On the brink — again

WASHINGTON – The last few days here in Washington have been full of that very particular surrealism that emerges when the politicians debate whether or not to kill people in another country.

The debate is not about who lives, suffers or dies but whether attacking or destroying is (or not) an effective option to “punish” or “send a message” to some other country, in this case Syria, that Washington has designated as a rogue regime that “threatens” the world.

President Obama and his advisers are redoubling their efforts this week to convince the public and their so-called representatives that the U.S. will not allow other governments to kill their own people in unacceptable ways (apparently, some means are OK, such as firearms in private hands or state-run executions), because this country must defend international “standards” and the rights of everyone.

But it is odd that the promoters of this don’t seem to understand that what they argue is that, to respond to the crime of killing people, what is required is … to kill more people.

Some have commented that there is nothing more dangerous than a superpower in economic and political decline yet militarily supreme, since it perceives everything as a threat but can only flex its muscle through gunfire.

Some thought that, after George W. Bush’s war-filled nightmare and after the longest wars in the history of the United States, war actions as a response would no longer be contemplated – at least for a while. In fact, Obama won re-election with that promise, appealing to a nation that was exhausted and tired of war and deceit.

But we should remember some of the statements made by the great historian Howard Zinn shortly before his death in 2010.

“I think that people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric,” Zinn said, “and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president — which means, in our time, a dangerous president — unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.”

Obama invites the people to support his decision to bomb, once again, another nation in the name of “national security,” perhaps the two most dangerous words in any official vocabulary and an expression that no journalist should fail to put between quotation marks, since almost every abuse of power – domestic and international – has been justified by it. Not just wars but also political persecution, and today the massive espionage of world population by Washington and other governments.

Obama also asserts that this is necessary to defend the noblest principles of humanity. For now, the American people have rejected that invitation from their president and the polls demonstrate that, by a wide margin, the public not only disapproves of a military attack but also is convinced that that will only worsen the international situation.

But the popular will in this “democracy” almost never has been a determining factor in the policies of the political and economic apex in this country. In fact, what the public expresses is frequently the opposite of what that apex proposes and does. Frequently, when the opposition becomes too active, that activism is perceived as a threat to the “interests” of the nation.

Noam Chomsky has repeatedly said that, in the long run, in what is called a democracy, what this government fears the most is its own people. And the recent disclosures of U.S. war crimes, diplomatic deception and the fact that Americans are the most spied-upon people in the world prove Chomsky right.

And those who dared to leak all this to the public are accused by the authorities of “aiding the enemy” and being “spies.”

The United States has always been a war-bent country. The number of actions, invasions and military interventions rises to several hundred, way more than any other country, perhaps in history. Some historian will have to make an exact count.

In fact, an updated list has just been published, showing how U.S. armed forces were used abroad between 1798 and 2013. The list was made by the Congressional Investigations Service, a nonpartisan official agency.

Only in 11 out of hundreds of actions by its military forces, the United States has formally declared war to another country. One of them is the war against Mexico, declared in 1846, and the last one was during World War Two. All the others, including Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, were undeclared wars.

The report shows that in most cases “the status of the action, in accordance with domestic or international laws, has not been broached.” Just in 2013, the list includes military action in at least 13 countries.

The list does not include covert actions or interventions. For example, no mention is made of the coup d’état against the Arbenz government in Guatemala, or against the democratic government in Iran, or the support for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, or the coup d’état against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, an “example” that marks its 40th anniversary this week.

To observe all this, this announcement of deaths foretold, forces every journalist who has reported about the United States to feel a macabre sensation of déja vu, of something already seen. It is to stand once more on the brink of a horror designed and manufactured in Washington and aimed at others far away. It is to be forced to report that the list of “examples” of military force needs to be updated.

Let us hope that this time the American people will insist: “Not on our behalf.”

(From the Mexican daily La Jornada)