Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Blowback: Why They Try to Bomb Us
Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe.
Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors.
Now imagine that when you read the newspaper about this ongoing bloodbath, you learn that the foreign nation's top general is nonchalantly telling reporters that his troops are also killing "an amazing number" of your cultural brethren in an adjacent country. Imagine further learning that this foreign power is expanding the drone attacks on your community despite the attacks' well-known record of killing innocents. And finally, imagine that when you turn on your television, you see the perpetrator nation's tuxedo-clad leader cracking stand-up comedy jokes about drone strikes-jokes that prompt guffaws from an audience of that nation's elite.
Ask yourself: How would you and your fellow citizens respond? Would you call homegrown militias mounting a defense "patriots" or would you call them "terrorists"? Would you agree with your leaders when they angrily tell reporters that violent defiance should be expected?
Fortunately, most Americans don't have to worry about these queries in their own lives. But how we answer them in a hypothetical thought experiment provides us insight into how Pakistanis are likely to be feeling right now. Why? Because thanks to our continued drone assaults on their country, Pakistanis now confront these issues every day. And if they answer these questions as many of us undoubtedly would in a similar situation-well, that should trouble every American in this age of asymmetrical warfare.
Though we don't like to call it mass murder, the U.S. government's undeclared drone war in Pakistan is devolving into just that. As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.
"Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders," David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. "But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed."
Making matters worse, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has, indeed, told journalists that in Afghanistan, U.S. troops have "shot an amazing number of people" and "none has proven to have been a real threat." Meanwhile, President Barack Obama used his internationally televised speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner to jest about drone warfare-and the assembled Washington glitterati did, in fact, reward him with approving laughs.
By eerie coincidence, that latter display of monstrous insouciance occurred on the same night as the failed effort to raze Times Square. Though America reacted to that despicable terrorism attempt with its routine spasms of cartoonish shock (why do they hate us?!), the assailant's motive was anything but baffling. As law enforcement officials soon reported, the accused bomber was probably trained and inspired by Pakistani groups seeking revenge for U.S. drone strikes.
"This is a blowback," said Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. "This is a reaction. And you could expect that ... let's not be naive."
Obviously, regardless of rationale, a "reaction" that involves trying to incinerate civilians in Manhattan is abhorrent and unacceptable. But so is Obama's move to intensify drone assaults that we know are regularly incinerating innocent civilians in Pakistan. And while Qureshi's statement about "expecting" blowback seems radical, he's merely echoing the CIA's reminder that "possibilities of blowback" arise when we conduct martial operations abroad.
We might remember that somehow-forgotten warning come the next terrorist assault. No matter how surprised we may feel after that inevitable (and inevitably deplorable) attack, the fact remains that until we halt our own indiscriminately violent actions, we ought to expect equally indiscriminate and equally violent reactions.
- Posted in
25 Comments so far
Show Allthis blow back idea hasn't sunk into America yet, even after the Bush years. On youtube, "the real news" there is a good interview with a US soldier, Josh Stieber, who was part of the group that killed the two journalists in Iraq from the helicopter, caught on video.
Interestingly, he said that, in school, he was given to study the book "the faith of George Bush". Is that amazing or what? Leaving aside notions of church and state, isn't it just amazing that in times where math scores are abysmal, knowledge of history and geography are terrible, a school assigns such a forgetable fawning book, about a sitting national leader?
With a school system like that, plus your lack of universal healthcare, plus your increasingly disfunctional justice system, plus your too-big-to-fail banks, blowback is coming in many forms.
this article feels so 'yesterday'...
if you want to write about tomorrow, Mr. Sirota, imagine...
from the article:
"Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe.
Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using onboard missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors."
Now, Mr. Sirota, substitute 'your own' in place of 'a foreign'...imagine...
In normal child development, a toddler learns about cause-and-effect at about 18 months of age. Kids know that if they hit someone, they might get hit back.
Tolstoy observed in a book that Gandhi liked a lot that nations engage in a process of mass hypnosis that separates a person from his or her conscience for the purposes of condoning or committing violence for the state. The book is called The Kingdom of God is Within You.
Articles like this one that challenges the mass-hypnosis of our society by the dominant corporate/government regime are good to chip away that which is obvious to any toddler: if you kill the people in other nations with impunity, there is good chance they may seek to respond in kind. The title "They kill us because we kill them" should be a feature article in Duh magazine.
Imagine an alternative universe in which the President gave a speech at West Point announcing that based upon further extensive bipartisan review, he was reversing his predecessor's militarist policies in Afghanistan rather than escalating them, bringing the troops home, and beginning a global process of scaling down America's vast network of overseas military bases in order to concentrate upon critical domestic needs.
Imagine an alternative universe in which the same President then pays a surprize visit to a rally of American troops at Bagram air base where, clad in a well tailored business suit rather than a cheesy monogramed bomber jacket, he thanks the soldiers for their sacrifices, pledges to help ease the painful readjustment to civilian life, and pledges to never, ever send US armed forces into combat again without first obtaining a Congressional declaration of war (like the Constitution requires) and abiding by international legal standards spelled out in the United Nations charter and the Geneva Conventions.
Then finally imagine that President resplendent in his dinner jacket at the Washington Press Corps annual gala banquet, lampooning the foibles of Faux News with a quick aside paying homage to the courageous, savage wit displayed by Stephen Colbert at the same event a couple years earlier, rather than cracking sick jokes about committing murder at executive whim through cavalier use of Predator drones.
Hell yes, what goes around comes around. Stay the course, and pretty soon you jointly own the blowback, tit for tat. Small wonder Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Little George keep smirking all the way to the bank.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw
I imagine an alternative universe that would probably be even more unlikely than the one that you have envisioned. This is a universe in which a a United States President, instead of thanking the soldiers for their sacrifices [which I have been told in the past for my having been in Vietnam despite the fact that I would have been wearing a shirt or button which would have proclaimed Vietnam Veterans Against the War] would have instead done the humane and honest thing by telling those soldiers that they never should have been placed in that most untenable position in the first place. Those soldiers should not be honored [a word which is used all too often by Americans until it is stripped of its meaning] for taking part in occupying Third World countries. They instead should be lamented for what their uncaring government has done to them. Again, a huge difference between the words honor and lament. But that alternative universe would be in stark contrast to the one that Americans currently occupy as that universe would require a president to be honest with those who are in the military to say nothing of the families of those loved ones who have been slaughtered by American bombs, drone missiles and bullets. But we know that that other universe would be a far, far better place to live since honesty has never been a strong suit with the presidents who have ruled, and continue to rule, the country that we live in today.
Imagining a lawful nation by leaders who respect the law is a healthy exercise.
Judging by history, we can become lawful the easy way—deliberately—or the hard way, via military and economic defeat, as many powerful nations have sadly demonstrated.
I prefer the easy way, and I respect the comments by Bill from Saginaw and Errol here. Bravo.
In support of such views, here is a great speech by Justice Jackson given in 1945, in DC, two weeks prior to his being named to head the Nuremberg Tribunal:
http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-7-7-1/
And here is a brief section I especially like, near the end:
>>But lawlessness, violations of what plain people think of as “rights”—rights of minorities, rights of individuals, rights of nations—have twice roused moral forces that have supplied the military force to undo German might. Nothing disintegrates power like lawlessness, nothing makes force so effective as the sentiment of people that it is somehow defending the right and is exercised in harmony with the higher moral values. So I think we need not worry too much about absence of sanctions for international law or let disputes as to details obscure the ultimately important things. We may go forward on the assumption that reason has power to summon force to its support, confident that acceptable moral standards embodied in law for the governance nations will so appeal to the better natures of men that somehow they will ultimately vouchsafe the force to make them prevail. If this were not so, the quicker “civilization” were blown to bits, the better.
It is futile to think, as extreme nationalists do, that we can have an international law that is always working on our side. And it is futile to think that we can have international courts that will always render the decisions we want to promote our interests. We cannot successfully cooperate with the rest of the world in establishing a reign of law unless we are prepared to have that law sometimes operate against what would be our national advantage. In our internal affairs, we have come to rely upon the judicial process to settle individual controversies and grievances and even those between states of the Union, not because courts always render right judgments, but because the consequences of wrong or unwise decisions are not so evil as the anarchy that results from having no way to obtain any decision of such questions; in which case each will take the law into his own hands. And in a somewhat similar sporting spirit, we must look upon any international tribunal not as one whose decision always will be welcome or always right or wise. But the worst settlement of international disputes by adjudication or arbitration is likely to be less disastrous to the loser and certainly less destructive to the world than no way of settlement except war. And we will not suffer the worst of decision but will benefit from the judicial process at its best if we insist upon the independence and intellectual integrity of any international tribunal that purports to arbitrate or adjudicate controversies between states.>>
We ignore the need to abide by international laws at our peril as a nation.
It is important always to flip the thing around as Sirota has done, per Kant's Golden Rule, according to which the social contract at every level is maintained by the universal principle of fairness, the categorical imperative, the symmetry of goose and gander. What would we think if they did that to us? If Nicaraguans were mining our harbors and Iraqis were kicking down doors in Sioux City? No nation would agree to be bound by prohibitions from which other nations are exempt, e.g. to slavery. Weighing in on this philosophical question in 2002 the honorable Henry Kissinger officially rejected it on behalf of the Bush Administration and those to follow in favor of unilateralism, exceptionalism and the right to dominate and savage others as we see fit. I credit them for that much. At least the mask of righteousness is off and we are not lurching into history in sheep's clothing.
What our new posture neglects is that the principle of fairness is not an injunction to play nice in the moral sandbox. It is a law, like hydraulics or gravity. According to this, 911 was simply a predictable correction. Never mind these underwear and shoe bombers. There is "blowback" in the works all right. What we should rightly dread is a self-leveling playing field and a preponderance of karmic debt.
Obama's transgressions are the direct result of the failure of this nation or any nation to prosecute US political figures for their war crimes.
As Obama and McChystal's failed strategy continues to unravel and they become more desperate, expect this to get worse. The victims of the predictable retaliation will not be the "crazies in the basement" and the weak man in the Oval office but the American civilians.
The US punishes countries not because they are dangerous but because they are disobedient. Iraq wouldn't privatize their oil so they were invaded. Afghanistan wouldn't allow a pipeline unless they benefited from it so they were invaded.
Pakistan isn't co-operating by producing Obama's head on a stick, so they get droned. Cuba was more of the same. Iran is next.
It has nothing to do with national security or justice. It's all about hegemony and the brutality of naked power.
Americans are schooled to share in this fool's philosophy with a combination of carefully chosen lies and blind patriotism.
cadawa -
I think you meant Osama's head on a stick, not Obama's.
Bill from Saginaw
The article, the comments say it for me...
How do we get the rest of americans to understand this concept?
And about the school's handing out such books. It really does seem more and more like this country is dividing into very different places with people with very different... beliefs, thoughts, actions...
dubet 3:46 pm
this article feels so 'yesterday'...
__________________________
My thought exactly!
I mean, it's OK with me that Sirota is restating the Bleeding Obvious concept of blowback; it doesn't do any harm.
I see it was abstracted from "Truthdig"; Sirota also is published at Salon. It's hard for me to believe that persons frequenting either of those sites need this beginner's lesson at this late date.
So this must be one for the newbies.
Very plausible.
The banality of evil.
It is not an accident that the USA is doing this.
This is not a mistake.
This warring expresses the US citizens' understanding of validity. US citizens celebrate it at Christmas, at Thanksgiving, at weddings, at births, at funerals and by murdering others.
Those fond of 'The' book call it the mark of Cain, but this is a silly dramatisation that any adult thought reveals is part of the problem in that it seeks to pretend that because shit clings to gold, shit is in a strange way valuable.
The reality is simply that there is nothing so childish, so mediocre, so laughably gratuitous as adults who feel they are special.
This means that the world is becoming a better place as the USA wins wars (one of the fundamental jokes of being) destroys itself and the standing of its people and drowns itself in wealth. Whatever it does it can never win It is a loser in a way the culture cannot yet understand. It is very funny.
Sirota: “...that despicable terrorism attempt [Times Square]...” and “...a ‘reaction’ that involves trying to incinerate civilians in Manhattan is abhorrent and unacceptable”.
Why the formulaic, hyperbolic, denunciation of terrorism? Apparently Sirota feels the need to establish his antiterrorist credentials because telling the truth in this country could be seen as support for terrorism.
Let’s ask the question that Sirota dodges: is retaliation really as despicable as aggression? Are aggression and retaliation morally equivalent? No matter what parents tell their children, who started it does make a difference.
and who finishes it, even more.
Cicero: "After victory you have more enemies."
Especially when those enemies are part of a subset cult of martyrdom with 1.3 Billion potential co-religionists to draw from.
James Madison: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Thomas Jefferson: "They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people." [From a letter to President Monroe]
President (and General) Dwight D. Eisenhower: "WE WILL BANKRUPT OURSELVES IN THE VAIN SEARCH FOR ABSOLUTE SECURITY."
Eisenhower again: "How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"
Men who approve of unjust illegal Wars and hide behind religion to justify it are are using murder and empire as an aphrodisiac to feed their needs for greed and lust for heroic vanity.
The last 9 years have turned Americans, both men and women , into evil doers.
Christian Nation ??? Us , no way.
If Jesus were walking among us, would he be protesting the evils of war, or recruiting young men out of high school to fight Muslims.
We try to control their middle eastern country, and they fight back the only way they can, we kill , they kill.
Where are the evangelical ministers that walk the walk of Jesus, and talk the talk of Jesus.
Christian Nation, sure, just listen to are ministers talk about the evils of war, can you hear them, can you.
Bornfreemen,
victim of Christian community watch vigilante gang stalking torture 3 years , 24/7
Bradenton Florida
Jesus wont let me hate my stalkers, but I want to in a bad way, all I can do is get angry.
Just "the last 9 years"?
Where are the Christian ministers? They are behind the US. The people being killed are not Christians so in their minds it is ok. There is no Christ in most christians these days. If Jesus came back they would kill him again.
Dubet has a point. We already know that the US government is flying drones along both the southern and northern borders of the country. What we don't know is whether or not these drones are armed or whether or not they are licensed to kill. For that poor stupid soul who sneaks across the border to buy a better pizza at a cheaper price because he has done it dozens of times before with no problem, it could be the last time he ever does anything again!
Funny isn't it, that the Pakistani's might love their children too. And might get a little perturbed when they see them incinerated by an invading country? Who would have thought?
Sounds like the US Government and the US Military have the same problem as the US Education system. They like to promote unqualified people. Anybody out there connecting the dots yet?
The killing of unarmed and innocent people is inevitable in any war, even a justifiable one like WW II. American marines at Guadalcanal, as one example, killed Japanese prisoners, but they were not ordered to do so. However, the deaths that the US is now inflicting in Pakistan through drone attacks is a matter of policy. And that policy grows directly out of the unwillingness of the American people to tolerate the high level of casualties that would be sure to follow any actual invasion of Pakistan. Drones are perfect from a PR point of view because no American lives can be lost when using them. Even better from the same PR view, the bodies cannot be identified with any certainty since the US forces who could provide verification are not officially in Pakistan. Our generals claim they were terrorists. Pakistanis say they were innocent non-combatants. All we know for sure is that our tax dollars are causing a large number of homicides in yet another country.
"...this age of asymmetrical warfare."
I know it is tiresome, but let us not allow such misnomers to slip by uncorrected. We are not engaged in warfare of any kind. It is American circus. It is to warfare what a Saturday morning Cheney-Scalia game ranch pheasant shoot is to hunting. Asymmetrical warfare it ain't. Unilateral piracy it is. A mugging it is.
The "They" terrorizing, and trying to kill you is "your" architects of "your" foreign policy...all of whom are controlled/guided by corporate lobbies, esp Little Izzies.
What else can you expect but propaganda, spin,endless obfuscation, and outright hatred from 99% of your media.
Online/off-line, tangents,threads,blind alleys.....
and ...... tomorrow.... to start the same shitaree again
all with the aim of your perpetual confusion, distraction, and of primary import...FEAR.
You either boycott this cycle,or it will turn you into pap.