Talk delivered by William Blum
          October 28, 2005, at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada

       War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?

     I'd like to begin with a question, an odd question. What does American foreign policy have in common with Mae West?
     For those of you who don't know who Mae West was, she was a Hollywood sexpot about 50 years ago. There's the story told about her showing off her luxurious home in Hollywood to a visitor, and the visitor exclaims "My goodness, what a gorgeous home you have." And Mae West replies: "Goodness has nothing to do with it."
     And that's what I try to make people understand about US foreign policy. Goodness has nothing to do with it. It's the greatest myth concerning that policy, the myth that most often makes it very difficult for people like myself to get others to accept the ideas that we put forth.
     This myth is the deeply-held belief that no matter what the US does abroad, no matter how bad it may look, no matter what horror may result, the United States means well. American leaders may make mistakes, they may blunder, they may lie, they may even on the odd occasion cause more harm than good, but they do mean well. Their intentions are always noble. Of that Americans are certain. Even many people in the anti-war movement have a hard time shaking off this belief.
     If I were to write a book called The American Empire for Dummies, page one would say: Don't ever look for the moral factor. US foreign policy has no moral factor built into its DNA. Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes they feed us, your government and mine.
     It's not easy for most Americans to take what I say at face value. It's not easy for them to swallow my message. They see their leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be moral monsters?
     They have names like George and Dick and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they all speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah sometimes cut off an arm or a leg as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. Americans are too civilized for that. But people named George and Dick and Donald go around the world dropping cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child comes by, picks one up or steps on one of them, and loses an arm or a leg, or both arms or both legs, and sometimes their eyesight. And the cluster bombs which actually explode do their own kind of bloody horror.
     And the noble American leaders use another weapon even worse -- depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by a mad scientist, which poisons the air, the soil, the blood, and the genes, and produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
     The use of these weapons are but two reasons American foreign policy is so hated around the world. Notice I said American foreign policy, not America.
     It's not our music or our films or our clothing styles that create anti-American terrorists.
     It's not or our wealth or our secular government or our so-called democracy that creates insurgents in Iraq.
     It's what we DO to people all over the world -- all the bombings, the invasions, the occupations, the torture, the breaking down of doors, the humiliation ... How can it be otherwise? Why wouldn't people hate the US government for such things? If some foreign power bombed, invaded and occupied the United States without any valid provocation or legal justification, what would Americans think of that foreign power? Wouldn't they want to resist in any way they could?
     The hatred is also of course fed by the unlimited support of Israel.
     Unless radical changes are made in US foreign policy, the War on Terror is as doomed to failure as the war on drugs has been.
     Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed and invaded with seemingly no concern in Washington that this could well create many new anti-American terrorists. Yet, since the first bombs fell on Afghanistan in October 2001 there have been scores of terrorist attacks against American institutions in the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific -- military, civilian, Christian, and other targets associated with the United States, including two very major attacks in Indonesia with large loss of life.
     There is a wealth of testimony from terrorists themselves making it abundantly clear that they were motivated by a desire for revenge against the United States for acts carried out against Muslim populations over many years.
     But we don't need the testimony of terrorists to know this. Here's a Department of Defense study in 1997 which concluded: "Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."
     And here's former president Jimmy Carter in a New York Times interview: "We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages and that is what has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks."
     I don't think, by the way, that poverty plays much of a role in creating terrorists. We shouldn't confuse terrorism with revolution.
    Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been more terrorist attacks around the world than any year in the 20 or so years the State Department has been keeping a count. And of those that were not directly aimed at the US, most were indirectly so aimed, like the many attacks in Pakistan because of that government's support of Washington's war on terrorism.
     So, by what measure can it be said that the war on terrorism is a success? Only that it's been a great success in creating thousands of new and potential anti-American terrorists all over the middle east and south Asia and elsewhere, something which was widely predicted before the war began, and which the head of the CIA recently confirmed has indeed taken place.
     If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.
     That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

And don't think for a moment that American leaders are morally repulsed by the very idea of terrorism. They've been supporting terrorists and giving them haven for many years. A year ago, Panama pardoned and released four anti-Castro Cuban terrorists who had come to Panama to assassinate Fidel Castro when he was speaking before a crowd of students. If their bombs had gone off there's no telling how many of the students would have lost their lives in addition to Castro. These four men have on their record such charming activities as blowing up a plane, which killed 73 people; political assassinations, including one in the heart of Washington, DC; shooting a UN diplomat dead in NY in front of his 12-year-old son; exploding bombs in Havana hotels, and much more. They were pardoned by the Panamanian president who was a close ally of George W. It's safe to say that Washington influenced her to do it. When these four super-terrorists were released there was not a word of condemnation from the American government. Imagine if the four men had been Muslims. Three of them are now living safely in the United States. The fourth one, Luis Posada, is being held on an immigration charge and the US refuses to turn him over to Venezuela, where he's wanted in connection to the plane explosion, which was set up in that country. Posada is a Venezuelan citizen.
     And there are many, many other anti-Castro terrorists, guilty of similar crimes, living in Florida, protected by the US government for decades. As well as numerous other friendly terrorists, torturers and human rights violators from Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, Chile and elsewhere, all welcomed to America's shores because they're all allies of the Empire.

A lot has been reported about the many lies told to us by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others, but not much at all, and not for a long time, about the biggest lie of all, the one which most people still believe, including many opposed to the war, that if in fact Iraq had actually possessed all those terrible weapons that would have been enough cause for the US to invade them because Iraq was a serious threat to use those weapons against the United States.
     But think about that, what possible reason could Saddam Hussein have had for attacking the US other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide? Oh, people argue, he's so crazy who knows what he might have done? But when it became obvious in late 2002 that the US was intent upon invading Iraq, Saddam opened up the country to the UN weapons inspectors much more than ever before, with almost full cooperation. This was not the behavior of a crazy person; this was the behavior of a survivalist. He didn't even use those weapons when he was invaded in 1991 when he certainly had some of them. Moreover, we now know that Iraq had put out peace feelers in early 2003 hoping to prevent the war; they were not crazy at all.
     No, the United States didn't invade Iraq because of any threat or fear of attack. American leaders, whom I like to call the imperial mafia, had other things in mind. For example:
     Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East, as they've been doing with Iran and Syria.
     Then we have the care and feeding of American corporations: The plan was that once security had been established, the corporations would march into Iraq, privatize everything in sight at bargain prices, and make a fortune. Well, security hasn't quite been established of course, but don't cry for Haliburton or Bechtel. They're done just fine in Iraq as have many other American corporations.
    Then there's oil of course. We all know about the looming scarcity of oil. Where will the new oil be found? More and more of it is located beneath permafrost or deep undersea, exceedingly expensive to get to. Most of the cheap oil has already been found and produced and consumed. The so-called low-hanging fruit has already been largely picked. But Iraq is overflowing with low-hanging fruit, with no permafrost, no deep water. Just giant pools of oil, right beneath the warm ground. How could the American oil barons and their comrades like Bush and Cheney resist being in full control of such a place?
    And oil as a fuel is only part of its importance; there's also oil as a political weapon, keeping in mind how dependent Europe and Japan are on oil imports.
    Another reason for the occupation: After the invasion, the US cancelled Iraq's decision to replace the dollar with the euro as its official oil currency; this was a very serious economic threat to the United States. Saudi Arabia had been thinking of doing the same, but that's very unlikely now.
    Finally we have Israel. The men behind the rush to war included several long-time militant supporters of Israel in the Pentagon, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, had advocated attacking Iraq for years. Israel has regarded Iraq and Iran as their chief foes in the middle east. And if and when things settle down in Iraq, attempts may be made to rejuvenate an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline.
    So there you have several reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, nothing to do with freedom or democracy or any concern for the happiness of the Iraqi people. How can we equate a concern for a people's happiness or welfare with repeated bombing of them, smashing down their doors, kidnaping or killing the men, humiliating the women, traumatizing the children, stealing money from their homes, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, phosphorous bombs, napalm, torture, rape? It's not a pretty picture. Can one seriously believe that the United States means well for the people of Iraq?
     So why is the Bushgang so intent on encouraging democracy all over the world? Should that not be supported? Well, it depends on what you mean by democracy, or what the imperial mafia means by it. I think that what Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al look for in a "democratic" country, is that the government is corporate-friendly, that the society has the legal and financial institutions in place so that it's appealing to foreign investors, that it will play ball with the World Trade Organization, the IMF, and the rest of the international financial extortionists, and most important, that it is a capitalist system, none of this socialist crap. That's what they mean by democracy. They certainly don't have in mind any kind of economic democracy, the closing of the gap between the desperate poor and those for whom too much is not enough.
     And a word about the much-publicized election in Iraq in January and the referendum on the constitution two weeks ago. Imagine if during the Cold War, Hungary, for example, had held an "election" under Soviet occupation. The Western media would have had a field day poking fun at this farce.
     Here's my glorious leader, George, speaking in March about the upcoming election in Lebanon:
     "All Syrian military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before the Lebanese elections for those elections to be free and fair."
     The constitutional referendum will do nothing to empower the Iraqis to relieve their daily misery. It served only a public relations function for the United States; the votes, it should be noted, were counted on an American military base; and on the day of the referendum, American warplanes and helicopter gunships were busy killing some 70 people around the city of Ramadi.

Let me take you back a bit now. If you think what you have now is government lying and deceit, let me tell you that in my day, during the cold war, the big lie, the big huge lie they drummed into our heads from childhood on was that there was something out there called The International Communist Conspiracy, headquarters in Moscow, and active in every country of the world, looking to subvert everything that was decent and holy, looking to enslave us all. That's what they taught us, in our schools, our churches, on radio, TV, newspapers, in our comic books -- The Communist Menace, the red menace, more dangerous than Osama bin Laden is presented to us today.
     It was international, you couldn't escape it. And almost every American believed this message unquestioningly. I was a good, loyal anti-communist until I was past the age of 30. In fact, in the 1960s I was working at the State Department planning on becoming a foreign service officer so I could join the battle against communism, until a thing called Vietnam came along and changed my mind, and my life.
     It was all a con game. There was never any such animal as The International Communist Conspiracy. What there was, was people all over the Third World fighting for economic and political changes that didn't coincide with the needs of the American power elite, and so the US moved to crush those governments and those movements, even though the Soviet Union was playing hardly any role at all in those scenarios.
     Remember: The cold war ended in 1991 ... the International Communist Conspiracy was no more ... no more red threat ... and nothing changed in American foreign policy. Since that time the US has been intervening, bombing, and overthrowing governments just as often as during the cold war. What does that tell you? It tells me that the so-called "communist threat" was just a ploy, an excuse for American imperialism.
     During the cold war, Washington officials of course couldn't say that they were intervening to block social change, so they called it fighting communism, fighting a communist conspiracy, and of course fighting for freedom and democracy. Just like now the White House can't say that it invaded Iraq to expand the empire, or for the oil, or for the corporations, so it says it's fighting terrorism.
     During the cold war, the word "communist" was used exceptionally loosely, just as the word "terrorist" is used these days; or "al Qaeda" -- almost every individual or group that Washington wants to stigmatize is charged with being a member of al Qaeda, as if there's a precise and meaningful distinction between people retaliating against American imperialism while being a member of al Qaeda and retaliating against American imperialism while NOT being a member of al Qaeda; as if al Qaeda gives out membership cards to fit into your wallet, as if there are chapters of al Qaeda that put out a weekly newsletter, and hold a potluck on the first Monday of each month. It's just more word games to dazzle you and throw you off the scent.  
     And the scent leads to the American Empire. Keep this in mind:
     Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
     Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
     Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
     Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
     This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
     And that's the way the empire grows -- a base in every region, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Sixty years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty-two years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.

Sometimes, when I have a discussion with a person who supports the war in Iraq, and the person has no other argument left to defend US policy there, at least at the moment, he may say something like: Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?
     And I say "No".
    And he says "No?"
    And I say: Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone asked you afterward: Well, aren't you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? Of course you wouldn't be glad. The cost to you would not be worth it. It's the same with the Iraqi people, the cost of the daily horror of the past 2 ½ years has been a terrible price to pay for the removal of Hussein, whom many Iraqis actually supported anyhow. In general, the great majority of Iraqis had a better life under Saddam Hussein than they've had under American occupation. They had jobs and food and health care and education, and houses and schools and mosques that were not bombed into rubble; they had a secular government, and women had all kinds of rights. As to freedom, remember that the American occupation has closed down media they didn't like, they've killed journalists they didn't like, they've shot protestors dead several times, they torture on a regular basis, they use members of Saddam's feared security service to carry out some of these things, and the people of Iraq are not at all secure in their homes from American soldiers blasting their way in. So what kind of freedom have they gained?
     The trial of Saddam Hussein began last week and the charge against him is the murder of some people in 1982 in retaliation for an assassination attempt on his life. That appears to be the only crime he's being tried for. Yet for a few years now we've been hearing about how Saddam used poison gas against his own people. The White House never tires of repeating that line. You would think that would be the charge used in the court, wouldn't you? Well, I can think of two reasons why the US would be reluctant to bring that matter to court. One, the evidence for the crime has always been rather questionable; at one time an office of the Pentagon issued a report suggesting that it was Iran which used the poison gas in this instance. And two, the United States provided Saddam with lots of materials to help Iraq achieve their chemical and biological weapons capability; it would be kind of embarrassing if Saddam's defense made mention of this in the court.

Those of us who call for the pullout of American forces from Iraq are usually met with some variation on the theme of "But we can't just leave!" Or "How can we just leave?" Which is exactly what protesters were asked repeatedly during the Vietnam War, and to which we replied: "Well, you put some of the troops on ships and sail away, others you put into planes and fly away. What could be simpler?" ... We said this for more than five years until the American forces finally did leave, under terms no better than they could have gotten five years earlier; and in those five years, there were hundreds of thousands of deaths, American and Vietnamese, and five further years of devastation of that poor land.
     The daily suffering and the horror of the Iraqi people will not begin to end -- will not have a chance to begin to end -- until the American occupation ends. Those who warn of a civil war in Iraq if the US pulls out are reminiscent of those who warned of a communist bloodbath in Vietnam if American forces left. This warning was repeated again and again. However, there was never any kind of bloodbath. All that happened was that some of the collaborators with Vietnam's enemies were sent to what were called "re-education" camps, a lot more civilized policy than in post-World War Two Europe where many of those who had collaborated with the Germans were publicly paraded, shaven bald, humiliated in other ways, and/or hung by their neck.

Believe it or not, I do find things to be encouraged about. For one, the American people today are seeing through the lies much more; skepticism and cynicism -- good ol' healthy cynicism -- is very widespread, even in the media. Reporters at White House press conferences ask much tougher questions than I've ever heard them ask. And if they get a bullshit answer they often persist in their questioning. Some of them simply don't like being lied to so often and so shamelessly. It's about time.
     And what happened in New Orleans has increased the cynicism about the government's words and actions.
     And of course there's the worldwide anti-war movement, the anti-globalization movement, the peace and justice movement, and the World Social Forums, a lot to be optimistic about insofar as raising people's consciousness. Various polls in the US are also encouraging, and all kinds of prominent conservatives are heavily criticizing US policy in Iraq.
     Whether all this will put a brake on the empire remains to be seen. But it's not like the 1960s where once the war in Vietnam ended, protestors figured their job was done and went back to the pursuit of careers and money; the activists today have a higher political consciousness and are not going to go away so easily even when the US leaves Iraq.
     I urge all of you, if you haven't already done so, to become active in one of these movements. It's vital. It's easy. And it can be fun, except when a cop is massaging your head with his club.

I'd like to close now with the two laws of politics which came out of the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, which I like to cite.
     The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."
     The Second Watergate Law states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."
     Both laws are still on the books.
     I thank you.

Written by William Blum, author of:
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of these books can be read at: www.killinghope.org

return to homepage