War on Terror -- Noam

War on Terror -- Noam Chomsky

War on Terror?

The flagrant use of the term "War on Terror" started after the September 11, 2001 attacks. These terrible events claimed thousands of American lives, disrupted their existence and even altered their sense of security. Measures were done to address these catastrophes, however, it changed the people's routines like, to name a few, they now underwent security checks in going inside establishments, they are reminded and warned in public locations about their vigilance and they became witnesses to a stricter immigration policy. These elicited cooperation from them as it gave them reassurance and promoted their feelings of safety. However, they also became supportive to a "war on terror" that is supposedly taking place.

On the other hand, Noam Chomsky, Professor and political activist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in his 2005 interview that, "There is no war on terror." He explained that:

"during the U.S. invasion to Iraq, the people were informed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. [However], weapons of mass destruction were found, [and these are those that] were sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and the others through the 1980s."

He also said that "[for the U.S.], invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror.

In one of his examples on the same interview, about "the American intelligence systems estimating a 50% likelihood of a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the United States," he said that:

"[the government] increased the threat by increasing nuclear proliferation [and] by compelling potential adversaries to take very dangerous measures to try to counter [the] rising American threats."

On the issue of the United States not publicly giving a definition of "terrorism," he said that if "it will give any, it would be immediately obvious that the United States is the largest fundamentalist terrorist in the history."

And while the National media is describing the war on terror to the people, the government is not straightening things by actually presenting a real definition of what terrorism is.

On Zbigniew Brzezinski's article on the Washington Post last March 25, 2007, he said that

"the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors." He explained that the "constant reference to a "war on terror"…stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear...[which] obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue."

Both Chomsky and Brzezinki think that the war on terror is actually just a government maneuvering to ensure and promote political and personal gains.

Conversely, in Townhall.com, a republican website for political and conservative issues, writer Linda Chavez suggested that,

"we have got to stop treating our own government as [an] enemy…we have to quit worrying about whether the rest of the world will love us when we take actions to protect ourselves. We have to give up the illusion that if we just retreat from the world or abandon Israel the Islamist fanatics will leave us alone."

Obviously, on Chavez' article, she is saying that the war the U.S. government is spearheading is a necessity and should be supported by the Americans.

In my opinion, the 'war on terror' like all other wars is irrational and the mainstream media is not playing an objective role in getting the average American involved in the matter. If terrorism as defined in some strict sense does not exist, on what exactly is the war all about? The needs to answer this question and to have faith and belief in the government are confusing and require correct information and deliberation by the people.

In the Town Hall.com's article, Chavez clearly disagrees with the very action of raising a question when she said nothing about the justifications done by the Federal Government in engaging the nation to a protracted war, where this war clearly is not and will never benefit the people. In addition, how will questioning the validity of invading two sovereign nations, be a threat to one's own government?

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives the people the right to freedom of speech. Is asking about the war not part of that right? Fundamentally, is asking questions not an American way of life?

America's guiding principle is that its people hold the power. However, they will not exercise this power if they will continue to be ignorant of the issues involved in the war and if they will remain to be detached from its effects.

While a representative democracy is still working in the country because of its tremendous complexity and scope, its people's poor participation in discussing issues is beyond comprehension. They are giving up their right to participate and one of its evidences is the U.S. Patriot Act where their individual rights are diminished.