Bombing A La Mode
The U.S. right to police, rule, and exterminate
by Edward S. Herman
Z magazine, December 1998
The U.S. leadership and elite are ready, willing, and often
eager to drop bombs on the lesser peoples of the world. They can
do this without fear of retaliation because of the huge military
advantage of a superpower and the subservience of the "international
community." U.S. Ieaders are also never constrained by any
sense of embarrassment or shame at using advanced weaponry against
essentially defenseless people.
Joy in Bombing
One factor explaining this readiness to bomb is the elite's
long-standing sense of racial and cultural superiority, and self-serving
assumption of the right to police, rule, and exterminate. Its
classic expression was Secretary of State Richard Olney's 1895
proclamation that "the United States is practically sovereign
on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which
it confines its interposition." But from Teddy Roosevelt
to Lyndon Johnson and his successors, Olney's arrogance is matched
by a stream of racist put-downs of the "riggers" and
"gooks" we were killing and pacifying. Throughout the
post-colonial wars of our age, the increasingly high tech, capital
intensive warfare we have employed has been openly designed to
reduce our casualties, while increasing the civilian as well as
military toll imposed on our enemies. Enemy casualties are given
zero weight in the calculus of U.S. military-political planners,
a dehumanizing process reflected in the frequency with which war
casualty enumerations entirely ignore those of the enemy.
This attitude makes bombing easy, but the key factor in stimulating
the bombing activity is no doubt the U.S. imperial role. Military
forces with global reach, as demonstrated by bombing, serve the
interests of the U. S. -based transnational corporations dominant
in the globalization process, by showing what can happen to countries
that are slow to open markets or to install friendly regimes in
power. Using boycotts and bombs to punish "rogues "
who somehow presume to control their own markets and resources
has been an integral feature of U.S. and western policy since
1917. Periodic bombing forays also help justify the large military
establishment and allow it to reduce old inventories and display
and experiment with new weapons.
A further and related factor in the readiness to bomb is that
bombing is a political winner at home, with the media always getting
on the chauvinistic l bandwagon, and the public also regularly
rallying around the flag and in support of our boys. George J
Bush's poll ratings rose as he bombed Iraq in 1991, with the reporters
and public enthralled at our new clean war.
With the right-wing and mainstream media helping demonize
anybody standing in our way, U.S. ( presidents are also regularly
under pressure to drop bombs as a display of macho "character"
and "leadership." Weak presidents are especially prone
to bomb in order to quiet their critics and protect and improve
their poll ratings. Clinton's 1993 attack on Baghdad in the wake
of an alleged Iraqi assassination plan against George Bush was
a model case of a bombing response to media/right-wing political
pressure. The rapid bombing response to the attacks on the U.S.
African embassies in August 1998 was also based heavily on the
need to do something forceful to forestall political criticism.
Of course, in the official explanations and mainstream media the
bombs are allegedly dropped only after "agonizing choices,"
but this is apologetic propaganda that glosses over the exclusively
political considerations involved in the decisions and the miniscule
weight given "collateral damage" and international law.
When the evidence assembled after the 1998 bombing of the
pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan showed that the U.S. claims
justifying the attack were false and based on incompetently gathered
and evaluated data, there was very little if any criticism in
the mainstream media. For the media, the U.S. has a right to bomb
another country if it thinks it has any kind of case-it doesn't
have to be sure of the facts, or rush to compensate the victims
of its errors, any more than it is obliged to abide by international
law.
Rules of the Bombing Game
The rules of the bombing game are simple: if you are a friend
and useful ally, you automatically possess legitimate "security
concerns" and can cross borders, kill, and ravage, free of
any bombing threat; but if you are an enemy or otherwise obstruct
the achievement of our objectives, your crossing of borders and
killing, at home or abroad, cannot be tolerated and you are bombable.
There is even an obligatory and droll tendency to exaggerate
the crimes and threats of the bombables. Thus? just months before
the U.S. attack and proxy invasion of Guatemala in June 1954,
the National Security Council described the virtually disarmed
victim country as "increasingly [an] instrument of Soviet
aggression" in Latin America, as if it rather than the U.S.
was about to engage in an armed attack. Similarly, tiny Nicaragua,
under U.S. attack in the 1980s, was alleged to be carrying out
a "revolution without frontiers," and when it pursued
U.S.-sponsored terrorists across the border into Honduras, was
declared by the U.S. government (and media) to be carrying out
an "invasion." Neither of these bombable countries was
allowed the right of self defense. The governments of both were
removed by U.S. bombs and other forms of violence, although the
Nicaraguan government's final exit was engineered by an election
held under conditions of blackmail after years of devastating
terrorist attack.
Iraq, of course, became eminently bombable after its invasion
of Kuwait in 1990. It had crossed us, and there were other important
reasons to bomb: the right-wing pundits were screaming for blood,
Bush was in political trouble, and the military establishment
needed a post-Soviet military budget rationale and had large inventories
of bombs to run down and weapons it wanted to put on display.
With the help of the media, the long appeasement and support o
f Saddam Hussein was ignored, and the many efforts to allow him
to withdraw from Kuwait with dignity were brushed aside. So bombs
away.
It is enlightening that Iraq was not bombable before the 1990
invasion of Kuwait, despite its doing some pretty awful things,
like attacking Iran and using chemical weapons against its indigenous
Kurds in 1986. As Saddam Hussein was then a U.S. friend, a recipient
of U.S. aid, and performing a desired service-killing Iranians,
when Iran was a high-ranking enemy-these matters could be overlooked
by us and by the "international community." Never let
it be said that principle and the need for policy consistency
would stand in the wary of pursuit of our short term interests.
Another notable exception to bombability occurred following
Suharto's 1975 invasion and occupation of East Timor. This involved
ethnic cleansing far beyond anything the Serbs or even Saddam
Hussein have ever perpetrated. But as our friend, with an open
door and providing an investors paradise, not only was Suharto
not bombed, he was supplied the arms to kill, diplomatic protection,
and the necessary eye aversion in the U.S. and other western media.
Turkey and Israel
In the midst of the western furor over the Serbs in Kosovo,
in October 1998 the Turkish arm - launched another pacification-drive
against the Kurds in Eastern Turkey. In 1995 the New York Times
acknowledged that the Turkish army had been "using the F-16s
and other American weapons to strafe Turkish villages...killing
thousands of civilians and leaving millions homeless" (ed.,
October 17, 1995). Turkey has also repeatedly invaded northern
Iraq in extended campaigns of pacification, not only killing alleged
Kurdish "terrorists" but with its troops "frequently
reported to murder Kurdish villagers at random, ?? engaging in
"beatings, looting and destruction of homes and property"
of the civilian population (Financial Times, August 8, 1995).
Turkey is also notorious for the institutionalized use of torture
on prisoners of all kinds.
The Turkish torture, ethnic cleansing and invasions have been
an "embarrassment" to its allies (NYT, September 7,
1992), who have urged Turkey to be nicer. Although the Turkish
attacks on the Kurds have caused far more death and destruction
than Serb repression of ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo, have
been going on for years, and have also involved repeated invasions
of another country (Iraq), there has never been any call for bombings
or even for monitoring of Turkish actions by the U.S. or international
community. In accord with the rules of the bombing game, as a
friendly power, with an open door and regularly obeying orders,
Turkey has "security concerns" that must be acknowledged,
and it is not only not bombable, it continues to receive U.S.
aid and diplomatic support. In the midst of its further assault
on the Kurds, the European Commission has proposed giving Turkey
an aid package of $182 million "to help it prepare for European
Union membership and strengthen a customs union" (Financial
Times, October 23, 1998). The Clinton administration has exerted
no pressure whatsoever on Turkey to stop killing Kurds. It goes
without saying that the mainstream U. S. media have given the
Turkish ethnic cleansing minimal attention and indignation and
have failed to note the remarkable double standard.
Israel, of course, is even more closely allied to and protected
by the U.S. than Turkey, and is freer still to engage in ethnic
cleansing and cross-border invasions and raids, without fear of
international sanction. For decades Israel has been pushing Palestinians
out of their homes in favor of Jewish settlers, and has maintained
a system of discriminatory housing and land ownership that has
been compared unfavorably to South African apartheid in the Israeli
(but not U.S.) press (see Ha'aretz, February 10, 1991). The homes
of Palestinian protectors throwing stones are regularly demolished,
but following his murder of 29 Palestinians Baruch Goldstein's
home was left intact. Torture has been used on a systematic basis
for decades, the New York Times acknowledging in passing (August
14, 1993) that 400-500 Palestinians were being so treated per
month. Well over a thousand Palestinians were killed and over
130,000 injured during the Intifada protests against discrimination,
in which Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin instructed the Israeli
army that they were free to enter Palestinian homes and beat men,
women, and children without fear of prosecution. No action against
Israel was taken by the international community in response to
this brutal repression.
The state of Israel has also repeatedly invaded Lebanon, relentlessly
bombing and killing many thousands of civilians and putting hundreds
of thousands into flight. It has for many years maintained a terrorist
army in South Lebanon to serve its pacification interests there.
And Israel has felt free to make periodic punitive raids into
Lebanon and to bomb the country at its discretion.
This ethnic cleansing within Israel, persistently violating
international law as well as UN Security Council resolutions,
and the regular invasions and cross-border attacks against Lebanon,
have never led to Israel being threatened with bombing. It has
never even been subjected to any reduction in U.S. aid or the
flow of supplies of bombs and other weapons to carry out its repression
and invasions. Although Israel has had towering military superiority
over the Palestinians and the neighbors which it has periodically
invaded, Israel's behavior is justified by its allegedly serious
"security concerns," whereas its victims have none.
Israel is also declared to be a victim of "terrorism"
and its massive ethnic cleansing and discrimination, and cross-border
attacks, are counter-terrorism and retaliation, by virtue of its
status as a U.S. client state (even if a case where the tail wags
the dog). These truths are institutionalized in the U.S. mainstream
media, so that Israel can obtain subsidies to do things that would
make an enemy power extremely bombable.
Bombable Serbia
Yugoslavia's Serbs are the latest in a long line of demonized
bombables. Its president Slobodan Milosevic is furiously denounced
by editorialists as a world class villain, and cartoonists can
portray "the Serbs" as pigs without being reprimanded
for racism. The crimes for which the Serbs must be severely chastised,
however, are frequently equaled or exceeded by that of U.S. client
states, who can remain beneficiaries of western aid even while
engaging in genocide in an invaded territory (Indonesia's Suharto
regime in East Timor). Mass murder alone is not enough to merit
demonization and bombability. Behind the carefully channeled outrage
lies the geostrategic interest of the U.S. and its leading Western
allies.
While great understanding is displayed for the "security
concerns" that drive U.S. clients to violence, instances
of violence by the bombables are attributed to a defiant and perverse
desire to "test the resolve" of Western leaders. This
unlikely motive is played up, while any genuine fears of a country
that finds itself singled out for pariah treatment are ignored.
Yugoslavia's post-World War II leader Tito may have been a
communist dictator, but his quarrel with Stalin turned him into
an ally of the West. Yugoslavia was relatively open and prosperous,
and received lavish Western credits. The resulting debt burden
was a major factor in splitting the country along economic and
ethnic lines in the 1980s. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, Yugoslavia
lost its strategic interest to the U.S. The newly reunited Germany,
along with Austria, could resume its traditional hostility to
a unified Yugoslavia, sponsoring Croatian and Albanian nationalism
against the Serbs. German clout forced rapid international acceptance
of an unnegotiated breakaway of Slovenia and Croatia, turning
the Yugoslav army into an "aggressor" on its own territory.
For the Serbs, who had seen Nazi German conquerors carve Yugoslavia
into separate pieces in 1941, it was deja vu all over again.
Under pressure from media always on the lookout for villains,
the U. S. soon got on board this destabilization bandwagon, largely
to reassert its leadership role in Europe, and also to forge new
ties with its closest Near Eastern allies (Turkey, Israel, Saudi
Arabia) by creating a new area of domination in the Balkans at
the expense of what had been a relatively autonomous and less
amenable power. Yugoslavia, after all, had been known both for
its own special brand of "self-management socialism,"
in contrast to the Soviet model, and for its international role
as co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, with close ties to
Third World countries. These were aberrations that U.S. Ieaders
were only too happy to get rid of once and for all.
As ethnic Serbs had been targeted for liquidation in the "Independent
State of Croatia" (which included Bosnia) run by the Nazi-backed
Croatian Utasha movement during World War II, German support for
the breakaway of Croatia under a nationalist leadership openly
sympathetic to the Ustasha tradition, posed a real security threat
to the large Serb population in Croatia. This could only strengthen
nationalist forces in Serbia. In various ways, Western policy
encouraged Croatian, Slovenian, and Albanian nationalist movements
to seek to exit from the Yugoslav state. By thus endorsing ethnic
identity as the basis for territorial sovereignty, the West encouraged
all factions in Yugoslavia to seek spatial domination-which entailed
pushing out members of rival ethnic groups, often by murdering
them to scare the rest. The Serbs participated aggressively in
this terrible process, but they were not alone. Leaving aside
the question of who started what and who killed and drove out
more people in the "ethnic cleansing" in Croatia and
Bosnia between 1991 and 1995, what is certain is that the U.S.
media focused on Serb crimes and played down those committed by
Croats and Muslims. There was no great display of moral indignation
in the media and from Western leaders when a quarter of a million
Serbs in Krajina were driven out of their homes by Croatian forces
in August 1995 (with substantial killing). In fact, those Croatian
forces had been (illegally) rearmed with German weapons, trained
by U.S. "retired" generals and given the green light
by the U.S. ambassador. Moreover, it was just as this was happening
that NATO designated the Serbs as their first bombable target
on the European continent since the end of the Cold War.
When trouble flared this year in the Serbian province of Kosovo,
the most difficult trouble spot in all the troubled Balkans, the
West immediately reverted to its stance in Bosnia: the Serbs are
to blame and must be bombed. Knowing this, the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA), which seeks to detach Kosovo from Serbia and form
a Greater Albania has a simple strategy. Depend on Serbian repression
to bring in NATO forces to attack the Serbs and allow the KLA
to take over.
This scenario has been obvious and predictable from the start.
For several years the KLA assassinated not only policemen and
Serbian officials, but also ethnic Albanians who opposed the violent
secessionist movement. In the summer of 1998 the Serbian security
forces finally took the bait and went into the Kosovo countryside
to root out the KLA. As usual in such cases, hapless civilians
suffered and the guerrillas simply regrouped. Untold thousands
of civilians were driven from villages believed to be sheltering
KLA fighters before security forces battered down walls and set
family compounds on fire. Between 500 and 1,000 people have been
killed in this conflict. Both sides have massacred civilians,
with the stronger Serb army very likely responsible for a disproportionate
share. But only the Serb side is threatened with any kind of NATO
action.
In this way, the U.S. propensity to bomb becomes an instrument
that can be wielded even by a relatively small armed rebellion
to break up a recognized nation. The KLA may be the first "liberation"
movement in history to consider NATO its virtual air force. This
opens up new horizons for the uses of NATO.
The Turkish armed forces have generously offered to take time
off from destroying Kurdish villages in and beyond Turkey's borders
to participate in NATO's humanitarian crusade against the Serbs
for having done roughly the same, but on a much smaller scale
and only within Serbia.
The selectivity of the West's humanitarian concern is blatant.
And in this case, Western policy has actually fanned the flames
of conflict. Whereas fair and friendly mediation is called for,
the West's bias toward one side, and contradictory signals have
made it virtually impossible for the Serbs and Albanians to work
out a solution among themselves.
The ethnic Albanians say they want to secede. The West rules
that out, as it would set a bad precedent for the Bosnian Serbs
who want to secede from Bosnia. Some Serbs suggest partitioning
Kosovo between Serbia and the Albanians. The West rules that out,
as it would set a bad precedent for Macedonia, where Albanians
would then also want to secede. The Serbs offer to negotiate without
preconditions, the Albanians refuse to sit down at the table,
and the West thereupon threatens to bomb the Serbs "to force
them to the negotiating table."
However provoked, Serbian security forces are almost surely
guilty as charged of "using excessive force." In its
righteous indignation, NATO has assembled a mighty armada of warplanes,
stealth bombers, and cruise missiles which threaten to wipe out
Yugoslavia's entire national defense capacity, including command
and control centers. This is because NATO abhors the use of "excessive
force."
Edward
Herman page