"Nations that war upon other nations ignite angry responses from the victims of such attacks. Such reactions often take the forms we have witnessed in New York City, Iraq, and now London. Politicians and the more observant members of the media know what they do not want you to know: the way to end 'terrorist' attacks is to stop having foreign policies that make other people angry!"
Butler Shaffer on Lew Rockwell
Last week, the title of this commentary was "What's Politics Got To Do With It?". Sigh! Let me add to the quote from Mr Shaffer two quotes from the current issue of The Privateer (#530 - published on July 3). Here's the first one: "It is a constant of history that whenever a nation has engaged in external wars, internal repression has ALWAYS followed.". And here's the second one: "There is nothing more political than war - the ultimate act of politics."
All of the quotes given above state fundamental and irrefutable truths. If you want to provoke even the mildest-mannered of men into striking at you with any and all means at his disposal, strip him of his human dignity, destroy his property, or kill or maim his wife and children. Whether you do this with a missile fired from over the horizon or with your bare hands makes no difference. What has to be realised before ANY sane assessment can be made of current US, UK, and Australian foreign policy is this. What was perpetrated on innocents in London on July 7 has been perpetrated on innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan daily - FOR YEARS.
One does not need to be a "terrorism expert" to come to the conclusion that what happened in London was "inevitable". If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. This is an historical constant to which there has never been an exception, nor will there ever be one in future.
The truth of the second quote, the one about "internal repression", is best proved by a comparison between the size of today's governments (ALL of today's governments) and the size of governments a century ago, before the almost perpetual war period (which began in 1914 and has continued ever since) got started.
And in regard to the third quote, it was only hours after the smoke had cleared from the London atrocities that UK Ministers were preparing to rush through measures to arrest and detain suspects accused of acts associated with terrorism. And, of course, Mr Bush's White House spokesman lost no time in declaring that the President wanted to make sure that all appropriate agencies were responding. He wanted to make sure that appropriate agencies were acting and taking any necessary precautions.
Political? To the Nth degree! The "war against terror goes on" said Mr Bush. Waged by whom? The dead and maimed commuters in London? The dead and maimed office workers at the WTC on 9/11? And waged against whom? The dead and maimed men, women and children who litter the landscape in Iraq and Afghanistan? The half-million children and infants who literally starved to death during the Iraqi embargo in the 12 plus years between the end of Gulf War I and the beginning of Gulf War II?
One of the English translators of Karl von Clausewitz, the German writer on war of the nineteenth century, rendered his most famous aphorism as follows: "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means."
When tempers flare between private individuals, the result can be anything from a cold shoulder to an exchange of insults to a hair-pulling contest to a barroom brawl to a murder, otherwise known as an "unlawful killing".
All such incidents, whatever their intensity, affect only those involved and, in intense cases, the friends and relatives of those involved. All such incidents are frowned upon in civil society. Where property damage, injury or death is the result, they are deemed unlawful and appropriate penalties are invoked. In civil society, a knife fight with deadly intent is not regarded as a "continuation of political activity by other means". It is not regarded as "political (or civilised or acceptable) activity" at all.
Why war should be accepted as a "political" (or civilised or acceptable) activity when perpetrated by the state is one of the great mysteries of the past century. The fact that it IS so accepted by the majority of people is one of the great tragedies of the past century.
To the great credit of the Spanish people, when they were confronted with a terrorist atrocity in the form of the attack on Madrid last year, they reacted by turfing out of office the politicians whose policies had exposed them to the danger in the first place. To say that the Spanish people were "soft on terrorism", the accusation which was hurled at them from the allies embroiled in the Iraq war, is farcical. Does the term "Basque separatist" ring a bell here? The Spanish people were not "soft on terrorism", they were HARD on the politicians whose policies where putting their lives at risk.
If there is one thing which should be clear by now, it is that no government can EVER protect its citizens from "terrorism", under ANY circumstances. What should be equally clear, but is evidently not yet equally clear, is that those in government, especially those in charge of government policy, are fully aware of that fact. To them, the dead and maimed innocents on the streets of London and Madrid and New York are "collateral damage", just as are those on the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah and Kabul.
The one thing which can return the world to a state of civilization is a realisation of that second fact, combined with a determination to never again vote for, approve, or remain silent in the face of a government which proposes to wage war under the pretense of "protecting" the lives, freedom and liberty of its citizens. No war has ever or will ever be STARTED for that purpose, and in the long run, no government or nation which STARTS a war has ever "won" it.
To talk about war as being "politics by other means" is worse than a lie, it is a 180 degree perversion of the truth. It is right up there with such other "gems" of gutter propaganda as "Gold is a barbarous relic". If politics is seen (as it is) as the "art" of ruling vast numbers of people, then war is the naked essence of politics. It is what happens when glad-handing or persuasion or cajoling or intimidation or naked threats no longer work.
in a civilised society, government is the entity which uses force or the threat of force ONLY against those who trespass against the lives, liberty and freedom of the citizens of the nation it governs. In a barbaric society, government is the entity which grasps at ever greater amounts of political POWER. As such, it is the main threat to the lives, liberty and freedom of the subjects of the nation it governs. In such a society, "politics" becomes barbaric and wars proliferate.
We end the essay titled The Case For Gold on this website with this statement: "...because the money you use is totally controlled by your government, dear reader, so are you. That is the case for Gold as money.". Ask yourself why the half century during which Gold was advancing to become the world's money - the period between 1865 and 1914 - was the most peaceful era in history. Examine the period since 1914, a near century of perpetual war, the era of Gold as the "barbarous relic".
The degree of a government's power is inversely proportional to the economic well being of the people. The degree to which a government decides to wield that power is inversely proportional to the physical safety of the people. The actions of the US government, and those of its allies, have indicated that those in charge see no limits on either. This is especially the case after all three "Administrations", those of the US, Australia and the UK, were re-elected.
Slowly but surely, more and more people inside those nations are waking up. With each atrocity perpetrated by BOTH sides of the "war on terror", the revulsion is growing and more and more want to return to a civilised society.
It won't be easy. The knowledge of what a civilised society IS has been twisted into its antithesis. Freedom loving nations do NOT START wars. Governments who profess to be "serving" the people do NOT work night and day to preserve and enhance their POWER over those same people. And governments who profess concern for the "innocent victims" of their enemies do NOT unleash the full might of their military in actions which are guaranteed to create an unending and ever-increasing supply of those enemies. It's really very simple.