EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Renowned Scientist Stephen Hawking Joins Academic Boycott of Israel
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Escalating Robot War in Pakistan Is Making a Terror Attack More Likely
Imagine if, an hour from now, a robot plane swooped over your house and blasted it to pieces. The plane has no pilot. It is controlled with a joystick from 7,000 miles away, sent by the Pakistani military to kill you. It blows up all the houses on your street, and so barbecues your family and your neighbors until there is nothing left to bury but a few charred slops. Why? They refuse to comment. They don't even admit the robot planes belong to them. But they tell the Pakistani newspapers back home it is because one of you was planning to attack Pakistan. How do they know? Somebody told them. Who? You don't know, and there are no appeals against the robot.
Now imagine it doesn't end there: These attacks are happening every week somewhere in your country. They blow up funerals and family dinners and children. The number of robot planes in the sky is increasing every week. You discover they are named "Predators," or "Reapers" -- after the Grim Reaper. No matter how much you plead, no matter how much you make it clear you are a peaceful civilian getting on with your life, it won't stop. What do you do? If there were a group arguing that Pakistan was an evil nation that deserved to be violently attacked, would you now start to listen?
This sounds like a sketch for the next James Cameron movie -- but it is in fact an accurate description of life in much of Pakistan today, with the sides flipped. The Predators and Reapers are being sent by Barack Obama's CIA, with the support of other Western governments, and they killed more than 700 civilians in 2009 alone -- fourteen times more than the 7/7 attacks in London. Last month there was the largest number of robot plane bombings ever: 21. Over the next decade, spending on drones is set to increase by 700 percent.
The US government doesn't even officially admit the program exists: Obama's most detailed public comment on it was when he jokingly told the Jonas Brothers he would unleash the drones on them if they tried to chat up his daughter. But his administration says, behind closed doors, that these robot-plane attacks are "the only show in town" for killing suspected jihadis. They do not risk the lives of US soldiers, who remain in Virginia and control the robot planes using a Playstation-style panel. They kill "with accuracy," they say, and "undermine the threat to the West" by "breaking up training camps, killing many people conspiring against us, and putting the rest on the run."
But is this true? The press releases uncritically repeated by the press after a bombing always brag about "senior al Qaeda commanders" killed -- but some people within the CIA admit how arbitrary their choice of targets is. One of their senior figures told the New Yorker: "Sometimes you're dealing with tribal chiefs. Often they say an enemy of theirs is Al Qaeda because they want to get rid of somebody, or they made crap up because they wanted to prove they were valuable so they could make money."
Indeed, Robert Baer -- a former senior figure in the CIA -- says the agency now prefers to kill a suspect than capture them and assess their guilt or find out what they know:
Targeted killings are easier for the CIA or for the military to deal with than taking someone prisoner. No one really ever questions a killing, but when you take someone prisoner, then you are responsible for the person and then the headaches come. We have a logic which leads to more and more targeted killings.
Think about that sentence: "No one ever really questions a killing." How do we know who they are slaughtering? Just look at how good the CIA was at selecting people to put in Guantanamo: Almost all had to be released after being Kafkaed because they were demonstrably innocent, and included senile old men and children.
True, the program has certainly extrajudicially killed some real jihadis. But the evidence suggests it is creating far more jihadis than it kills -- and is making an attack on you or me more likely with each bomb.
Drone technology is relatively new: It was pioneered in the 1980s by the right-wing American defense contractor James Neal Blue, who wanted to use it against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. It was then developed by the Israelis. They now routinely use remote-controlled robot aircraft to bomb the Gaza Strip. I've been in Gaza during some of these attacks. The people there were terrified -- and radicalized. A young woman I know who had been averse to political violence and an advocate of peaceful protest saw a drone blow up a car full of people -- and she started supporting Islamic Jihad and crying for the worst possible revenge against Israel. Robot drones have successfully bombed much of Gaza from secular Fatah to Islamist Hamas to fanatical Jihad.
Is the same thing happening in Pakistan? David Kilcullen is a counterinsurgency expert who worked for General Petraeus in Iraq and now advises the State Department. He has shown that two percent of the people killed by the robot-planes in Pakistan are jihadis. The remaining 98 percent are as innocent as the victims of 9/11. He says: "It's not moral." And it gets worse: "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially as drone strikes have increased."
Professor John Cole puts it more bluntly:
When you bomb people and kill their family, friends and neighbors, it pisses them off. They probably even form lifelong grudges when they find their mother and children in thousands of bloody pieces in their former home. This is not rocket science. If they were not sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda before, after you bomb the shit out of them, they will be.
The polling from Pakistan shows that a desire to strike back against the US increases after every drone attack. (The floods were seen as a great opportunity to ramp up the attacks.) That translates into young men volunteering for the jihad. It's why all the people who have been captured or defected from Osama Bin Laden's circle, from his bodyguard to his son, say the same: He is delighted when Western governments fight back by recklessly killing Muslims. It vindicates his story that the West is evil, and sends waves of recruits his way.
Of course jihadism is not motivated solely by attacks against Muslim countries by the West. Some of it is motivated by a theocratic desire to control and tyrannize other humans in the most depraved ways: to punish women who wish to feel the sun on their hair, or novelists who want to write freely. Yet it is a provable fact that violence against Muslims tips many more people into retaliatory jihadi violence against us. Even the 2004 report commissioned by that notorious lefty Donald Rumsfeld said that "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" was the primary reason for jihadism.
A good example of this is Faisal Shahzad, the 31-year-old Pakistani-American who tried to plant a bomb in Times Square in May. A police survey of his emails over the past ten years found he was obsessed with US attacks on Muslims and insistently asked: "Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when the rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?" The Pakistan drone attacks -- on the part of the world he came from -- were the final spur for him. When he was arrested, he asked the police: "How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan." At his trial, he was asked how he could possibly justify planting a bomb that would have killed children. He said: "When the drones hit, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody... I am part of the answer... I'm avenging the attack."
When I interviewed former jihadis in Britain, they all said the same. One of them, Hadiya Masieh, summarized their view by asking: "What are we meant to do, just stand still and let them cut our throats?"
Yet many people defend the drones by saying: "We have to do something." If your friend suffered terrible third-degree burns, would you urge her to set fire to her hair because "you have to do something"? Would you give a poisoning victim another, worse poison, on the grounds that any action is better than none?
I detest jihadism. Their ideology is everything I oppose distilled: Their ideal society is my Hell. It is precisely because I want to really undermine them -- rather than pose as macho -- that I am against this robot slaughter. It enlarges the threat. It drags us into a terrible feedback loop, where the US launches more drone attacks to deal with jihadism, which makes jihadism worse, which prompts more drone attacks, which makes jihadism worse -- and on and on, in a state with nuclear weapons, and with many people in Europe who are from the terrorized region. It could be poised to get even worse: Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars says the US has an immediate plan to bomb 150 targets in Pakistan if there is a jihadi attack inside America.
The real and necessary fight against jihadism has to have, at its core, a policy of systematically stripping them of their best recruiting tools. Yet Obama and the CIA are doing the opposite -- to an accompanying soundtrack of the screams of innocent civilians, and the low, delighted chuckle of Osama Bin Laden.
- Posted in
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...

35 Comments so far
Show AllOur leaders are bloodthirsty idiots.
Gee, if we don't keep sending bombs by drone, there will be fewer jihadis.
If there are fewer jihadis, how are we going to justify the ongoing war against terror?
If we can't justify the ongoing war, We can't justify the bloated arms spending.
If we can't justify the bloated arms spending, profits of the greedy and ruthless ruling oligarchy and the war profiteers will fall.
Horror of horrors.
OBAMA IS AN ABOMINATION TO OUR NATION! And it looks to me like he and many other elements in our government, are making nascent another terrorist attack on American soil, like what Bush said: " BRING IT ON ". And this time it may not be a false flag like 911. American foreign policy is like a combination of Dracula and Frankenstein; it dies without the blood of innocent men,women, and children and is a horrible monster that is completely out of control and almost impossible to kill!
I certainly feel much, much safer now that I know the police had the ability to "survey [Faisal Shahzad's] emails over the past ten years", and discover the Pakistani suspected of trying to set off a bomb in Times Square was "obsessed with US attacks on Muslims."
I have complete confidence that reconstructing this decade of email messaging was all done in a meticulously legal manner. The technological ability of US law enforcement to accomplish this electronic data retrieval probably had nothing whatsoever to do with NSA's wholesale warrantless storage of domestic US digital communications at direction of the Bush/Cheney White House starting back in 2001. I'll bet his laptop was seized incident to arrest, a FISA or Title III warrant was secured, and it was all right there on Shahzad's hard drive.
Regardless, Americans should all sleep better at night now knowing that there's a corroborative evidentiary trail decisively proving the jihadis don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our attacks.
Bill from Saginaw
"Americans should all sleep better at night now knowing that there's a corroborative evidentiary trail decisively proving the jihadis don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our attacks."
This deserves repetition to as many as will listen. Jihad violence against the U.S. is blowback, plain and simple. The U.S.'s current tactics decreases security and is counterproductive to the average citizen's self-interest.
Selfish people may even be swayed by this simple truth.
I could say what is there in this that our Congress and President do not understand in this, but that would be an idiotic statement, wouldn't it?
Now, as for my fellow citizens not understanding this, buying into the propaganda, or being so blinded by prejudice that they cannot put themselves in the place of these Afghan and Pakistani families ...
It should be obvious to a child that this Gobal War of Terror creates a self-reinforcing cylce of violence. Johann Hari exposes manifest madness and states truth so self-evident that it must, in due time, come to an end. It will. But before then, only the extent of suffering and death, and America's survival, are in question. This was precisely the delusional paranoia, manifest insanity and criminal profiteering that I voted to end---crimes for which Barack Obama himself is now directly responsible and without excuse.
Why does the war on terror sound so much like the war on drugs?
Because it's the same thing, only worse.
Same ad company.
Hari uses terms like "jihadis" and "jihadism." Just WTF do those terms mean? Does Hari himself know--and is he willing to defend his use of such terminology?
And just WTF is a "targeted killing?" Does good journalism not demand that he use a single, more appropriate word instead, such as assisination or murder?
"Hari uses terms like "jihadis" and "jihadism." Just WTF do those terms mean?"
Think about this for a minute. The Holy Qur'an states that you shall not make war, except in self defense. You shall not make war upon the elderly, women, or children. What would you do when faced by an enemy who occupied you, who killed women, children and the elderly with little restraint. Could not fighting this barbarous enemy be considered self-defense?
Suppose the US was occupied by an enormously powerful nation or coalition of nations. They put in a Quisling government to run the country. Anybody who objects is classified as an insurgent or terrorist, liable to death. People are picked up and disappeared, friends, neighbors, your own relatives. When people try to fight back or to defend their homes, their towns and homes are bombed. Weddings and funerals are fair game for attacks for they are gatherings of people, therefore they must be terrorist gatherings.
Wouldn't you become a terrorist in the eyes of the occupiers? Wouldn't you consider yourself a patriot? Wouldn't you do whatever you could to drive the occupiers out of your land? Wouldn't you try to expel or kill the Quislings? Win back your land? I sure as hell would.
As to suicide bombings, self immolation is forbidden in the Holy Qur'an. However, if that is the only effective weapon you have left, you use it.
Jihad does NOT mean holy war, it means a task. Quitting smoking or losing weight might be a jihad. Being a missionary to foreign lands is a jihad. Expelling an invader might be a jihad.
Most of the people in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan don't even know where the United States is let alone plan to attack us. That is the same crap we used to listen to during Vietnam. "We've got to get them there or they will be landing their sampans on the West Coast."
We could end this mess in short order. All we would have to do is declare a cease fire, with an absolute timeline for disengagement and getting out of the country. During that interim, we could try to help. We could start repairing the damage we've done to the country. We could repatriate the huge number that have been disappeared into our gulags. We could stop funding all sides of every dispute with arms and supplies so we can then go in and kill them off as "peacemakers."
The only thing that militates against this is that our corporate state considers that all these "damn furriners" are living on top of OUR oil and OUR minerals, they are astride OUR pipeline routes, so they've got to go if they don't like it. If we took the enormous profit out of war, this would be over in a week. Unfortunately, we'll never see it. The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex has bought and paid for the government. War and arms are their biggest cash cow and they are not about to give it up. We the People do not count except as cannon fodder and cheap labor for the making of arms.
I just don't understand it, Obama was a community organizer and he won the Nobel Peace prize. That means we should trust him, right? I mean he looks so noble, and cute. Its the other administration's fault he needs to carry out this senseless killing. Anybody who doesn't support Obama's drone attacks must be a Tea Party member.
There is NO EXCUSE for the way in which that deranged madman Shazzad Faisal endangered the lives of innocent bystanders in Times Square with his bombs, even if they were crudely constructed.
Shame on Hari for trying to whitewash the moral depravity of someone who tried something so savage. Drone attacks in Pakistan kill innocents while aiming for terrorist - bombs in Times Square intentionally target innocents with NO military targets amongst them whatsoever.
Drones in Pakistan ARE terrorist acts by fascist amerika ! War IS terrorism with a big budget !
"Shame on Hari for trying to whitewash the moral depravity"
Since when is it "whitewashing" to show how our nations' oppression and use of violence causes people to fight back albeit in savage desparation. You sound just like those who after 9-11 verbally attacked anyone who was trying to explain "Why they hate us". Nothing comes from nothing - face up to it.
"Drone attacks in Pakistan kill innocents while aiming for terrorist"
Actually our US warmongers CLAIM they are aiming at SUSPECTED terrorists. Our warmongers have free access to the MSM to CLAIM any kind of target as a legitimate military target. No one is ever able to challenge the claims because no evidence is provided to justify ANY target.
More likely our warmongers are doing what imperial oppressors often do; they are using a form of collective punishment banned by international laws restricting what is allowed by a sovereign state. How easy to say one of them was a "suspected terrorist" when what is being done is actually "teaching them a lesson" or "degrading the enemy's support base", i.e. the Pashtun people who are suffering a degree of genocide at the hands of the US.
I think you misunderstood my post.
I condemn attempts to whitewash actions like those of Shahzad Faisal, not criticism of drone attacks, which are indeed causing civilian suffering.
Did US go out of its way to reward the country from where the "African muslim" came and alerted the police of the smoking van in Times Square?
(Most likely the FBI has asked him to get out of the country.)
US did not reward the country for it knew as anyone else knew that the good deed on his part had nothing to do with the rest of that coutry.
Just think how much war political capital the US can make on another terrorist attack on itself. The MICC would secretly love it and revel in it, driving patriotic jingoism to new heights of absurdity. No muslim taxi driver would be safe in the US. It might even be enough hate fodder to launch nuclear weapons against Iran and China. It does seem that the US is intent on formenting hatred, both within itself and against itself.
We picked that technique up from the Zionists, I think...
The more the US uses drones to murder people in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia , the easier it will be to sell citizens of the United States of America on the NEXT 9/11 and the need to further erode Civil liberties and increase the funding of the war machine.
As far as Obama and the Fascists are concerned..
There IS No downside. Even a Nuclear bomb going off in New York City serves their cause.
Has anyone actually read an article by Hari showing compassion or remorse for the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died during, after and as a result of the US invasion of Iraq he enthusiastically supported ?
Talk of crass hypocricy........
So are you against what he said here because you believe he is a hypocrit, or are just saying you don't like him because of his earlier errors? Or What?
Hari bought into the narrative that the invasion of Iraq was going to lead to happy days:
http://www.johannhari.com/2004/04/14/was-i-wrong-about-iraq-
I had discussions with many Iraqi expatriots in the U.S & UK who supported the invasion. (Some of course knew it was a terrible idea.) I suggested to invasion enthusiasts that they look carefully at U.S. history--particularly the military genocides carried out against Native American groups such as the Sioux (which included the extermination and near extinction of the bison to starve them into submission), the Trail of Tears campaign against the Cherokee in the South, the Kit Carson led scorched earth campaigns against the Navajo (and incarceration at the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo),
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-navajolongwalk.html
Of course most considered this sort of stuff ancient history and irrelevant. I suggested a look at the U.S. invasion and occupation of Vietnam-- and the 3 million Asian casualties that the U.S. inflicted to 'pacify' the region.
Again, most thought this irrelevant.
Today, I would say a good number, perhaps a majority, have changed their minds on the helpfulness of the invasion. One Iraqi said to me, "I thought they were going to remove Saddam--not destroy the whole country." And he is safe in California. Another man, a medical doctor living in Turkey, tried to move back to Baghdad to reclaim his home about six months ago. After a couple of weeks he gave up. "It's a lot different than under Saddam but unfortunately it's worse. A lot worse."
Hari seems to have fallen in with the "anything is better than Saddam" camp during the run up to the invasion.
In general, he seems like a pretty serious and thoughtful journalist. Not a typical corporate hack.
Nice to know he acknowledged he was WRONG, DEAD WRONG OVER IRAQ.
No, he is a serial slanderer, and yes Jan, I make no apologies for my dislike for him. There are progressives who write well and I could go into detail why I do not consider him to be one of them.
The USA's ruling political class, or at least part of it, knows well that the United States is destroying itself. And they know that this inkling is beginning to spread, if only a little, in the general population itself. The overpowering stink of corruption and failure is everywhere. What we need now is another "terrorist attack" in which Obama wraps himself in the flag and waves the bloody shirt. The tactic is tried and true. Works almost every time.
Fighting Terrorism with Terrorism just exponentially increases Terrorism. So the goal of such a tactic must be an increase in Terrorism. Such a goal is most certainly insane.
So there must be some other ulterior or concealed motive for such insanity. Morality aside, this sort of non productive activity can only arise from GREED. In other words there must be money to be made and/or power to broker through the excercise of a tactic that makes no sense otherwise.
The inescapable conclusion therefore, is that the people involved in such a nefarious scheme are evil. If an evil world is your cup of tea then sit back and enjoy. Otherwise get off your duff and do something about it..
There is no 'war' in Pakistan. There are terrorist attacks perpetrated by the United Staesd govt against the pople of that nation.
In social work we often see children duplicating the problematic behavioral patterns of their parents.And victims often replicate the behavior of their abusers.
Anybody here remember US history? Remember our experience prior to 1776? When our colonial masters across the sea tipped the balance of oppression so that the blowback resulted in revolution and the gradual demise of the british empire?
The US has come full circle. We are the empire, the locus of oppression, the aggressor. We, who have so much seek to take from they who have so little.
Will history repeat again?
As ye sew, so shall ye reap. (Don't piss in the fan). Over the last 10 years the US has completely destabilised the middle east and created legions of new terrorists. We had the moral high ground after 911 and loads of political capital.We've historically always been piss poor at statesmanship,the Soviets have always gotten much more bang for their buck in that area, but times are more critical now and moneys tighter and we need to be much more effective and less heavy handed now. That's easy to say. Our problem now is that America is so politically divided it's hampering our ability to deal with anything at home or abroad. Sometimes I imagine our enemies listening to news accounts of our internal political struggles and rubbing their hands and grinning with glee...
Hari assumes that the reason for all this carnage in Pakistan is to prevent "terrorist" attacks in the West.
I suppose the Obama White House would not enjoy a terrorist attack at the moment (bad for the polls) but the Repugs certainly would enjoy it. Can you imagine the shivers of ecstasy at Fox News?
More importantly the Pentagon & the stockholders at Raytheon (the real rulers) would certainly cheer a juicy terrorist attack in the "homeland".
Creating jihadists is part of an investment portfolio.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
=Ender's Game=. Orson Scott Card.
I have not seen an article by the "left"/"Dove" cheerleaders for Iraq war ( -Friedman, Hitchens,Goldberg,) on the dangerous stupidity of drone war.
Neither there is any in depth analysis of the practices, culture,rationale,and fallout of the drone atatcks in msm .Nothing compared to the attention that public was showered with on Iraq dossier/aluminium tube/hydrogen balloon neither it is comparable to the pletora of articles on non -existent Irani nukes.
AMHERST VIGIL FREE FLYER
October 17, 2010
Critical Enemy Shortage Plagues Policy Makers: A Call for Action!
(AV) Little-noticed at the time, the unilateral surrender of the former Soviet Union more than two decades ago has left U.S. policy makers in critically short supply of enemies. Since that time, America’s military industrial complex has had to make do with a rag-tag assortment of enemies that have mostly failed to inspire real fear. Attempts to create amorphous enemies that can be constituted as necessary have been largely unsatisfying. The war on drugs and the war on terror have been two such attempts.
Afghanistan had been a traditional supplier of opium to the world but the fall of the Soviet Union all but eliminated opium production in that country. Fortunately for policy makers, that unhappy situation was soon remedied by the competing ambitions of two sets of former employees, Al Qaeda and the Northern Alliance. Afghanistan has since been restored to its former position of leadership in opium production, thus insuring a steady supply of the human raw material necessary to keep America number one in incarceration of its own citizens.
The war on terror has been somewhat less successful. Al Qaeda has been all but eliminated world wide. By official estimates, only hundreds or scores of those nominally affiliated with that organization remain. It was necessary to conflate that group with what is now called ‘Taliban’, a word in use for more than 100 years that can be roughly translated as ‘redneck’.
Virtually all the terrorists identified since 9/11 have been of the artificial variety. We have worked hard to create groups that pose a threat of terrorism, but these efforts have been too often exposed when it has become known that the organizers were really agents of our government. These kinds of ‘sting’ operations have produced some convictions, but no real fear on the part of the public.
The recent attempt by the F.B.I. to create enemies of non-violent peace and social justice activists received almost no attention. The subpoenas to appear before a grand jury received by such activists recently in Minnesota and Illinois were withdrawn before the activists could refuse to appear.
Iraq was a useful enemy for a time when Americans could be convinced that it was a real enemy and not merely a U.S. puppet regime that had recently been coerced into attacking its neighbor and co-religionists in Iran.
Iran, for its part, continues to fail to cooperate with our need for an enemy. Its leaders repeatedly offer to negotiate and despite U.S., British and Israeli terrorist attacks and the best efforts to mis-translate, distort and obscure the pronouncements of its leaders, Iran refuses to attack anyone.
There have been attempts to make some of our friends into enemies. France has been actively recruited to become our enemy. Our politicians routinely denigrate its citizens, its culture and its language yet France recently assisted us in the re-colonization of Haiti.
Japan seems a good candidate to become our enemy, but when that country elected a new national leader on his promise to close our base in Okinawa, that leader resigned and the base remains.
Pakistan is now being actively courted to become our enemy. Incursions by our military, private contractors and intelligence agencies into its national territory and drone terror attacks on its citizens have thus far failed to yield any anti-American activity or statements by its government. Our best hope to create an enemy of Pakistan is that its corrupt leadership will be overthrown. Not happening so far.
As for China, who could hate someone who loans us so much money?
It may be that the only enemy we will be able to find is ourselves. Real Americans will rise to the challenge!
The Amherst Vigil for Peace and Justice in a Nuclear Free World is now in its 32ndyear. The Vigil continues to advocate for an end to the arms trade, for an end to nuclear weapons at home and abroad and for social justice around the world.
ATTEND THE AMHERST PEACE VIGIL
EVERY SUNDAY, NOON TO ONE,
AMHERST TOWN COMMON
If you listen to Zacharia's program GPS the debate among our foreign policy experts is whether or not escalation of the war is more or less likely to prevent another attack. No one argues that there is a a very likely counter effect, a blow back that will result in making terror counter attacks more likely. They are all so impressed with US military power and what it can do, how unassailable it is, how no one can stand up to us in a fire fight. This is the real core of American belief about foreign policy, Immense trust of what can be achieved with military might, skepticism of what we can do by cultural influence, education and real economic development. We live by the sword and you know what happens to those who live by the sword.
You reap as you sow...What goes around comes around and hopefully soon.