old essay (war on terror)

[Senior]

I was just looking through some old documents and saw this. I wrote this right after 9/11 so it's interesting to see how my predictions panned out. anyway all feedback is appreciated. enjoy,

Motive (Noun): A reason for doing something, e.g.:
"I don't think she could have killed him - she has no motive,"
"Does he have a motive for lying about where he was?"
"What is the motive behind (=the reason for) the bombing?"
"You should question their motives in offering to lend you the money,"
"The profit motive is very strong,"
"She denies that she has an ulterior motive for making the donation,
such as gaining publicity for her new book."
As we all know on September 11, 2001 two planes were used as missiles
to attack the World Trade Centre, killing 3000 people. A third hit the
Pentagon causing some casualties, and a fourth crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania, killing all on board. The reactions were many: grief,
anger, sadness, and the desire to bring justice to those who
perpetrated these attacks.
Right away, the problem was obvious – being suicide attacks all of the
perpetrators were already dead. While the American public was still in
a state of shock, the U.S. declared a war on terrorism – the immediate
goal being to seek out those who were behind the attacks of 9/11
(anyone who wasn't dead already), and the long-term goals vague at
best. Central to all of this hysteria, was that the sense of safety
and security that the U.S. had long enjoyed, was now shattered, and
had to be restored.
The events of 9/11 were criminal acts. But, by definition, they were
not acts of war, as no specific country or alliance of countries
claimed responsibility for this attack. War is a state of armed
hostile conflict between states or nations. Unlike Japan's attack of
Pearl Harbor, there was no distinct political culprit to declare war
against on 9/11.
The United Nations Charter allows member States the use of force in
collective action to maintain or restore international peace and
security, as a form of SELF-DEFENCE. Despite this fact, the U.S.
preemptively attacked Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban who the U.S.
media said supported the terrorists. The Taliban certainly didn't
announce to the international media that they were responsible for the
attacks of 9/11.
The immediate problem this created was that the U.S. was now guilty,
under international law, of a much worse terrorist attack than the one
they had suffered. Rather than appealing to the international
community, to set up a world-wide taskforce, dedicated to tracking the
criminal organizations that had attacked them, the first thing they
did was stoop to the level of the terrorists, by perpetrating an
attack without instigation.
Additionally, it is arguable that the U.S. inflicted unlawful
suffering on the Afghani population, as the rules of war say that
civilians and civilian objects (houses, hospitals, schools, places of
worship, cultural or historic monuments, etc.) must not be attacked;
that starvation of civilians must not be used as an attack; and that
it is prohibited to attack objects that are indispensable to the
survival of the civilian population (foodstuffs, farming areas,
drinking water installations, etc.) (Red Cross).
The mantra of the U.S. mainstream corporate media was "the report
cannot be independently verified." It is true that it is difficult to
verify Taliban claims that they found thousands of civilians frozen
and starved to death in their retreat from bombed cities where
hospitals burned. But, it was equally difficult to prove the U.S.
claim that the Taliban was sheltering terrorists responsible for the
9/11 attacks.
However, the U.S. media didn't see it that way. In fact, they took
U.S. government claims for granted, and ignored and minimalized
Taliban claims. A report called "ACTION ALERT: CNN Says Focus on
Civilian Casualties Would Be Perverse," (2001) by FAIR (Fairness &
Accuracy In Reporting), a media watch group, cites several examples of
U.S. media bias and censorship.
For example, a leaked internal media memo said:
"DO NOT USE wire stories which lead with civilian casualties from the
U.S. war on Afghanistan. They should be mentioned further down in the
story. If the story needs rewriting to play down the civilian
casualties, DO IT" (News Herald).
And, even if there were civilians casualties, the media explained:
"Look, war is about killing people," (National Public Radio) "Civilian
casualties are not news. The fact is that they accompany wars," (Fox
U.S. News & World Report) and "This is a conflict between the United
States and murdering barbarians" (The New York Times). What motivated
these corporate media companies to portray events in this way?
In his "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing
of Afghanistan," Professor Marc W. Herold, of The University of New
Hampshire School of Business & Economics, asks: "What causes the
documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October
7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon
Afghanistan?" (March, 2002). His conclusion is that it is "the
apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles
into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan." He
says, "The U.S. bombing campaign which began on the evening of October
7th, has been a war upon the people, the homes, the farms and the
villages of Afghanistan, as well as upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
October 7, 2001. Should it henceforth be called 7/10?
Now, the U.S. is looking to Iraq as the next major threat. They claim
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They claim Iraq supports
terrorist groups. They claim Saddam is an evil man, and that he must
be stopped. What is the motivation for this declaration, really?
If weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are the concern, then surely
North Korea must be a bigger worry as they now admit to having them.
For that matter, so does the U.S., and they want to build more. If
supporting terrorist groups is the concern, then surely Saudi Arabia
must be the biggest threat, as that is where almost every terrorist in
the 9/11 attacks came from, and where the very wealthy Bin Laden
family is based. What about Pakistan and the fact they have nuclear
weapons and claim they are ready to use them in a war with India? If
evil dictators are the problem, then they should be invading countries
all around the world, including some allies.
What I think the U.S. has failed to do is to examine why they were
attacked. Imagine if you gave an unhealthy person a heart bypass
surgery, and they kept eating a pound of bacon a day. Isn't it likely
that they would suffer another heart attack? The U.S. is now on a
mission to rid the world of terrorists and make themselves safe, but
at what cost? By going to country after country and destroying every
terrorist group, they will have performed the heart bypass surgery. At
that point, by their logic, they will no longer have to worry about
the terrorist threat.
However, by killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people in the
process, they are eating their bacon, and then some. For every person
killed, a loved one survives, and having lost their mother, father, or
child to the U.S., they may seek revenge by joining, forming,
supporting, or not hindering, terrorist groups. Consider Feriba, a
young Afghan girl, refugee in Pakistan. She says:
"I and all my classmates are very sad because of the situation in our
homeland. When our teacher said in the class that many people have
been killed in Afghanistan, I and my all classmates started weeping
because everyone has relatives there. I expect America not to kill the
poor Afghans. They are hungry and poor." (Marc W. Herold, 2002)
Is her suffering different or lesser than the suffering of those who
lost loved ones on 9/11? Whom does she have to blame for this grief?
And, is her suffering justice served for the 9/11 attacks?
If the U.S. declares war on Iraq, I will be curious to see what
bombing strategy they will employ. In Afghanistan, they chose to bomb
areas with high civilian populations. The U.S. thereby demonstrated to
Afghanistan, and to the world, that they are above the law – that they
can kill civilians without international outcry. So, killing civilians
acted as an intimidation tactic. These bombings also served to impede
the ability Afghanistan to effectively govern itself independently by
causing trauma to their people and their infrastructure. Ultimately,
through their actions, the U.S. managed to overthrow a government that
was coincidentally inconvenient for U.S. foreign economic interests.
Who will be served by a war in Iraq?
With so many targets in the world to choose from, what many people
have asked is why the U.S. has invaded countries that play big stakes
in the world oil markets? To say this war is all about the oil may be
over simplistic. But, there are other anticipated benefits that may be
motivating the U.S. to take arms against someone. Not only will the
U.S. get control of the oil, they will also distract attention from
matters at home such as Bush Junior stealing the election. A war will
also channel billions of dollars into the hands of weapons
manufacturers, and we are seeing this already, as the U.S. treasury is
currently being emptied at a rapid pace. In addition, by flexing their
military might on the world-stage many U.S. citizens will continue
strengthen their sense of security that was shattered by 9/11.
In the long run, despite this war terrorism, the U.S. will have
enemies and will still be the target of terrorist attacks. But, along
the way, Bush Junior will get to position himself as a hero for
crushing the terrorist threat and his resultant rising popularity may
overshadow the fact that he is a criminal who stole the election. The
arms manufacturers will make billions and the U.S. will gain control
of vast supplies of oil, to keep those SUVs rolling. Whether or not
the average North American considers these things, there are people
around the world who do.
Now if this war on terrorism will not keep Americans safe, then what
will? They could all get out and exercise more often to prevent
disease! This would probably help, since approximately 440,000
Americans die of a heart attack every year. Maybe, they could ride the
bus or ride their bikes to work every day, to cut down on air
pollution and stymie their need for non-renewable energy resources?
Perhaps, they could put more efforts towards preventing people from
smoking cigarettes, as another 440,000 Americans die of smoking
related illness every year. Maybe, Americans would be safer if they
quit shooting each other so much? Approximately 28,000 Americans
murder each other every year, with guns alone.
These examples go on and on, but President Bush doesn't care to
address them. He'd rather that Americans continue to believe that the
main threat to homeland security is a ruthless foreigner with a mask
and a gun – a man who will stop at nothing, even use WDM, to
jeopardize the American way of life, unless the American military
crushes him. Then, Americans will keep on trusting security to the
corporate elite, whom they call their government, while they buy their
way towards extinction.
Bush would spend 396 billion on the military to keep Americans safe, but…