Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

by Maireid Sullivan | March 10, 2008 at 07:38 pm
325 views | 2 Recommendations | 11 comments

Photos

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski

see larger image

uploaded by Maireid Sullivan

How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America–

The author of this article is none other than Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, age 80, graduate of McGill and Harvard, and UN National Security advisor under the Carter administration.  –Wikipedia has this entry:  Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński ['zbigɲev bʐɛ'ʑiɲski]) : (born March 28, 1928, Warsaw, Poland) is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Known for his hawkish foreign policy at a time when the Democratic Party was increasingly dovish, he is a foreign policy realist and considered by some to be the Democrats' response to Republican realist Henry Kissinger.

[1]

How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America–
By Zbigniew Brzezinski

28/02/08 "Washington Post" -- -- The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.
Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Mikasi

I haven't been able to read the entire story yet (getting ready for work and all) , but so far one quote ZB used stood out for me. It follows -

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the
mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own
momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts
on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify
their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that
it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of
credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence,
sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

 

The idea of security entrepreneurs - people whose livelihood depends on selling security (and all too often merely the idea that it exists) - teaming with mass media and entertainment makes perfect sense. News used to be just that - something that was new and that might catch our interest or fancy. But now as news (like security) is a commodity people depend on selling to make their mortgage. 

This means the people who are to inform us and protect us are always driven to go one further - oft when it is not justified - just to make sure the Benz lease payment it made. And truth be damned. 

(and yes, I know most of this is obvious, but until I have at least my third cup of coffee I remain a loud and vocal champion of the obvious.)

0
Maireid Sullivan

I absolutely agree with your well written observations, Mikasi.

All new technologies being used for survelance, etc. are "pushed" by entrepreneurs.

Take the US prison system as a good example. Incarceration equals big profits.  They want more! :)

The film Lord of War with Nicholas Cage provides a good example of the complex system behind the military industry.

And, since most enterprises are owned by few huge corporations, comprehensive big-budget marketing strategies and PR campaigns are in place long before new "developments" reach the market. 

No need to go on! But it is all about the free enterprise system, promoted by an ever more powerful Lobbyocracy.

Enjoy your coffee - Cheers! :) 


 

0
Swan

Hello Maireid,

I'm finding a few sentences in your opening paragraph, originally phrased in other reports in Google, you didn't write that opening paragraph.

You've taken this either from his biography or other news reports that were good enough to quote the source as Wikipedia:


Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman.

He served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy
Carter from 1977 to 1981. He was known for his hawkish foreign policy
at a time when the Democratic Party was increasingly dovish. He is a
foreign policy realist, and considered to be the Democrats' response to
Henry Kissinger, a realist who served under President Nixon.

What have you to say?
       ~ Swan 

0
ryan

She references Wikipedia in the openning paragraph, thanks for providing the link though.

0
Maireid Sullivan

You can read! Ryan!

Maybe the others were in a hurry! :)

Thanks! 

0
Maireid Sullivan


0
Maireid Sullivan


0
Maireid Sullivan

Swan, I looked up his name in Wikipedia - because I wanted to provide that info for the readers.

I don't need to say any more about it! This is not about my commentary!

It is about 'presenting' Brzeznski's insight! ...his self-evident credibility.

The first sentence is mine. How many ways are there to say McGill and Harvard, etc. in that first sentence? ;)

0
Rob Walker

As per Swan's work in finding your writing online, I'm marking this as Fishy. If you are the author of the wikipedia entry, please paste your wikipedia ID so we can verify. Otherwise we'd appreciate it if you changed the first paragraph to something original.

Continued plagiarism is a violation of our code of conduct and members who do so will be blocked.

0
Rob Walker

Maireid Sullivan, I used to think this story was fishy but now, I'm not so sure anymore. You do reference wikipedia in your first paragraph, but it should be clearer where you're getting your information.

0
Maireid Sullivan

Come on Rob - Swan,.. I haven't got all day!

I posted this because it is important info, and I felt the writers BIO needed to be there to give it the impact it should have. What do I need to say? - Wikipedia does the work, and i say that!

 sheesh! 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from