SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Arrogance of Power - Ad Nauseam, Ad Infinitum
"These people weren't gathering for a bake sale ... They were terrorists."
Mar 22, 2011
"These people weren't gathering for a bake sale ... They were terrorists."
So went the American response to Pakistan's complaint that our drone-launched missiles killed mostly "peaceful citizens, including elders of the area" in an attack last week. Now, a decade of explanations that civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan were a regrettable (but inevitable) part of our War on Terror have pretty well inured me to government mendacity. But somehow, this one - well you know, it took the cake. "A bake sale" - No, they probably weren't there for a bake sale. Bake sales are what they hold here in America to run the schools we don't have enough money for. Making new enemies for this country is pretty expensive you know.
The story this time is that the missiles apparently killed 26 of 32 participants in a "jirga" called to settle a local dispute between two tribes in North Waziristan over the operation of the chromium mine. Their target was the local Taliban officials expected there to mediate in their role as the de facto local government. Pakistan's Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the attack "carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life," reporting that there were, in fact, 13 Taliban present, but 15 of those killed were not Taliban. Some locals claimed a death toll as high as 40. And the U.S. response was anonymous because officially we have never launched a missile into Pakistan. We're not at war there, so that would be illegal. And the CIA would never do anything illegal.
If the military hasn't yet created a decoration for arrogance, they should. Otherwise, a lot of lot of spectacular efforts - such as this one - will go unrewarded. Could we ever imagine another country killing American civilians because they were in proximity to government or military figures, and then telling the world, "Those people were criminals. That was no cattle show, you know"? Of course not - no country is capable of such an action, so why bother even imagining such a thing?
There may be no better measure of just how far this country has gone down the road of trying to bomb its way to peace and friendship in the Muslim and Arab worlds than our current decision to bomb another Muslim and Arab country. The proposition that Libya could do better than Muammar Gaddafi will get no argument here, nor will I try to predict the future. But consider the arrogance that it takes for us to decide that this latest attack constitutes a sensible American response to the situation.
The U.S. still maintains an occupying force of 50,000 troops in Iraq as a result of a war launched on grounds now generally conceded to have been fraudulent. A military force of over 100,000 is currently deployed in Afghanistan, even as the Secretary of Defense says that anyone who'd recommend an operation like that should "have his head examined." As mentioned above, we are also waging undeclared war in Pakistan - and in Yemen, too, in similar fashion.
In the current political upheavals in the Middle East, American allies in the governments of Yemen and Bahrain have killed unarmed civilians - in the case of Bahrain with the aid of another ally - Saudi Arabia - none of which has moved our government to action. But when France and the United Kingdom, the former colonial powers in the oil-rich area, declare the need to aid a military uprising in Libya - obviously not an ally - why, the U.S. is right there.
Unfortunately, one of the most accurate reactions to recent events was probably that of the unnamed Pakistani resident who said of the missile attack on his region: "It will create resentment among the locals and everyone might turn into suicide bombers." Meanwhile, they might want to get to minting those Presidential Medals of Arrogance.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Tom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts State Representative and the author of 'The Primary Route: How the 99% Take On the Military Industrial Complex.' He lives in San Francisco.
"These people weren't gathering for a bake sale ... They were terrorists."
So went the American response to Pakistan's complaint that our drone-launched missiles killed mostly "peaceful citizens, including elders of the area" in an attack last week. Now, a decade of explanations that civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan were a regrettable (but inevitable) part of our War on Terror have pretty well inured me to government mendacity. But somehow, this one - well you know, it took the cake. "A bake sale" - No, they probably weren't there for a bake sale. Bake sales are what they hold here in America to run the schools we don't have enough money for. Making new enemies for this country is pretty expensive you know.
The story this time is that the missiles apparently killed 26 of 32 participants in a "jirga" called to settle a local dispute between two tribes in North Waziristan over the operation of the chromium mine. Their target was the local Taliban officials expected there to mediate in their role as the de facto local government. Pakistan's Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the attack "carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life," reporting that there were, in fact, 13 Taliban present, but 15 of those killed were not Taliban. Some locals claimed a death toll as high as 40. And the U.S. response was anonymous because officially we have never launched a missile into Pakistan. We're not at war there, so that would be illegal. And the CIA would never do anything illegal.
If the military hasn't yet created a decoration for arrogance, they should. Otherwise, a lot of lot of spectacular efforts - such as this one - will go unrewarded. Could we ever imagine another country killing American civilians because they were in proximity to government or military figures, and then telling the world, "Those people were criminals. That was no cattle show, you know"? Of course not - no country is capable of such an action, so why bother even imagining such a thing?
There may be no better measure of just how far this country has gone down the road of trying to bomb its way to peace and friendship in the Muslim and Arab worlds than our current decision to bomb another Muslim and Arab country. The proposition that Libya could do better than Muammar Gaddafi will get no argument here, nor will I try to predict the future. But consider the arrogance that it takes for us to decide that this latest attack constitutes a sensible American response to the situation.
The U.S. still maintains an occupying force of 50,000 troops in Iraq as a result of a war launched on grounds now generally conceded to have been fraudulent. A military force of over 100,000 is currently deployed in Afghanistan, even as the Secretary of Defense says that anyone who'd recommend an operation like that should "have his head examined." As mentioned above, we are also waging undeclared war in Pakistan - and in Yemen, too, in similar fashion.
In the current political upheavals in the Middle East, American allies in the governments of Yemen and Bahrain have killed unarmed civilians - in the case of Bahrain with the aid of another ally - Saudi Arabia - none of which has moved our government to action. But when France and the United Kingdom, the former colonial powers in the oil-rich area, declare the need to aid a military uprising in Libya - obviously not an ally - why, the U.S. is right there.
Unfortunately, one of the most accurate reactions to recent events was probably that of the unnamed Pakistani resident who said of the missile attack on his region: "It will create resentment among the locals and everyone might turn into suicide bombers." Meanwhile, they might want to get to minting those Presidential Medals of Arrogance.
Tom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts State Representative and the author of 'The Primary Route: How the 99% Take On the Military Industrial Complex.' He lives in San Francisco.
"These people weren't gathering for a bake sale ... They were terrorists."
So went the American response to Pakistan's complaint that our drone-launched missiles killed mostly "peaceful citizens, including elders of the area" in an attack last week. Now, a decade of explanations that civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan were a regrettable (but inevitable) part of our War on Terror have pretty well inured me to government mendacity. But somehow, this one - well you know, it took the cake. "A bake sale" - No, they probably weren't there for a bake sale. Bake sales are what they hold here in America to run the schools we don't have enough money for. Making new enemies for this country is pretty expensive you know.
The story this time is that the missiles apparently killed 26 of 32 participants in a "jirga" called to settle a local dispute between two tribes in North Waziristan over the operation of the chromium mine. Their target was the local Taliban officials expected there to mediate in their role as the de facto local government. Pakistan's Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the attack "carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life," reporting that there were, in fact, 13 Taliban present, but 15 of those killed were not Taliban. Some locals claimed a death toll as high as 40. And the U.S. response was anonymous because officially we have never launched a missile into Pakistan. We're not at war there, so that would be illegal. And the CIA would never do anything illegal.
If the military hasn't yet created a decoration for arrogance, they should. Otherwise, a lot of lot of spectacular efforts - such as this one - will go unrewarded. Could we ever imagine another country killing American civilians because they were in proximity to government or military figures, and then telling the world, "Those people were criminals. That was no cattle show, you know"? Of course not - no country is capable of such an action, so why bother even imagining such a thing?
There may be no better measure of just how far this country has gone down the road of trying to bomb its way to peace and friendship in the Muslim and Arab worlds than our current decision to bomb another Muslim and Arab country. The proposition that Libya could do better than Muammar Gaddafi will get no argument here, nor will I try to predict the future. But consider the arrogance that it takes for us to decide that this latest attack constitutes a sensible American response to the situation.
The U.S. still maintains an occupying force of 50,000 troops in Iraq as a result of a war launched on grounds now generally conceded to have been fraudulent. A military force of over 100,000 is currently deployed in Afghanistan, even as the Secretary of Defense says that anyone who'd recommend an operation like that should "have his head examined." As mentioned above, we are also waging undeclared war in Pakistan - and in Yemen, too, in similar fashion.
In the current political upheavals in the Middle East, American allies in the governments of Yemen and Bahrain have killed unarmed civilians - in the case of Bahrain with the aid of another ally - Saudi Arabia - none of which has moved our government to action. But when France and the United Kingdom, the former colonial powers in the oil-rich area, declare the need to aid a military uprising in Libya - obviously not an ally - why, the U.S. is right there.
Unfortunately, one of the most accurate reactions to recent events was probably that of the unnamed Pakistani resident who said of the missile attack on his region: "It will create resentment among the locals and everyone might turn into suicide bombers." Meanwhile, they might want to get to minting those Presidential Medals of Arrogance.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.