What's
Behind Washington's
Recent Behavior?
By Max Kantar
07 November,
2008
Countercurrents.org
Over the past two months, the
United States has quietly extended its illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
to Syria and Pakistan. The attacks, according to the official U.S.
legal definition, constitute "international terrorism" and
unlawful "acts of war."
But despite there being no dispute or debate about the U.S. responsibility
in the attacks, the White house and Pentagon have refused to comment
on them. Instead, they have been consistently leaking information
to unnamed "senior U.S. officials" who relay the bipartisan
party line to the outlets of mass media for regurgitation and reiteration.
I think that Washington's political reaction to its own policies in Pakistan and Syria can be understood on the basis of six reasonable and coinciding points.
1) Elections:
The power structure wanted to avoid any new debate over delicate issues
of war and foreign policy on the eve of the presidential elections.
Both Obama and McCain could've stood to drop in the polls or lose
electoral support in the weeks before the election. Both candidates
were obviously given gag orders by their respective parties—neither
candidate ever spoke directly about the U.S. attacks on Pakistan and
Syria.
It should be noted though that prior to the U.S. assaults on Pakistan,
President-elect, Barak Obama, made it clear that he would support
such unilateral strikes. Coupled with his unwillingness to denounce
or even acknowledge the U.S. terrorist attack on Syria, it is reasonable
to conclude that he supports these policies.
2) Opposition: Without a doubt, Washington wants to extend its wars
into Syria and Pakistan. This being a touchy subject, Washington wanted
to act, more or less, dictatorially. By refraining from issuing official
statements from the Pentagon and White House and by not announcing
or declaring what amounts to being a new policy of carrying out additional
wars and aggression, they are able to avoid mobilized public opposition
and objections from congress, who are more susceptible to pressure
from their constituencies compared to the state department, which
is largely unaccountable to the public.
3) Testing the waters: By leaking articulated propaganda and information regarding the U.S. strikes to the media through "unnamed" and "anonymous" U.S. officials, the state department, indeed the entire power structure is able to test the reactions of liberal educated opinion. If those educated and privileged enough to have some sort of voice and standing in our society can be counted on to support the terrorist actions of the state or at the very least, to not object, the future bodes well for an open and all out expansion of U.S. wars to several countries in the Middle East.
4) Denial is bad PR: It is obvious why the state department could not openly discuss or announce the U.S. attacks, but why then did they bother leaking information to the press? Aside from testing the attitudes of elite opinion, leaking information to the press was an important PR move. Several nations around the world have issued statements about the U.S. attacks on Pakistan and Syria. Everybody knew who was responsible for them. Totally ignoring these facts would appear to be an act of denial, signaling weakness and cowardice. More importantly, adopting a public relations policy akin to denial does not serve the greater purpose of the extracurricular attacks, which is to sow the seeds for much larger expansions and wars.
Better yet, the state department can count on the media to base its entire coverage of the respective events on its own testimony with its own justifications. From this standpoint, there was nothing to lose by leaking information to the mainstream media outlets.
5) Retaining the benefits of terror: Even more disastrous though than a short or long term PR blunder would be for the U.S. government and military to not be able to retain some of the most fruitful benefits of its terror and aggression. As the unnamed senior officials enlightened interested readers and journalists, the violent U.S. assault on Syria was meant to be a "warning" designed to "goad" Syria into adopting policies favorable to the US and its interests in the region. The strikes on Pakistan have been largely motivated by similar aspirations. The Pakistani government will continue to lose support from its population so long as it proves itself to be weak and easily violated by deadly American attacks.
Sending messages of violence aimed at coercing governments into adopting certain policies not only has the benefit of potentially terrorizing them into submission, but it also helps the United States establish and maintain its credibility as a lawless and ruthless thug in the international arena who won't hesitate to kill children with impunity if that is what it takes to achieve certain political or ideological goals.
The mainstream American media coverage of the U.S. attacks has mostly consisted of quotes from the unnamed state department officials and military analysts. The reports have relied exclusively on information from U.S. officials while additional commentaries in the reports simply reinforce the ideological assertions and justifications handed down from government spokesmen. The media's complicity in these crimes makes them significantly responsible for not only the recent U.S. reign of terror in Pakistan and Syria, but also partially responsible for the prospect of new American-led wars throughout the region.
What we can expect
The seeds are being sown at this very hour for more aggression and war in the Middle East. The elections are over. The waters of educated and articulate opinion have been successfully tested. The media has yet again proven itself to be properly subordinated to state power.
Washington has long wanted to be able to open its war theaters past the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan in order to crush resistance to its occupations and to destabilize and reconstruct the region for the purpose of expanding strategic U.S. control, dominating oil politics, and strengthening Israel's aggressive military position.
The U.S. also wants to teach Iran, and other independent nations, an imperial lesson in international affairs: 'Don't challenge U.S. power because we will punish you. We don't care about international law or your national sovereignty. You will be next if you insist on defying our orders.'
What we can do
The state department and military will surely continue their deadly and destructive policies in the Middle East if they are not met with mobilized and militant opposition from the public. Because the mainstream press has committed itself to the cause of the state, those of us in the alternative media have an increasingly important task in exposing the dangerous developments in U.S. unilateral strikes throughout the Middle East.
By the time Barak Obama takes office, we need to send his entire administration, along with congress, the clear and uncompromising message that we will not tolerate continued military aggression in violation of international law. We will not sit by idly while the architects of the empire scramble for the pieces of the Middle East while killing thousands or millions of human beings in their path.
Despite what the bipartisan power structure might have in mind, nothing is graven into stone just yet. What happens in the ensuing months will be largely dependent on what we do…or don't do.
Max Kantar is an undergraduate and freelance writer. He can be reached at [email protected]
