a complete mess, Civil War, and that 100s of 1000s of people are dying, that the US economy is going down the tubes - does not mean that Bush and Cheney, etc. are not completing their goals. They may not be completing their stated goals - but we never thought that those "goals" had anything to do with anything, anyway.

[yurbud]

5. I'd go a step further--not oil for strategic reasons for our economy but

simple the highest (or lowest) form of cronyism--stealing the oil concessions so Bush's cronies can determine how much is pumped, which sets the price, profit from what iraq does pump, and be in a position to attack more oil countries or at least intimidate them into following our oil companies lead.

[katty]

7. concur

[Mr Rabble]

6. Absolutely correct. Why fix the symptoms?

The real problem is that much of the population has been indoctrinated and now believes the narrative.

I'm honestly not sure what can be done to fix it, if anything.

[yurbud]

8. Chomsky has said things about this--how do you explain in 7 sec

sound bite when people have close to zero percent of the necessary background knowledge to understand the alternative more factual explanation.