EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Americans Are Propagandized About Afghanistan
On February 12 of this year, U.S. forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded. The Pentagon then issued a statement claiming that (a) the dead were all "insurgents" or terrorists, (b) the bodies of three women had been found bound and gagged inside the home (including two pregnant women, one a mother of 10 children and the other a mother of six children, and a teenage girl), and (c) suggested that the women had already been killed by the time the U.S. had arrived, likely the victim of "honor killings" by the Taliban militants killed in the attack.
Although numerous witnesses on the scene as well as local investigators vehemently disputed the Pentagon's version, and insisted that all of the dead (including the women) were civilians and were killed by U.S. forces, the American media largely adopted the Pentagon's version, often without any questions. But enough evidence has now emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced yesterday to admit that their original version was totally false and that it was U.S. troops who killed the women:
After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.
One NATO official said that there was likely an effort to cover-up what happened by U.S. troops via evidence tampering on the scene (though other NATO officials deny this claim). The Times of London actually reported yesterday that, at least according to Afghan investigators, "US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims' bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened."
What is clear -- yet again -- is how completely misinformed and
propagandized Americans continue to be by the American media, which
constantly "reports" on crucial events in Afghanistan by doing nothing
more than mindlessly and unquestioningly passing along U.S. government
claims as though they are fact. Here, for instance, is how the Paktia
incident was "reported"
by CNN on February 12:
Note how the headline states as fact that the women were dead as the result of an "honor killing." The entire CNN article does nothing but repeat what an "unnamed senior military official said" about the incident, and it even helpfully explained:
An honor killing is a murder carried out by a family or community member against someone thought to have brought dishonor onto them.
The U.S. official said it isn't clear whether the dishonor in this case stemmed from accusations of acts such as adultery or even cooperating with NATO forces.
"It has the earmarks of a traditional honor killing," said the official, who added the Taliban could be responsible. . .
The operation unfolded when Afghan and international forces went to the compound, which was thought to be a site of militant activity. A firefight ensued and several insurgents died, several people left the compound, and eight others were detained.
Similarly, The New York Times, while noting that there were "varying accounts of what happened" among U.S. forces and Afghan police, also passed along the Pentagon's false version of events with no questioning. Here's the NYT's February 12 article in its entirety:
Several civilians were killed in Paktia Province on Friday when a joint Afghan-NATO force went to investigate a report of militant activity, but NATO and the Afghan police gave varying accounts of what happened. A NATO statement said the joint force went to a compound in the village of Khatabeh, in the Gardez district, where insurgents opened fire on them from a residential compound. Several insurgents were killed and a large number of men, women and children fled and were detained by the NATO force. Inside the compound, soldiers "found the bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed," the NATO statement said. The Paktia Province police chief, Aziz Ahmad Wardak, confirmed the episode but said the dead in the house were two men and three women, who he said were killed by Taliban militants. He said the killings took place while the residents were celebrating the birth of a baby.
CNN conveyed its version of events without the slightest contradiction or doubt, and the NYT simply ignored entirely the claims of the residents of the village -- notwithstanding the fact that serious conflicts about what actually took place were known from the very beginning. Consider, for instance, this February 12 article by Amir Shah of the Associated Press, who actually bothered to pick up a phone to determine if the Pentagon's claims were true before "reporting" them as fact; this is what Shah found:
However, relatives of the dead accused American forces of being responsible for the deaths of all five people when contacted by The Associated Press by phone.
A man who identified himself as Hamidullah said he had been in the home as some 20 people gathered to celebrate the birth of a son when a group of men he described as "U.S. special forces" surrounded the compound.
When one man came out into the courtyard to ask why, Hamidullah said he watched U.S. forces gun him down.
"Daoud was coming out of the house to ask what was going on. And then they shot him," he said.
Then they killed a second man, Hamidullah said. The rest of the group were forced out into the yard, made to kneel and had their hands bound behind their back, he said, breaking off crying without giving any further details.
A deputy provincial council member in Gardez, Shahyesta Jan Ahadi, said news of the operation has inflamed the local community that believes the Americans were responsible for the deaths.
"Last night, the Americans conducted an operation in a house and killed five innocent people, including three women. The people are so angry," he said.
The Pentagon's version of events was vehemently disputed from the start. But there was not a hint of any of that in the CNN or NYT "reporting," which simply adopted the press release claims of NATO forces. That Press Release, false from start to finish, claimed that "a combined force of Afghan and international troops last night found the bound and gagged bodies of two women and the bodies of two men during an operation in the province's Gardez district," and "members of the combined force found the bodies inside." Ironically, the Pentagon Press Release ended this way: "'ISAF continually works with our Afghan partners to fight criminals and terrorists who do not care about the life of civilians,' ISAF spokesman Canadian army Brig. Gen. Eric Tremblay said." On March 16 -- more than a month later -- the NYT ran a story detailing the gruesome claims of residents about what really happened; click that link for the horrific details and to get a sense for how false were the Pentagon and U.S. media's original claims about what took place.
Contrast the pure propaganda dissemination of the American media with the immediate reporting of the Pajhwok Afghan News, an independent news agency created in Afghanistan to enable war reporting by Afghans. Here is how they reported the Pakita incident from the beginning, on Febraury 12 (via NEXIS):
US Special Forces have shot dead a district intelligence chief along with four family members in the volatile southeastern province of Paktia, a senior police officer claimed on Friday. Brig. Gen. Ghulam Dastagir Rustamyar explained that Daud and his family were celebrating the birth of his son. But acting on a misleading tip-off, foreign troops raided the intelligence official's residence. . . . He said the dead included Daud, his brother Zahir, an employee of the attorney's office, and three women. . . .
But the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) claimed Afghan and international forces found the bound and gagged bodies of three women during the operation in Gardez late Thursday night. "The joint force went to a compound near the village of Khatabeh, after intelligence confirmed militant activity. Several insurgents engaged the joint force in a firefight and were killed," the ISAF press office in Kabul said.
As a result of the raid, the multinational force added, a large number of men, women, and children exited the compound. They were detained by the joint force.
When the troops entered the compound, according to the press release, they conducted a thorough search and found the bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed. "The bodies had been hidden in an adjacent room."
Note the crucial difference: the Afghan news service shaped its report based on the statements of actual witnesses on the ground and local investigators, while also including the Pentagon's version of events. Put another way, anyone reading about what happened from American news outlets would be completely misled and propagandized, while anyone reading the Pajhowk Afghan News would have been informed, because they treated official claims with skepticism rather than uncritical reverence.
* * * * *
All of this is a chronic problem, not an isolated one, with war reporting generally and events in Afghanistan specifically. Just consider what happened when the U.S. military was forced in 2008 to retract its claims about a brutal air raid in Azizabad. The Pentagon had vehemently denied the villagers' claim that close to 100 civilians had been killed and that no Taliban were in the vicinity: until a video emerged proving the villagers' claims were true and the Pentagon's false. Last week, TPM highlighted a recent, entirely overlooked statement from Gen. McChrystal, where he admitted, regarding U.S. killings of Afghans at check points: "to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. . . . We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force." And as I documented before, the U.S. media constantly repeats false Pentagon claims about American air attacks around the world in order to create the false impression that Key Terrorists were killed while no civilians were.
At the Nieman Watchdog Foundation, Jeremy Starkey, the Afghanistan
war reporter for The Times of London, has a
crucial, must-read piece on all of this. Amazingly, his piece was
written three weeks ago, and recounted in
detail: (a) how clearly the U.S.-led forces had lied about what
happened in Paktia; and (b) the reasons why the U.S. media continuously
spews false government propaganda about the war. Starkey wrote under
this headline:
In this mid-March piece, Starkey explained how he had discovered that NATO's claims about the Haktia incident were false (he recounted his evidence in gruesome detail in the Times on March 13), and more importantly, highlighted why the U.S. media so frequently disseminates false NATO claims with no questioning:
The only way I found out NATO had lied -- deliberately or otherwise -- was because I went to the scene of the raid, in Paktia province, and spent three days interviewing the survivors. In Afghanistan that is quite unusual.
NATO is rarely called to account. Their version of events, usually originating from the soldiers involved, is rarely seriously challenged. . . .
It's not the first time I've found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.
There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military's monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are "cowards," NATO attacks on civilians are "tragic accidents," intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.
Starkey describes the some of the understandable reasons so many reporters do nothing more than regurgitate officials claims: resource constraints, organizations limits, dangers of traveling around, and the "embed culture." But he also recounts how NATO tries to intimidate, censor and punish any reporters like him who report adversely on official claims. Illustratively, in response to Starkey's March 13 article detailing what really happened at Paktia and the cover-up that ensued, NATO issued a formal statement naming him and insisting that this article was "categorically false." As recently as mid-March, NATO was still claiming -- falsely -- that the women in Paktia were killed prior to the arrival of American troops.
There are some very courageous and intrepid reporters in Afghanistan, including some who work for American media outlets. It was, for instance, a superb and brave investigative report by the NYT's Carlotta Gall in Afghanistan that uncovered what really happened in that air attack Azizabad and documented the Pentagon's false claims. But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this propaganda process never diminishes at all.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


150 Comments so far
Show AllI would say we have become immune to our own propaganda. We believe it. It is easier to believe than to question.
We should extrapolate these exposed military instances of media propaganda to include all of the distortions our corporate mass media produces. Over 100 years of mass advertising has taught the media how to subtly frame the disinformation. The very vocabulary we use to discuss, and yes, even to think about issues is preselected by Rupert Murdock's FOX NEWS and CNN and ABC,CBS,NBC, PBS etc. The dominant narrative is perpetuated and marketed just like consumer products, cars, houses, appliances, etc. We are so brainwashed we can't even see the problems, much less fix them.
Knowledge and critical thinking are the best tools for fighting propaganda, which explains the current state of the education system
The Mad Loon
"current state of the education system"
And who is responsible for that? The Right or the Left?
If what you mean by right or left is Dem or Rep, then I would say both. I have long advocated that it is the so called left wing parties such as the Dems that cause the greatest harm because they are percieved to be more caring. The problem with trusting the Dems because they represent the left is that they don't.
The Mad Loon
Nope. I meant the Lefts ideoology or the Rights ideology and those who espouse them. Politicakl parties have little to do with it.
I would still say both. They have each espoused policies that have harmed education, from the rights focus on standardized testing and privatization to the lefts refusal to challenge students to compete and of all horrors perhaps fail
Its like Mark Twain said more than a century ago:
"Americans who don't read newspapers are uninformed"
"Americans who read newspapers are misinformed"
everytime we hear of insurgents being killed and the efficacy of smart weapons, keep this article in mind.
Isn't it amazing how they can drop several 500 pounders on a wedding party only killing the terrorists and leaving all the innocents unharmed
Interesting. Thanks!
It's mainly the right, if you must focus on responsibility. People (like you) who believe we live in a 'christian nation' are trying to destroy public education, so they can send their kids to christian madrases.
It's the reich-wing, born-again fools in Texas who seek to control textbooks to propagate lies through the country. If you look at spending and performance in schools, the red states are a disaster when generally compared to blue.
It was republican admin and leadership which championed (and still does) the phony 'no child left behind' and push to test teachers based on standardized student testing; which is destroying critical thinking and education. It's the reich-wingers who promote anti-intellectualism, fear of knowledge, favoring blind loyalty over critical thinking, and distrust of 'liberal education'.
Obama is now continuing this in another disastrous, promise-breaking, turn to the right.
Allow me to correct your statement. Because I don't feel like being lumped into your blanket WE and OUR statement.
"I would say [The majority of Americans] have become immune to [THE CORPORATE GOVERNMENT'S] propaganda. [The majority of Americans] believe it...."
And, I would also make another correction and say that the majority of Americans aren't 'immune' to gov't propaganda... they just don't know it even exists. The amount of sneers I get from people when I mention that there is an incredible amount of gov't propaganda in the mainstream press is astounding. They say, "Come on. Propaganda in the NYT times and CNN? What ever, Mr. conspiracy theorist. We live in a democracy. Not the USSR."
I hear you on being lumped, but until several million of us roll out into the street to protest, an observer from Mars wouldn't see the difference in the lumps of oatmeal.
"Now this is the basis for judgment,that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light,for their works wicked".( John 3:19)
'... suggested that the women had already been killed by the time the U.S. had arrived, likely the victim of "honor killings"'
Right! That should surely help to persuade all the politically correct 'liberals' to support the 'good war'. We all know that only Afghans kill and oppress women and that U.S. forces are there to 'liberate' them. Capitalist exploitation has nothing whatever to do with the purely humanitarian invasion and occupation.
@Fennec:
Immune to propaganda?! Or just habituated?
My thoughts exactly, RV.
Intelligence Chief and local Prosecutor killed by two USA snipers,
I bet it was a hit stemming from the men being honest, righteous and unbribable ...... connect the dots!
The corporate-inspired laziness of the American press corps has been growing apace as the newspaper industry has entered into its' death spiral. In addition to taking military propaganda at face value, American press reports routinely lack any knowledge or perspective of the historical and ethnic situation of Afghanistan. They loath to mention the words, Pashtun, Hazara, Tadjik, or Uzbek; as it would require substantial column inches to explain the complexities of the place. I suspect once Americans got enough knowledge in regards to this, they would want out ASAP.
Nearly all outlets of all forms of US media are simply corporate PR operations.
The American press was always hard to pin down-Did you see 'Good Night and Good Luck'?
Edward R Morrow on the future of TV news really reporting on real issues:
To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck.
You won't have a corporate media tell you the truth about a corporate war.Corporate America has a vested interest in war. It will use its media arm to write a version of the war that will be acceptable to the American public. Americans want to know that their country is winning so that's the line we are given. And most Americans quietly swallow what corporate media serves up. That's why we are so fat, and stupid.
Hoa binh
since1492
Hold it. Consider this. There are people here that accept media reporting as unquestioned truth if it suits them. They are more than willing to accept a version that fits their own preconcieved storyline.
Don't be so quick to condemn others as "so fat, and stupid"
There are folks on both sides that are willing to accept unquestioned, the storyline that fits their ideology, but most people don't.
Why are newspapers dying? Why are some networks losing viewership? Why do polls move as they do? Maybe people as a rule are not as gullible as our elites think.
When you live in whast once was the most powerful nation on earth, you do not want to admit that your once powerful nation is rapidly becoming a third world nation.
raydelcamino
Still is. The Chinese aren't even close. And no one else is even in the running.
People have been predicting our downfall for years even as they took everything we gave them. Hasn't happened yet.
"a third world nation" Catchy phrase, but you need to go to the Third world to see how long that would take.
Its kind of like the folks that keep describing Americans as "opressed" and I mean any American. They have no idea what real opression is nor have they ever seen it.
We aren't even close, but our present government and our courts could turn us into a 2nd tier economic power if we allow. But per a discussion with Metal and others on another thread, Many states will leave before that happens.
If you disallow the Constitution, if you refuse the rule of law, if you overstep your small authority, then adjustments will be made.
Stop trying to divide people into sides. The points was made. People are lazy and foolish and that is the problem. There are 2 sides to this story: the pentagon side (believed by the vast majority of americans) and the truth which is found by real journalism, which america does not have much of. It is far, far easier to fall into line and accept the stories you are told. That is the problem, the lack of critical thinking and dumbed-down nature of society. Fat and stupid is a real problem, especially in the US today, and deserves to be condemned.
Please, please take your concern trolling to another blog or website, your comments are truly annoying and damaging to good discussion.
lucky
Are you discussing something? Hard to tell. You accuse others of a lack of critical thinking?
Have a nice day.
Besides General Betrayus who else was part of the coverup?
What would a Christian Nation do? The usa claims to be Christian but allows such things to go on
and rewarded..
We reward war criminals and jail those who protest..
I see they are still hunting down low level Nazi war criminals and Bush and Cheney are out playing golf.. You would think it be no trouble to hunt them down and arrest them..
But then we are living in a parallel universe these days..
What would a Christian Nation do? The U.S. is only a Christian Nation when it suits their needs. The majority of so called Christian churches support this governments wars. Hell, the so called Christians even have priests embedded in the military condoning killing and torture of innocent people! Enough said.
Would Jesus call this a "Christian nation"?
If Jesus came down from heaven in his gleaming chariot with his angels - and announced to america in a gigantic voice...REPENT -- you have used my name in vain...
americans would probably try to SHOOT HIM DOWN as a terrorist...and use drones and that nuclear arsenal ....to shut him up :
"he is a THREAT to our way of life..he is conspiring with the russians and chinese and terrorists who want to destroy us and hate us because of our FREEDOMS..he has gone over to the EVIL side...Heck he wasn't even BORN here....just some small town somewhere in the middle east..and he doesn't even have a VISA!!"!
I can tell you for a fact -- that i observe many christian churches in teh usa - intoning prayers with this particular programme:
"protect and guide our leaders and president --------- fill in the blanks ------our state and federal leaders, protect our troops who serve our nation everywhere...."...
NEVER a single word about the VICTIMS of american wars.
Mahatma Gandhi was asked by an american reporter, probably trying to elicit glowing praise for America after the world wars.....
"mister gandhi ...what do you LIKE about america?" (already framing the question with LIKEABLE things) ....
GANDHI:
"I do NOT like your christians -- they are so.....UNchristlike".
that was about as SWEEPING an indictment of a nation that defines its very existence as CHRISTIAN .
Speaking of General Betrayus, there are apparently many Americans who are now pushing him to run for President!!!:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7549797/David-Petraeus-for-President-Run-General-run.html
Just what we need!!!!
The military in charge right out in the sunlight! (Well, I mean, since we know they've really been running the show since the days of Ike).
The United States Government does nothing but lie. Nothing. But. Lie.
But then would they be liars if'n they said they were liars?
By no means is the propaganda limited to the occupations. Here, we're subjected to SUCH a slanted perspective---from coverage of tiny tea-bagger protests made to look large, to the constant highlighting of the minority republican viewpoint on most issues---it's no wonder our society is fragmented and clearly in despair. The Corporate Media is the problem. There is no accountability, little truth, and mostly fluff. And we the people sense that we are being fed a lie.
Just one example:
We never hear that taxes between WW II and Kennedy/Johnson were 91% for the rich? Between K/J and Reagan it was 70%. Reagan brought them down to 28%. Now, all we hear is that the highest rate, at 35%, is too high. And yet we can't afford to extend the jobless benefits to the working class.
It is all so corrupt.
Thanks Glenn Greenwald for all your efforts.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Burn, America, burn.
We have lost the knack for telling it like it is, if we ever had it. Actually, I believe we are the most brainwashed people in the world, and have been for some two hundred years, at least. It used to be the dirty redskin or the lazy stoned Mexican or the evil, sly Chinese (or Japanese, or Vietnamese) gook. That doesn't even include what we said about African Americans (fondly called niggers). Now it is Afghan honor killings and the Taliban.
America has proven that you CAN fool most of the people, most of the time.
The lies that are exposed as such are the tip of the iceberg. Please keep this in mind when NATO or the UN Makes claims that the Taliban "Kills more Civilians" then NATO forces.
Had this LIE not been exposed another 3 deaths would have been attributed to the Taliban. This does not suggest the Taliban are angels, merely we can not believe ANYthing this lying Military tells us.
Yet the Military, filled with liars , is still venerated with Poll after Poll showing they are as respected as Doctors and firefighters.
This lies at the heart of where the problem lies. The US Media can so easily lie and repeat the lies of the US Military because few if any American Citizens would question the US MIlitary. They are all "heroes". It "Unpatriotic" and un-american. This Militarism is as ingrained in the populace as much as it was in the Germans population until 1945.
Veritas and others can deny it as much as they like, but it crystal clear to people on the outside looking in. It like my describing what being WET is to a fish. The Fish will never get it.
GwNorth
I am honored to be mentioned in one of your posts.
I am going to shock you and agree with you, I wouldn't believe reports out of the Pentagon. I was engaged in quite a number of events over my time in combat in Viet Nam and I can tell you with certainty the reports of these engagements for the most part confused me because I didn't recognize them as the same engagement. My reports were quoted a few times and I would have been "flattered" I guess if I had really said what they claimed I said.
The body counts that were required were a farce. Most officers put down what they thought they should to make headquarters happy.
Your mistake is in confusing the military with the Pentagon. It is the soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines Americans trust. NOT the Pentagon, not the government. Another fatal mistake is thinking that the American people are militaristic.
The "Press" officer should be rightfully called the propaganda officer. Thats what he does, propaganda.
I'll tell you something else I learned in Viet Nam, the press/media are just as bad, if not worse as a general rule, though there were real journalists among them. There are far fewer real journalists today.
So I don't take the NYT reports/madia as Gospel any more than I believed tjhose Pentagon reports. So don't be so sure you know the truth about this at all. You may or may not, but like me you really don't know for sure.
The only sure thing is that if we weren't there this wouldn't have happened, and we shouldn't be there, so it shouldn't have happened. I'll bet I have your agreement with me on this last sentence.
>>Your mistake is in confusing the military with the Pentagon. It is the soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines Americans trust. NOT the Pentagon, not the government. Another fatal mistake is thinking that the American people are militaristic.
So please clarify. It is your claim that the US Citizens TRUSTS the Special Forces folk that pulled the triggers and then tried to dig the bullets out of the bodies more then they do the Generals?
Can you tell me why that would be?
Can you detail why a nation that spends more then the rest of the World COMBINED on arms, suffering an economic depression where schools by the hundreds are being shut down, highways and bridges rot and deficits run to 10 percent of GDP while at the same time MILITARY spending increases is NOT Militaristic?
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans will question that increase these two parties representing the Majority of the population.
The USA has a MILITANT foreign policy. They have been involving themselves in Foreign wars and Conflicts for decades. They have their Military in over 100 countries and are expanding their prescence to Africa as we speak. They have Fleets cruising every ocean of the world and threaten other nations with Nuclear war. This is the definition of Militarism.
MILITARISM;a political orientation of a people or a government to maintain a strong military force and to be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or ...
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
an ideology which claims that the military is the foundation of a society's security, and thereby claims to be its most important aspect
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militarism
militarist - a person who advocates war or warlike policies
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
militaristic - imbued with militarism
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
militarist - One who believes in the use of military force
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militarist
militaristic - Using the power of the military; Related to the use of the military
The USA spends more then Half of all discretinoary spending on the Military. When it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.
GwNorth
"So please clarify. It is your claim that the US Citizens TRUSTS the Special Forces folk that pulled the triggers and then tried to dig the bullets out of the bodies more then they do the Generals?"
Your supposition is that is the truth. You have no more idea if that happened than I do. I suspect id did not. Its a TV plot. But it could have, never say never. You know you can almost always identify weapons by the hole they make. Aside from which, how do you know whose finger was on the trigger. Some of my men carried AK 47's, so if they shot someone with an ASK you would believe it was a VC or NVA that did the shooting? We just don't know.
militarist - One who believes in the use of military force
By this definition you have me. In that case we are militaristic, just as any other sane country that still exists. Only fools and liars would claim they don't believe in the use of military force if needed.
"Can you detail why a nation that spends more then the rest of the World COMBINED on arms, suffering an economic depression where schools by the hundreds are being shut down, highways and bridges rot and deficits run to 10 percent of GDP while at the same time MILITARY spending increases is NOT Militaristic?"
My first answer to this is that we are stupid. The second is that we are led by fools that want us to continue in our role as worlds policeman and protector that we have held since WW2. Like it or not, admit it or not, we have kept the peace during this time. Europe hasn't spent diddly on self defense because she hasn't had to, watch what happens when we do withdraw our forces.
The MIC is very powerful and our officer corp is tight with them. They get perks and jobs from the contractors. Good ones. Money would be my short answer.
Personally I think we will begin to withdraw our forces from around the world and we cannot afford to give an umbrella to the world any longer. The Navy you make such fun of keeps the sea lanes open and protects our trade...bad as our trade policies are.
Why do you think the Chinese are so desperately building a Blue Water navy? For the fun of it?
I know full well our faults, especially the military ones but I also know our good side. And I don't confuse reality with reports.
I see you did not disagree with me on the last sentence!
-Europe hasn't spent diddly on self defense because she hasn't had to, watch what happens when we do withdraw our forces.
-Why do you think the Chinese are so desperately building a Blue Water navy? For the fun of it?
I think that was the whole point of international law. To navigate shifts in power, like what we are seeing, without resorting to war. But this was al predicated on America, abiding by its own declared belief in the post WWII global system. Now that the US has openly reverted to brute force, we are back to facing a chaotic, possibly violent, power struggle, not merely confined to remote Muslim countries.
In my own mind now, I don't know if Americans have transitioned to the use of war for purely short sighted selfish aims, or if most Americans never believed in avoiding the mistakes of past empires to begin with, merely using instruments such as the United Nations as disposable PR tools, as opposed to respecting them as alternatives to war.
There was always going to be conflicts and competition for resources. But there didn't need to be a reversion to the law of the jungle. Hopefully at some point, as the resource limitations of the Earth become more apparent, all the work that has gone into international diplomacy will form the basis of a return to a law based international system that could then be extended out to help with the many intractible problems that we face.
jlocke123
"I don't know if Americans have transitioned to the use of war for purely short sighted selfish aims"
We transitioned to war because we were attacked when a fool and RW extremists were in charge (NeoCons). If he had waited to find out who was actually behind that attack, who was actually funding the terrorists and not indulged in their private ideologies, we would not be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I think that was the whole point of international law"
The one thing that most don't seem to grasp is that "international law" means nothing if there is no one to enforce it. Thats why the UN is so useless, they sit around and decree this and decree that but have no real authority. The best picture of the effectiveness of the UN was the Peacekeepers in Rwanda.
America has enforced what international law has been for the last 60 some odd years.
"Now that the US has openly reverted to brute force"
If we had done as you charge, things would be much simpler and far less involved.
You have not seen "brute force" from America, no matter the bromides. Think about what you are calling "brute force"
Consider the cherished storyline about Jerusalem being "stolen" from the Arabs/Muslims. How does that square with the indigenous people argument? Its just not as simple as many would like to make it.
Frankly, my biggest worry (other than the depredations of our present government) is that Americans may decide to revert to the Thirties mentality and go isolationist. That would be a catastrophe in the making. And it looks possible top me. In fact I was going to add that thought to my post to GW.
-If we had done as you charge, things would be much simpler and far less involved.
You have not seen "brute force" from America, no matter the bromides. Think about what you are calling "brute force"
You think that Obama is holding back? Not using full scale violence yet? Is this due to some internal/external political calculus? Or would more extreme violence be simply counterproductive?
I guess to me, I don't see much restraint from the US army. America is putting every division, whether public soldiers or private mercenaries, into the field. That has been the case for years now. Do you mean they haven't used nukes? I think probably they will, if they think it will profit them. The draft? Again, maybe if they can't avoid it. You already have what is called the economic draft already anyway. I read the US press, and from the full court press that is going on to demonize Iran, I don't see much in the way of cooler heads, holding back the dogs of war.
You are right though, Obama could start scattering nukes around blindfolded, but except for him not doing that, I can't think of what else he isn't doing on the violence front, that he could do to be accused of using brute force. Can you think of something beyond invasion and occupation of multiple countries, mass-murder, torture etc? To me, that is brute force, but I, unlike many Americans, am not accustomed to such brutality.
Isolationist? Hmmm, if you can't get your government to stop killing for oil, there is little risk of them going completely isolationist, is there? I think Obama would rather squeeze the last drop of oil from protected nature areas, myself than face up to what is required to achieve energy independance.
jlocke123
"You think that Obama is holding back? Not using full scale violence yet?"
Of course. Real power applied would get you nothing. Our General Staff is not one I admire (with exceptions) but generally speaking they aren't all stupid.
No I'm not speaking of nukes. Wouldn't even consider them, nor would our military or "President" in this instance. Obama knows nothing about war, just as Bush didn't.
We have much more firepower and weapons we could apply, but it would be counterproductive.
And they won't. You can't win a war like this unless most of the people of that country are with you. And I don't believe for a minute other thasn a quick "thanks" for getting the Taliban and Saddam off our backs that these folks are with us. They want us to go home and let them get on with it. At least thats my opinion.
"Can you think of something beyond invasion and occupation of multiple countries, mass-murder, torture etc? To me, that is brute force, but I, unlike many Americans, am not accustomed to such brutality."
Most Americans were against Invasion in the first place, but many forget that. Most Americans would be more than happy to have our boys come home. Mass murder. Don't believe it. Its BS. Its always the same. Same things were said during Viet Nam. Of course instances happen, but most of the stories are made up. Its like what do you do with a 14 year old pointing an AK 47 at you? Reason with him or shoot him? And if you shoot him, the immediate headline is American Troops "Murder" children.
Torture. Americans don't agree with torture. And I would point out that fior all the Hullabaloo about "Waterboarding" It was used for a short while and hasd already stopped by the time all the yelling started about it.
Essentially I'm just saying I simply am not buying either sides storyline or their fabricated "Crisis Modes"
The truth is we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East anymore. Oil is a convienent whipping boy, but only part of the story. And yes, the Ameruican people could decide to go isolationist, no more immigration, no more help, no more "interference". Its a real danger I think. I still don't think they know HOW angry the average American ios about all this. All of it.
Veritas i would like you to find ONE definition of Militarism that does not fit the United States to a tee.
When I made the comment that trying to explain MILITARISM to you was like trying to explain WET to a Fish, it was for this very reason. You are so immersed in it you cannot recognize it.
No definition Militarism calls for "Using a Countries Full Military Might".
It is EXACTLY as the defintions I have given you label it and that is exactly what the United States is.
Point of example. In all my years I have never seen a Mainstream Political candidate in the USA, one that has any hopes of winning, call for cuts to Military spending and closing all those useless overseas bases. To do such would be political suicide.
Your Democrats (45 percent of the vote) and your Republicans (45 percent of the Vote) always go out of their way to select leaders who claim they support a STRONG Military. The majority of the public, some 90 percent support the same.
Now I can guarantee you this.
Were Canada spending on the Military at the level the USA is.....meaning given the relative size of the Economies some 80 BILLION a year...
The Bloc Quebecois would be against it and call for massive cuts . The Liberals would be against it and call for massive cuts. The Greens would be against it and call for massive Cuts. The NDP would be against it and call for massive cuts.
Even a full half and more of the Conservatives would be against it and call for massive cuts.
All these of these parties would represent some 90 percent of the vote OPPOSED to such high Military spending....and the electorate would support them in the same numbers.
It would be way to much.
So if the USA is not Militaristic (using ANY of the common dictionary defintions) exactly what are they?
Gw
Its not that I really disagree with you per se, its more like the idea you seem to have that the US doesn't do anything else but attack other countries. And with Bush it sorta looked like that. The way you seem to want to use the term.
Of course Canada doesn't have to spend as much on her military. And you know exactly why.
"The majority of the public, some 90 percent support the same."
Of course they do. No one wants a repeat of the thirties and 1941. Ever.
"call for cuts to Military spending and closing all those useless overseas bases. To do such would be political suicide."
You may soon see exactly that. You will also learn that some of those bases are kept open for the country they are in, NOT because we want them there.
I more than anyone you will ever meet oppose war except as a last resort. Only if everything fails should you go to war. But neither do I buy the "just diosarm" and we will all be friends together philosophy. If that immersed in militarism, then yep, I am.
I don't ever want my country to be a Poland or a France or one of the countries Russia occupied for so long, so I prefer for us to be the strongest military in the world, that has guaranteed world peace (I.E. no world war) Its as simple as that for me.
So by dictionary definition lets just agree Ameruica is militaristic.
I wonder who you would prefer to be the Worlds power? Who would you pick to be that policeman? Don't answer now, consider it over a bit of time. I'm fairly curious as to your choice.
Many more bookshelves to you my friend! :)
>>Of course Canada doesn't have to spend as much on her military. And you know exactly why.
I suggest you look at a map. Canada borders on ONE country.
Again just as with Europe...who threatens Canada? Do you really think India is going to send their Navy over to invade and if it were not for the United States we would all be speaking Punjabi?
Thats a crock.
We did without the help of the USA for 2+ years Fighting Nazi Germany and there was XERO possibility that country could have "invaded us". Give your head a shake. The OLD USSR could not even hold Afhanistan, a country a fraction of Canadas side sittng on their border.
the USA defends NOBODY. It is all imaginary enemies.
As to dictionary defintions. They tend to be what people go by.
As to the USA preventing World wars...thats like saying my running around the mulberry bush in a counter clockwise direction each morning has prevented the Earth from being struck by an asteroid. As long as we are not hit, you can not say I am wrong can you but we BOTH know my running round the mulberry has nothing to do with it.
"... my running around the mulberry bush in a counter clockwise direction each morning ..."
- You really do that??
Is it good exercise? Does it make you feel good? Or does it only satisfy your sense of duty?