When is a war not a war? According to John Kerry, launching cruise missiles at Syria is not a war. Testifying before the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry said, “President Obama is not asking America to go to war.”
Kerry’s argument seems to hinge on the idea that no American ground troops will likely be deployed. Of the proposed strikes, Kerry said, “I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way.” Perhaps no Americans will be put in harm’s way, although claims of possible Iranian plans for retaliation cast doubt on that hope. But regardless, innocent Syrians will still be killed by American missiles. People’s homes and possessions will still be destroyed. Mass aggressive violence will still be waged by the US government in a foreign land. That’s a war.
And while Kerry is not currently proposing sending ground troops to Syria, he acknowledges that it’s a possibility. Kerry also told the Senate: “But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”
But to be clear, Secretary Kerry and President Obama are not proposing a war. Yes, they will use cruise missiles to slaughter Syrians, and if they don’t like the Syrian government’s response they may even send ground troops. War profiteers like Raytheon will certainly profit. But the Secretary of State will insist it’s not a war.
So, why the Orwellian “War is Peace” attitude here? Partially because Kerry recognizes this war is not popular with the American public. Polls show substantial public opposition. When explaining that he would not consider American attacks on Syria a war, Kerry went a step further and said “when people are asked, do you want to go to war with Syria, of course not! Everybody, a hundred percent of Americans will say no.” When most Americans oppose war, the best solution apparently is to change the name to something else.
But this attitude makes sense for another reason: The state wants to conceal the truth about its wars. This is why it employs so many Newspeak terms when discussing war. Murdering civilians becomes “collateral damage.” Any military age male killed by an American drone strike is automatically labeled a “militant.” And a war against Syria becomes not war but “an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly hundred-year- old prohibition.”
The U.S. government doesn’t want you to know the truth about their wars. This is why Chelsea Manning is in prison for blowing the whistle on war crimes, including an attack in which “U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence.” It’s why the military denied for years that they used white phosphorus, a chemical weapon, in Fallujah.
This rampant dishonesty is precisely why we should never trust them when they want to go to war. Especially when they refuse to call war by its name.
Translations for this article:
Citations to this article:
- Nathan Goodman, John Kerry y el lenguaje orwelliano de la guerra, Rebelion [Spain], 09/10/13
- Nathan Goodman, John Kerry and the Orwellian Language of War, Cayman Islands Net News, 09/12/13
- Nathan Goodman, John Kerry and the Orwellian Language of War, Counterpunch, 09/10/13
- Nathan Goodman, John Kerry and the Orwellian Language of War, Antiwar.com, 09/06/13
If someone shot missiles at us, it would be considered an act of war.
yes, it's the oft-encountered double standard called "American foreign policy".
This is hardly the first Secretary of State to lie in support of a counter-productive war.
For all the difference he has made, BHO could be the chosen successor to GWB.
It isn't as if any rational person still believes the USA is a free country. Think about it. No-warrant wire taps, indefinite detention of citizens without charges, approval of rendition of prisoners and torture, stop and frisk without probable cause, search and seizure without a warrant, no-knock entry, confiscation and destruction of cameras that might have been used to film police acting illegally, police brutality, police shootings that go without investigation, managed news, and the civil-rights destroying "Patriot" Act.
Acts of police behaving illegally, with shootings, Tasers, and unwarranted violence now appear almost daily. Rarely are these offenses punished. Most often "an investigation" is claimed, but soon forgotten.
In addition, the USA, with 5% of the world population, has 25% of all of the prisoners in the world. That means the USA has the most people in prison of any nation in history. Even by percentage of residents incarcerated, not just sheer numbers. USA is # 1! Does any of that sound like a free country?
As Dwight D. Eisenhower said about communism, "It's like slicing sausage. First they out off a small slice. That isn't worth fighting over. Then they take another small slice that isn't worth fighting over. Then another and another. Finally, all you have left is the string and that isn't worth fighting over, either.
Excellent point and completely true. You may expect a lot of flack for that. People generally hate the truth because it rarely supports their favored delusions.
This has been going around on social network sites (Facebook, etc.). Makes the point pretty well, I'd say.
My recent post 2013 MAC blogger roundtable, week 2
The same way the Department of "Defense" is all about offense.
“It’s why the military denied for years that they used white phosphorus, a chemical weapon, in Fallujah.”
How is white phosphorus a chemical weapon?
Whether white phosphorus ought to be considered a chemical weapon is somewhat controversial. However, here are several articles that present some evidence for the proposition that it is a chemical weapon:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_W… http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/… http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-an… http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/army…
Here is an article that does not argue white phosphorus is a chemical weapon, but does argue that its use as a weapon violates human rights: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/08/white-phosphor…
I hope these links help clarify why I referred to white phosphorus as a chemical weapon and why, regardless of semantics, the U.S. military's secret use of it in Fallujah should be considered an atrocity.
Thank you for your informative and timely response, Mr. Goodman. I appreciate it.
You're welcome.