Chomsky writes: "'It's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it.' That should have been the headline for the lead story in the New York Times on October 15, which was more politely titled 'CIA Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels.' The article reports on a CIA review of recent U.S. covert operations to determine their effectiveness."
Noam Chomsky speaking at the UN. (photo: Democracy Now!)
The Long, Shameful History of American Terrorism
15 November 14
�
t's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it."
That should have been the headline for the lead story in the New York Times on October 15, which was more politely titled "CIA Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels."
The article reports on a CIA review of recent U.S. covert operations to determine their effectiveness. The White House concluded that unfortunately successes were so rare that some rethinking of the policy was in order.
The article quoted President Barack Obama as saying that he had asked the CIA to conduct the review to find cases of "financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn't come up with much." So Obama has some reluctance about continuing such efforts.
The first paragraph of the Times article cites three major examples of "covert aid": Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba. In fact, each case was a major terrorist operation conducted by the U.S.
Angola was invaded by South Africa, which, according to Washington, was defending itself from one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups" -- Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. That was 1988.
By then the Reagan administration was virtually alone in its support for the apartheid regime, even violating congressional sanctions to increase trade with its South African ally.
Meanwhile, Washington joined South Africa in providing crucial support for Jonas Savimbi's terrorist Unita army in Angola. Washington continued to do so even after Savimbi had been roundly defeated in a carefully monitored free election, and South Africa had withdrawn its support. Savimbi was a "monster whose lust for power had brought appalling misery to his people," in the words of Marrack Goulding, British ambassador to Angola.
The consequences were horrendous. A 1989 U.N. inquiry estimated that South African depredations led to 1.5 million deaths in neighboring countries, let alone what was happening within South Africa itself. Cuban forces finally beat back the South African aggressors and compelled them to withdraw from illegally occupied Namibia. The U.S. alone continued to support the monster Savimbi.
In Cuba, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, President John F. Kennedy launched a murderous and destructive campaign to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba -- the words of Kennedy's close associate, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, in his semiofficial biography of Robert Kennedy, who was assigned responsibility for the terrorist war.
The atrocities against Cuba were severe. The plans were for the terrorism to culminate in an uprising in October 1962, which would lead to a U.S. invasion. By now, scholarship recognizes that this was one reason why Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev placed missiles in Cuba, initiating a crisis that came perilously close to nuclear war. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later conceded that if he had been a Cuban leader, he "might have expected a U.S. invasion."
American terrorist attacks against Cuba continued for more than 30 years. The cost to Cubans was of course harsh. The accounts of the victims, hardly ever heard in the U.S., were reported in detail for the first time in a study by Canadian scholar Keith Bolender, Voices From the Other Side: An Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba, in 2010.
The toll of the long terrorist war was amplified by a crushing embargo, which continues even today in defiance of the world. On Oct. 28, the U.N., for the 23rd time, endorsed "the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba." The vote was 188 to 2 (U.S., Israel), with three U.S. Pacific Island dependencies abstaining.
There is by now some opposition to the embargo in high places in the U.S., reports ABC News, because "it is no longer useful" (citing Hillary Clinton's new book Hard Choices). French scholar Salim Lamrani reviews the bitter costs to Cubans in his 2013 book The Economic War Against Cuba.
Nicaragua need hardly be mentioned. President Ronald Reagan's terrorist war was condemned by the World Court, which ordered the U.S. to terminate its "unlawful use of force" and to pay substantial reparations.
Washington responded by escalating the war and vetoing a 1986 U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all states -- meaning the U.S. -- to observe international law.
Another example of terrorism will be commemorated on November 16, the 25th anniversary of the assassination of six Jesuit priests in San Salvador by a terrorist unit of the Salvadoran army, armed and trained by the U.S. On the orders of the military high command, the soldiers broke into the Jesuit university to murder the priests and any witnesses -- including their housekeeper and her daughter.
This event culminated the U.S. terrorist wars in Central America in the 1980s, though the effects are still on the front pages today in the reports of "illegal immigrants," fleeing in no small measure from the consequences of that carnage, and being deported from the U.S. to survive, if they can, in the ruins of their home countries.
Washington has also emerged as the world champion in generating terror. Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar warns of the "resentment-generating impact of the U.S. strikes" in Syria, which may further induce the jihadi organizations Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State toward "repairing their breach from last year and campaigning in tandem against the U.S. intervention by portraying it as a war against Islam."
That is by now a familiar consequence of U.S. operations that have helped to spread jihadism from a corner of Afghanistan to a large part of the world.
Jihadism's most fearsome current manifestation is the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has established its murderous caliphate in large areas of Iraq and Syria.
"I think the United States is one of the key creators of this organization," reports former CIA analyst Graham Fuller, a prominent commentator on the region. "The United States did not plan the formation of ISIS," he adds, "but its destructive interventions in the Middle East and the War in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of ISIS."
To this we may add the world's greatest terrorist campaign: Obama's global project of assassination of "terrorists." The "resentment-generating impact" of those drone and special-forces strikes should be too well known to require further comment.
This is a record to be contemplated with some awe.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Chicken Little
Stood around
Underneath a tree.
Something fell and
Hit her head.
She said, "Goodness me!"
"Oh my goodness!"
She did screech.
"The sky is falling!"
She ran around
Yelling out,
"We must tell the king!"
Goosey Loosey
Was the first
To hear Chicken's tale.
I think they both
Must have been
Drinking too much ale.
Goosey Loosey,
Chicken, too,
Saw Ducky Lucky.
They told him, and
Then he said,
"That is quite sucky."
I'm just tired of the "sky is falling" kind of journalism when it comes to the republican party. It is not. The republicans are indeed divided but they know how to come together when they needs. Sadly, the same cannot be said for democrats, whose divisions are really driving the party into national political irrelevance. OK, the republican lost in Alabama, but the was a terrible candidate who'd lost twice for governor and was removed from the supreme court.
The republican party is not the party of Trump. It is the party of big money and of winning. It will use whatever wedge issues it needs to win. And it has mearly perfect the techniques to voter suppression and vote rigging.
The Trump-Gillibran d spat is something both want. Before this most people never heard of Gillibrand. And Trump get to be seen as standing up to a liberal.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/47306-time-for-a-fundamental-break-with-the-world-order
In contrast the Dems, rather than being divided as you claim, appear to be presenting a united political alternative to Trumpism, and in this respect is the direct and forceful opposite of sliding into "national political irrelevance" as you maintain.
Indeed, the Dems defining opposition to sex harassment will energize women voters from the independent group, as well as chip away at the 15 percent or so of GOP voters who still seem to have a brain.
In short, the GOP has made such a mess for their own party's outlook that all the Dems need do is avoid any big mistakes -- the rest of the work and all the heavy lifting has been done by the GOP on behalf of the Dems.
Why not talk about the 1000 elected offices that democrats have lost to republicans just since Obama took office. Here's a map showing how much of the nation is controlled by republicans:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/14/1598918/-Republicans-now-dominate-state-government-with-32-legislatures-and-33-governors
An honest assessment shows the democratic party in collapse. This is what I care about. The republican party is the party of big business and banks. In the 1980s, the Democratic Leadership Council decided that if the Democratic party could also become the party of big business and banks, it would begin to win elections again. It has only lost steadily.
If the Democratic party were an honest progressive or democratic socialist party and gave up its support for war, the CIA, and the like, it would easily be the majority party in the US.
That's what I care about. You can't change the democratic party by telling people the republicans are about to collapse. That is as much as to tell democrats that they don't need to change. They are fine.
"The strategy repudiates many of the security and foreign policies of the former President Barack Obama who sought to subordinate American power and influence in seeking greater comity with foreign states and international organizations.
The strategy reflects many of Trump's presidential campaign statements and promises that brought him to power, such as the need for tighter immigration controls, including a border wall, adopting trade policies more directly favorable to U.S. interests, increasing defense spending, and for the first time since the end of the Cold War, aggressively promoting American ideals such as liberty, constitutional democracy, and free trade."
I've worked with adolescents as a high school teacher for almost 40 years and am confident that, while they may do foolish things occasionally, they are not so dumb as to sacrifice their futures to the stupidity of the Cheeto Mussolini.
We are looking to the Democrats to produce a sensible alternative that inspires hope and action. Defending and extending the New Deal looks to me the next step forward.
I think the article is one of the best analysis of where we find ourselves that I've seen. A realistic take on strengths and weaknesses of both sides. I think the midterms will be devastating for Republicans but as the article points out, Democrats could still screw it up.
Trump is the biggest motivator of Republican opposition I've seen. Once he's gone, Republicans will regain their strength unless Democrats do something to move in a progressive direction, I don't see that happening.
Living in the south, I've always been mystified by Republicans strength here. Huge percentages of African Americans, a growing immigrant population. Parts of my city are beginning to look like California when I lived there, very diverse. Almost every urban area votes 'blue', reflecting a decent percentage of white liberals.
Virginia and Alabama revealed that there are enough more liberal voters but they don't vote normally. We can rightfully blame Democrats but I think we can rightfully blame voters also. If we did put Democrats in office, we could challenge the establishment in the primaries with progressive candidates. That's what the Tea Party has done, that's how Trump won the nomination.
I think most feared Cheney as much as many now fear Pence, but that can not be allowed to prevent real investigation (actually impeachment like all the previous ones that did not result in direct removal from office, just one resignation).
"People have to know whether or not their President is a Crook." ~ Richard Nixon ~
The impeachments did force major changes in behavior.
Even though they did not result in the conviction (and removal directed by the Senate) of Andrew Johnson, Nixon (who technically admitted guilt with the Pardon he accepted after resigning), nor Bill Clinton, they did very much to change future behavior of (only elected as Vice President succeeding Lincoln when he was assassinated)An drew Johnson in particular, and many others under Presidents who's certain behaviors they could not risk legal consequences or moral dilemmas in continuing to serve while meeting their oaths.
There is a credible case to be made for removal for impaired Mental Health, too (which in cases like Woodrow Wilson, and perhaps Warren Harding, could apply under Mental or Physical Health limitations for however long required).
And no, I do NOT want President Pence! He would be able to do all the horrible stuff that Trump has been unable to. He looks respectable, and the country would be so relieved that we would give him free rein.
Yes, his tirades against black people, his utter contempt for women. Had NBC released just a tiny bit of the outtakes at the Apprentice, Trump would not be president right now.
Instead they are attempting to pass large tax cuts for their donors, They pay for it by running up the deficit and extracting
wealth from the underclass. They have no problem removing millions from
health insurance, but say thy are 'pro-life'.
As they run up debt, they will work to cut back Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that vulnerable depend on.
Because their agenda is unpopular they need to suppress voters, gerrymander, and in a variety of ways suppress democracy.
They deserve to lose big time.
http://gopiswrong.com/democracy.htm
Is the president getting ready for a twinkie defense if he is ever held accountable for ordering an irresponsible military action, such as starting a nuclear war?
constitution.
" President Trump is just a man that believes in the majority of U.S. constitutional issues, common sense issues, U.S. sovereignty, real authentic science, a strong growing U.S. economy and America exceptionalism, but to many Americans and Western leaders Trump is the devil and the anti Christ who is a super threat to all secular globalist aspirations and a threat to global elitist and their power grab for a global tyrannical rule."
follow the money and expect war.