The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nearly 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 this month celebrating Bush's current lack of political traction on the terrorism issue, like the New York Times piece by Frank Rich last Sunday 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.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

[Fandango 1,439]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

[Fandango 1,439]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

Honestly, Steven, there's not enough time in the world

....maybe later after work I'll have more patience

Edited September 4, 2006 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

Honestly, Steven, there's not enough time in the world

....maybe later after work I'll have more patience

Today is Labor Day...you shouldn't be working...unless your boss is the devil.

[Fandango 1,439]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

Honestly, Steven, there's not enough time in the world

....maybe later after work I'll have more patience

Today is Labor Day...you shouldn't be working...unless your boss is the devil.

I'm my boss

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

Honestly, Steven, there's not enough time in the world

....maybe later after work I'll have more patience

Today is Labor Day...you shouldn't be working...unless your boss is the devil.

I'm my boss

Then give yourself a break...it's friggin Labor Day!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few."

Back to the Weimar constitution again

[jjjimmy 0]

bravo steve great post ...but you knew i would agree

[Lewis 0]

And only then will there be appreciable media space to really explore why so many people have become violently angry with America.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

What absolute fking tripe....Unreal!

Care to articulate why you think it's tripe?

Conversely, one could ask why are so many Americans obsessed with why other "people" are violently angry at us when we have many other domestic issues that face our own population such as health care, social security, the deficit and the security of our nation. Don't get me wrong, I see your point about terrorism and why people say the war against terrorism is not winnable but there are real people behind the terrorist acts. What comes first, our concerns about why people hate us so much (assumption) or the security of our nation? Is it truly our obligation to analyze why people supposedly hate us so much and not focus on defending our nation? It makes sense to analyze what motivates your enemy but it does not make sense to ignore threats to our people. There is plenty of media space in our nation to debate these issues, we are doing it now.

"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."

No one is in danger of being labeled a communist because they doubt the "war on terror". I doubt the war on terror, does that make me a communist?

[Jenn! 918]

I think there are two types of people: those who when something bad happens to them think, "What did I do to make this person angry with me?", and those who just do whatever is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again. Funny how the people who fall into the latter group tend to be the ones who love to talk about personal responsibility...

[Lewis 0]

I think there are two types of people: those who when something bad happens to them think, "What did I do to make this person angry with me?", and those who just do whatever is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again. Funny how the people who fall into the latter group tend to be the ones who love to talk about personal responsibility...

I think that people do not fall into two types, especially when it comes to this complex issue. As for personal responsibility, whatever motivates people does matter. It is also important to understand why people do things in order to survive, IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No one is in danger of being labeled a communist because they doubt the "war on terror". I doubt the war on terror, does that make me a communist?

It doesn't make you one but you can't deny that the labels are flying around just as fast and loose as they were in the 1950's. "Liberal" and "Leftist" might as well be today's "Communist" - and you can apparently be written off as such simply for expressing any view that contradicts with government policy with regards to the War on Terror, regardless of your stance on other issues.

Edited September 4, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Conversely, one could ask why are so many Americans obsessed with why other "people" are violently angry at us when we have many other domestic issues that face our own population such as health care, social security, the deficit and the security of our nation. Don't get me wrong, I see your point about terrorism and why people say the war against terrorism is not winnable but there are real people behind the terrorist acts. What comes first, our concerns about why people hate us so much (assumption) or the security of our nation? Is it truly our obligation to analyze why people supposedly hate us so much and not focus on defending our nation? It makes sense to analyze what motivates your enemy but it does not make sense to ignore threats to our people. There is plenty of media space in our nation to debate these issues, we are doing it now.

An obsession, I would think would mean that people would'nt openly accept the terminology, "war on terror" as something real. When it gets printed over and over again, it has then taken on the persona of something legitimate and that is what the author is questioning. He's challenging the media to grow some balls and stop pandering to what he sees as a manipulation of words. Our troops in Iraq aren't fighting the "war on terror" - it's as outrageous as making a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. Yet the White House has masterfully created this term and it has now become an unexamined and unscrutinized term echoed repeatedly in the media. Yes, there are some who question the legitimacy of a war against terrorism but that isn't the same. Simply by using the terminology, "war on terror" it presumes something of substance.

The media needs to stand up to a manipulation of power and deception. I understand the reasons why that is less possible though - media conglomerates have all but eliminated independent journalism. The largest flow of news and information is handled by a very few ...who happen to be powerful and deceptive.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Lewis 0]

No one is in danger of being labeled a communist because they doubt the "war on terror". I doubt the war on terror, does that make me a communist?

It doesn't make you one but you can't deny that the labels are flying around just as fast and loose as they were in the 1950's. "Liberal" and "Leftist" might as well be today's "Communist" - and you can apparently be written off as such simply for expressing any view that contradicts with government policy with regards to the War on Terror, regardless of your stance on other issues.

I'm not sure about equating the word "Communist" with "Liberal and Leftist" and comparing the types of fear going on in the 50's and the 2000's is very insightful or constructive, IMO. I did not experience that fear, so I will not make any comparisons. Maybe someone who lived through that time will hopefully make a comment. I won't make my judgement based on a movie produced as entertainment.

Conversely, the "right" is also written off as having cemented views on religion and the other things we are talking about. It sucks, I know. Most Americans are stuck in the middle, I assume. The media does tend to play up the extremes on both sides. I'm lucky, one of the reps from my state was one of the few that voted against the "war" in Iraq. Hopefully, there will be a big turnout for the next elections coming up and people will actually do research on the candidates before they vote.