From: Harel Barzilai 
Subject: Have we learned _NOTHING_??

I just wrote this essay...
Do you CARE about America? Title: "Have we learned NOTHING??"
Or: The real "Which side are YOU on?" question...

= = = 

HAVE WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, learned ANYTHING from
the past, as we deal with the horrible terrorist attack?
It is pretty clear that our "leaders" have not.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack, they have called for a
"review" of the US policy against dealing with "unsavory elements",
meaning, nasty individuals and countries. They already break our
"policy" but they want to do MORE of that, and to do so openly.

Hmmmm... Gosh... Let's think a moment about this...

Who is the main suspect? Bin Laden...  and the Afghans harboring
him. Where did THEY come from? Well, were given tons
of money and support by the CIA who used OUR tax-dollars
to help create the monstrous regime now ruling Afghanistan.

In other words, it couldn't be more blatant, or any more striking, in
the wake of this terrorist attack, that this mess is due to us having
worked WITH unsavory elements (indeed, helping to create them; without
a huge flow of our tax dollars thanks to the CIA, they might not have
ever amounted to anywhere near their present power).

So how much more obvious can it get..? How much more absurd
can our "leaders" call for INCREASING this type of work
with "unsavory elements" be (which they wanted the power to do
with our tax-dollars before the terrorist attack, but
now hope to get us whipped up into a frenzy so we support that..)

If the terrorist attacks shows anything it shows how
urgently we must put an end for once and for all
to ANY assistance to any unsavory elements.

It's hard to imagine a case where what our "leaders"
advocate is more diametrically opposite from what
the events really recommend we do, and from what is in 
America's interest. Is there any shred of 
credibility that the Republican-Democratic
mainstream has left at this point?

More to the point, could it be that the instincts of these same
"leaders" to engage in a violent militaristic response, is just as
diametrically opposite from what should be done? Could it be that the
instincts of our "leaders" (and what they wanted to do all along; as a
Pakistani high official revealed to the BBC that Washington well
before the terrorist WTC attack said they were ready to launch a war
on Afghanistan this fall(1)) -- could it be that these "patriotic" calls
to war are, just like the "let's do MORE business with 'unsavory
elements' in a 'response' to the terrorist attack", again the opposite
of what we should do, and the opposite of what is good for America?

But let's look at other cases and ask: "have we learned anything?"

Back in the 1980s  "we" (read: our "leaders" in Washington)
were "for" Iraq and "against" Iran. When patriotic dissidents like
myself found out about Saddam Hussein's horrible human rights record,
we asked, why is the US sending money to him? And you can imagine what
kinds of names we were called. Someone asked me, "what are you, a
friend of the Ayatollah?" As if the only two options were either, send
money and sell arms (making handsome profit) to one dictator, or else
send money and sell arms (making a handsome profit) to another
dictator. As if it is unimaginable to have a foreign policy based on
international law and morality and just not support dictators. Our
leaders weren't interested in that; the more brown-skinned kids
in the military (or even civilians) died in Iraq and Iran, the more
both sides were weakened, while we make a profit, so that was ok by
Washington.

Have we learned anything?

So for saying we should not support Saddam Hussein, I was asked if I
was a friend of the Ayatollah. But you can guess what happened years
later when the dictator Washington had supported right through 1990
stepped on the wrong toes (his being brutal was ok by Washington so
long as it wasn't our, or our friends toes) -- and the slaughter
of Iraqi civilians and defenseless conscripts running for their lives
(in that "Turkey Shoot") took place. When some of us questioned this
policy, for exactly the same reasons (law and morality and logic) as
earlier, we were asked "What are you, a friend of Saddam Hussein?"

Have we learned nothing?

So those of us who stood against sending a dime to Saddam Hussein
years and year before the Gulf war, were asked this question by people
who were jonny-come-lately to seeing Saddam's crimes. What
arrogance. Have they no shame? But I don't blame the ordinary people,
it's our leaders and media who change our ultra-narrow visual focus so
we have no memory of the past, as they change the official villain of
the year whenever it suits them. Lessons from the past? Why let those
get in the way of the Machiavellian policies Washington finds
convenient? Why let law get in the way? Why let morality? Why let
logic get in the way? 

So we supported Noriega, then we kill hundreds of Panamanians who
suffered under the dictator WE supported, in our invasion. 

Have we learned NOTHING?

So we support Saddam Hussein, then we kill outright, and then
starve, hundreds of thousands of children (in sanctions designed to do
this, as was obvious, which is why the person in charge of the
sanctions kept resigning in protest, though US media paid little
attention to this) -- the same people who suffered under Saddam.

How would we feel if some hyper-powerful nation (just imagine one much
much more power then the US) supported a dictator
in the US. It's difficult, but just as a thought experiment, try..

Imagine that dictator killing, or torturing, or raping, or
imprisoning, you or someone you know.  How would you feel about that
hyper-powerful nation? Would you be angry? Outraged? How would you
feel if, after years of supporting this dictator, this hyper-powerful
nation then decided it needed to get rid of him -- not because he was
brutal (he always was, and the hyper-powerful nation didn't let THAT
stop it from wanting to support him in the past, so long we he was a
brutal but "cooperative" dictator) but because he mis-stepped. How
would you feel as this hyper-powerful nation then proceeded in a war
or bombing or invasion to kill hundreds, or thousands or more,
American people, American civilians? What kind of arrogance would this
hyper-powerful country have to then say it had to kill all these
Americans, "in order to get rid of the dictator" which the
hyper-powerful nation supported in the first place? We would have had
a good chance to get rid of our hypothetical dictator running the US,
if the hyper-powerful nation didn't support his all these years.

What hypocrisy, what outrageous hypocrisy, for this same
hyper-powerful nation who made US suffer, so long, under this
dictator, to then inflict further deaths upon us to clean up the
operation it started. Are you beginning to see how a Panamanian might
feel about the US? Or an Iraqi?

If some hyper-powerful country did that to us for years and years, do
you think at least a few American's might not "Crack" and  go over the
edge, deciding to blow themselves up in an attack on 
this hyper-power country that's been doing this to us? Would
it be moral to carry out terrorism against this country? Of course
not!
But do any of us really doubt that sooner or later, someone WOULD
crack, and WOULD carry out such terrorism, if this was inflicted upon
us for years and year, exactly as Washington's policies has inflicted
upon other countries.

Or how about if you were an Iranian, given Washington's longstanding
and very strong support for the Shah of Iran, who had a record of
murder and torture of his own people that is ugly in it own right. Are
you beginning to see how an Iranian might have felt about the US in
1980, before it was clear that the Ayatollah was going to be very
brutal himself? Or even if they knew the Ayatollah was horrible, HE
was going to be fought against too, but the foreign super-powerful US,
that inflicted the Shah on the people of Iran, the feeling that caused
are not hard to see.

We have learned NOTHING if we haven't learned that inflicting more
misery upon desperate Third World people will do anything except create
more anti-US hatred, and will create another 10 people to replace Bin
Laden, 20 people to replace Saddam Hussein, more people ready to blow
themselves up in a grossly immoral and insane attempt to strike
against the US -- immoral and insane, yes, but entirely predictable.

Again, think of that hyper-powerful nation "X" making Americans
suffer under a dictator which X supports..then X comes in and
kills many more American to get rid of the dictator X helped
stay in power in the U.S. in the first place. Would it
be ok for us to commit terrorism again this hyper-powerful country X?
I don't believe it would, but if we can't admit that it would
be OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY that some American, indeed more than one,
would "Crack" and would do so, blowing themselves up in 
a blind amoral rage against X, then we are simply not being honest
with ourselves.

In fact an American already did strike out in blind amoral rage: Tim
McVeigh. There too, the killing of innocent people by the US
government (immoral) led to a terrorist reaction (immoral
and condemnable). But are we blind that the same thing
is true when it's not US "versus" Waco Tx but US "versus"
civilians in other countries?

When you try to suggest that our policies of (a) funding and
supporting dictators and (b) killing civilians left and right around
the world might, just MIGHT be policies, that if we change, would lead
to a world with less terrorism, our "leaders" who hide behind a cloak of
pretended patriotism try to paint you as if you are blaming the
victim. No, the victims of the terrorist attack are Americans, and I
agree with that. IT's also true that the victims of (a) and (b) are
non-American civilians.

If you think about it, the "leaders" in Washington, THEY  who
decided this policy, they don't suffer. And neither do the 
dictators they support. But BOTH the American people AND the people
in the  Third World, they suffer a lot. IT's not America versus "Them"
it is corrupt leaders HERE AND THERE who don't suffer, while ordinary
people HERE AND THERE suffer. That's the real "us versus them"

When they ask you "which side are YOU on?" don't let them fool you
with "US versus terrorists" as the two sides. There are four sides, as
just noted, but two of them (ordinary people in the US and outside the
US) have suffered long, while corrupt leaders who use our tax dollar
to fund dictators, or dictators or extremist groups, abroad,
gain. That is the real "us versus them"

As them "which side are YOU on? On the one hand, we can have another
10, 15, 20 year more of Washington (a) supporting dictators and
"unsavory groups" and then (b) killing civilians as we "mop up" after
it's not longer convenient to support the dictators we helped maintain
and then (c) more anti-US terrorism. That's ONE side. The other side is
a world where we force our leaders to stop using our tax-dollars for
(a) and (b). There will be much less dictators when we stop (a) and
much less anti-US terrorism and much less of the issue of "do we use
our military to attack?" and the vicious circle is stopped, or at
least slowed down. 

THOSE are the two sides. Ask them: "Which side are YOU on? More deaths
of American and non-American citizens as our leaders continue
Machiavellian policies supporting 'unsavory' leaders abroad? Or 
doing the right thing, not pitting one country against another, 
and holding all leaders accountable to The People?

We have learned NOTHING if we haven't learned that creating and
supporting monsters like the Talliban, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, etc,
is part of the problem, and is something WE can stop; it's something
that is EASY to do something about. No difficult military intelligence
need here, just plain and simple to STOP funding and creating
monsters, which we have done for decades. And we have learned NOTHING
if we haven't learned that inflicting even more misery upon desperate
Third World people will do anything except create more anti-US hatred,
and will create another 10 people to replace Bin Laden...etc...
again, more people ready to blow themselves up in a grossly immoral
and insane attempt to strike against the US -- immoral and insane,
yes, but entirely predictable that at least at least some people will
"crack" like that if we do this to entire countries will millions of
people

= = = = 

Can we tell the difference between the SYMPTOMS of a disease and its
CAUSES? If we treat the symptoms but not the underlying causes what
happens? The disease returns. The "disease" is not Islam or
"brown skinned people who just hate the US just for the fun of it", by
the way.

If we do not treat the underlying causes (hint: Bin Laden, Saddam,
Noriega, what did they have in common)? Then even if Bin Laden and 10
other characters go off in a spaceship of aliens tomorrow morning and
head for another galaxy, then more terrorism will happen again.

Being "tough on crime" means preventing it from happening the first
place, but our politicians don't touch that (that would require some
hard work and some careful thinking), rather, they prefer to bash
their fists on their chests at who is tougher after the fact, after
it's too late and the crime already happened. They made the same
(convenient) mistake in the case of terrorism.

The policies of today, if our "leaders" get their way, will
pave the way towards the US-taxpayer supported dictators
and "unsavory groups" of tomorrow, and the
anti-US terrorism (which doesn't affect our "leaders"
usually, but very much affects us) of the year 2004,
and the military reaction of 2005 by the US, killing
more innocent civilians in Third World countries (sometimes
including the dictators we supported and created; sometimes not; but
ALWAYS killing the civilians who suffered under those dictators we
'danced' with. "We" meaning not you or I, but our "leaders" in
Washington)

But that is not the only path. International Law, logic, learning from
history, and yes, morality can and should guide our policies. We know
from health and medicine that PREVENTION is key and that "an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure".

It's not  a question of whether
we take strong military actions that will reduce terrorism,
but kill foreigners, or act more morally, not killing foreigners, but
do little about terrorism. That's the lie our "leaders" perpetuate that
each and every historical example above disproves.

THE REAL CHOICES are between taking military actions that INCREASE
anti-US terrorism AND ALSO kill civilians in foreign nations and ALSO
break international law instead of working through the UN (does this
"lose-lose-lose scenario have any appeal to anyone outside of
Washington??) 

OR

We use prevention which does a LOT to reduce present AND future
anti-US terrorism AND avoid killing civilians AND work within the rule
of law -- by stopping support for dictators and for unsavory elements
for once and for all with a "zero tolerance" policy against the CIA or
anyone else doing this with our tax dollars, plus working to support
those who are starving in Afghanistan and who have suffered under the
Talliban, instead of us bombing them and adding punishment to
punishment to people 85% of whom are subsistence farmers (2) who
haven't even a TV or phone to even know what the World Trade Center
was, let alone supporting anti-US terror. IF we support them, when
they aren't working to just get enough food to feed themselves day to
day, you can believe they will be more than motivated to get rid of
the Talliban themselves, if only we did that and helped them , the
Afghani people, directly, instead of having spend the 1980s and beyond
sending our tax-dollars to the Talliban.

SO THE CHOICE IS NOT between killing civilians and stopping terrorism
or doing neither. IT's a choice between militarism that kills
civilians, creates more dictators and not only doesn't' stop, but
increases long-term terrorism, or doing the right thing for ourselves
and for others by supporting PEOPLE in other countries instead of
supporting the dictators and "unsavory elements" in other
countries...in one stroke, we help these people twice (first, not
supporting their dictators, second, helping them not starve, so they
have the strength to kick out their own dictators), in one stroke,
they will learn to LOVE and THANK the US, in one stroke, they will
fight against anti-US terrorism FOR US by getting rid of their own
dictators and "unsavory elements" THAT'S the real choice.

Which side are YOU on?

And will you join with other Amreicans to force our "leaders" to be on
the right side?

Harel Barzilai

If you found this essay worthwhile, please forward
it to as many friends, relatives, co-workers, community
members, or others you care about. Yes, that will take
courage, after all, what might they think about you?
Will they just read the first few lines and dismiss
you as a softie, or will they read it with an open
mind and heart? If you care about this country, please
do the courageous thing...

(1) Footnotes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

(2) http://sf.indymedia.org/display.php?id=104378

Other good sources:

www.zmag.org

and www.indymedia.org