Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. ... And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man' -- with his mouth. -- Mark Twain, The Damned Human Race
As President Barack Obama consoled the nation Wednesday with talk of "rain puddles in heaven," his agents were murdering four more people
in his illegal war in Pakistan. The incongruity was excruciating; you
could almost feel your neck snapping from the moral whiplash induced by
the contrast between word and deed.
But of course this contrast
remained totally obscured. Instead, the media was saturated with
bipartisan praise for Obama's heavenly puddles and "transcendent"
rhetoric about "aligning our actions with our values" and measuring our
lives by "how well we have loved and what small part we have played in
making the lives of others better." Naturally, in the midst of so much
self-congratulatory afflatus, there was not much room for a short story
from the Associated Press noting that Wednesday saw yet another attack
by American drone missiles on a remote village in Pakistan.
Yet even this report was itself drenched in the mindset of righteous
murder that lurked behind the treacly tropes that Obama was delivering
to a rapturous crowd. You can see it in the language of the very first
paragraph:
"Suspected U.S. unmanned aircraft fired four missiles at a house in a militant-infested area of northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing at least four people, Pakistani intelligence officials said."
An "infested" area -- the language used for vermin, for insects,
for filthy creatures fit only for extermination. These insects are what
is being killed in the wilds of Pakistan: not human beings, not sons and
daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters. Just strange,
worthless little creepy-crawlies called "militants." And if you think
this is too extreme an extrapolation, not truly representative of the
imperial mindset, recall the words of Admiral William Fallon.
Surely
you remember the good Admiral -- former head of U.S. Central Command,
the military cockpit of the Terror War. For a brief moment back in 2008,
this imperial proconsul was the darling of the progressosphere. Why?
Because in a fawning article in Esquire, he made a few noises indicating his lack of enthusiasm for an immediate extension of the
Terror War into Iran. Yet even this tepid demurral (which he quickly and
cravenly denied making) was couched in the exterminationist language
that now imbues both the civilian and military wings of the imperial
establishment. As I noted at the time:
Fallon himself has long denied the hearsay evidence that he had declared, upon taking over Central Command, that a war on Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch." And in fact, the article itself depicts Fallon's true attitude toward the idea of an attack on Iran right up front, in his own words. After noting Fallon's concerns about focusing too much on Iran to the exclusion of the other "pots boiling over" in the region, [author Thomas Barnett] presses the point and asks: And if it comes to war? Fallon replies with stark, brutal clarity:"'Get serious,' the admiral says. 'These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.'"
The article makes clear that Fallon's main concerns about a war with Iran are, as noted, about tactics and timing: Sure, when the time comes " no shuffling on that point " we'll crush these subhumans like the insects they are; but we've already got a lot on our plate at the moment, so why not hold off as long as we can? After all, Fallon is conducting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as overseeing an on-going "regime change" operation in Somalia, where the United States has been aiding Ethiopian invaders with bombing raids, death squads, renditions and missile strikes against Somali civilians " such as the one this week that killed three women and three children.
The AP reporter has duly absorbed the trickle-down depravity that
seeps from the top of the American establishment. He has also absorbed
the by-now reflexive -- and absolutely de rigueur -- genuflection to
authority displayed by every "serious" journalist. The article is based
entirely on quotes from anonymous "officials"; there is not a single
voice to offer even the slightest deviation from the Terror War
narrative.
So what are we told? That four "militants" were
killed. Well, surely they had it coming, right, if they were militants?
"Militant" means "insurgent" which means "terrorist" which means "big
swarthy devil-worshipper coming to shtup your woman and eat your
babies." We know what to do with these insects: you crush them.
But who said
they were "militants"? Well, unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials,
as indicated at the very beginning of the story. But just three
paragraphs later, these same anonymous officials admit that "the
identities and nationalities of those killed in Wednesday's strike were
unknown."
In other words, the "officials" didn't know who was killed.
They didn't know their names. They didn't know their affiliations,
their activities, their beliefs, their intentions. They didn't know who
they were. They didn't know where they were from. They didn't know
anything about them. Yet we are told confidently, without contradiction
or the slightest doubt, that they were "militants."
But the story
is not finished with its imperial water-carrying yet; not by a long
shot. We are then given this bit of savvy insiderdom:
The U.S. refuses to acknowledge the drone strikes publicly, but officials have said privately that they have killed several senior Taliban and al-Qaida leaders.
Yes, unnamed American officials have said "privately" -- to every dutiful, genuflecting media outlet in the Western world -- that the drone attacks have "killed several senior Taliban and al-Qaida leaders." That's what they say -- so that is all that the story says. There is not one word about the many studies and reports by international observers, top American officials and independent organizations in Pakistan about the vast number of civilians who have been killed in Obama's drone war. As Tariq Ali notes in his latest piece about Pakistan's current death spiral into extremism and chaos:
Can it get worse? Yes. And on every front. Take the Af-Pak war. Few now would dispute that its escalation has further destabilised Pakistan, increasing the flow of recruits to suicide bomber command. The CIA's New Year message to Pakistan consisted of three drone attacks in North Waziristan, killing 19 people. There were 116 drone strikes in 2010, double the number ordered in the first year of the Obama presidency. Serious Pakistani newspapers, Dawn and the News, claim that 98 per cent of those killed in the strikes over the last five years " the number of deaths is estimated to be between two and three thousand " were civilians, a percentage endorsed by David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General Petraeus. The Brookings Institution gives a grim ratio of one militant killed for every ten civilians. The drones are operated by the CIA, which isn't subject to military rules of engagement, with the result that drones are often used for revenge attacks, notably after the sensational Khost bombing of a CIA post in December 2009.
That's right: even a "senior adviser" to the sainted General David Petraeus admits that 98 percent of
the people being killed by Obama's drones are civilians. Two to three
thousand innocent people murdered -- in cold blood, in an instant,
without warning, without any defense, not shriving time allowed, sent
down into death and darkness at the order of the man evoking those "rain
puddles in heaven" as he exhorts us to "be worthy" of those killed in
wanton violence.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
