Zbigniew Brzezinski: Debunking The Culture Of Fear

We are beginning to see the first signs of reason returning to the American political discourse in the post-9/11 era. Leading the fight for reason over fear is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Today in the Washington Post, Mr. Brzezinski delivered a message that deserves the attention of all thinking Americans.

In an op-ed entitled "Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’: How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America", Mr. Brzezinski writes:

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

To justify the "war on terror," the administration has lately crafted a false historical narrative that could even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By claiming that its war is similar to earlier U.S. struggles against Nazism and then Stalinism (while ignoring the fact that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were first-rate military powers, a status al-Qaeda neither has nor can achieve), the administration could be preparing the case for war with Iran. Such war would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.

He goes on to argue that the cottage industry that has grown around the "war on terror" benefits economically from sustaining this culture of fear and paranoia. In doing so, the political and economic beneficiaries undermine US national security. It is a powerful argument that benefits from also being true.

Mr. Brzezinski drives home what many of us have been trying to articulate for a long time now. He does it with the clarity that comes from his many years of national security experience.

He concludes his tour de force with the following call to action:

The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism." Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

Where indeed is such a U.S. leader? I do not yet recognize one amongst the Democratic presidential frontrunners. Let this clarion call bring forth some sanity in our leadership. Let it bring forth some courage. The American people demand and deserve both.

 

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Politics, Terrorism. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Zbigniew Brzezinski: Debunking The Culture Of Fear

  1. Rivkeleh says:

    Nice find, my friend.

  2. Robbie says:

    I’m still scratching my head over finding a Dem leader who would lead the charge. Unfortunately, the only person I can think of who has the courage to speak out would be Barbara Boxer.

  3. Ingrid says:

    Robbie, that is actually funny!
    On another note, take it for what it’s worth. Since I moved to the US in 1997, I think there already was an underlying culture of fear in this country. Just look at the many films and tv shows, always fighting some sort of enemy. The humour is usually one that up yours the other guy, an underlying antagonism and bravura. What Brzezinski wrote is undoubtedly true, but I have to be honest and say that it does not take much to ignite or better put, did not take much to heighten the fear that is/was already there.
    As a country that is seperated physically from most of the world and has not had to contend with the establishment of country and culture and true defense of one’s home like a lot of places in Europe and Asia, people here will always be reactionary rather than pro-active or visionary. And with this big tv culture, and not much of a unified cultural attitude (for example, the british humour, the scottish and dutch thriftiness, the ‘been there done that’ when it comes to wars and being invaded etc), tv is very influential. Knowledge and experience, the lack thereof, makes Americans prime for any political manipulation.
    And have I mentioned the media monopoly? Ratings will have tv icons go for the most low common denominator and wise and astute observations serve only as a counter culture (e.g. Olberman, the Daily Show), rather than the norm.
    It is a good post Mash, but like I said, I cannot totally blame the Bushites of making use of what was and is already there.
    And yes!! (before I get flogged).. Americans are generous, and do have ‘good traits’.. I am merely commenting on this post at hand..
    :d
    Ingrid

  4. Group Captain Mandrake says:

    ZB da man!

Comments are closed.