US Supports Terrorists That are Also Not Terrorists

The Bush administration is known for its two wars. There is one on a feeling - terror; and one upon a country - Iraq. In 2003, the war on terror was used to justify the war in Iraq. How ironic, then, that today the war in Iraq helps demonstrate the absurdity of the war on terror. The evidence is found in an October 23rd New York Times article entitled, "In Iraq, Conflict Simmers on a 2nd Kurdish Front." The piece discusses Kurdish insurgents from the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK, who are proudly waging a guerrilla war against Iran. The PJAK is an offshoot of the Kurdistan Worker's Party, or PKK, who instead of on Iran, proudly wage a guerrilla war against Turkey.

Now, the absurdity of the situation lies in the fact that while the US classifies the PKK a terrorist organization, it doesn't classify the PJAK as terrorists, because of the fact that it wages war on Iran. In fact, as the article notes, PJAK commanders boast of having significant contacts and consultation with American military officials. Astonishingly, the leader of the PJAK, which it should be emphasized again, is an off-shoot of a terrorist group, was actually allowed to visit Washington last summer.

The "war on terror" has been a complete political failure. It has not increased the American fan-base. It has not convinced anti-American populations to show sympathy to the US. It has, if anything, shown the complete lack of common sense in the administration. For example, recently the US labeled members of the official Iranian military a terrorist organization. The act of referring to members of a government as terrorists implies that the US believes in such a thing as State Terrorism, leading one to ask: if being a terrorist is merely a matter of someone applying a label, how is the US to resist being referred to as a state terrorists itself?

At the least, the idea that the US supports terrorists while simultaneously holding that they are not terrorists, should cause the loyalists of the so called "War on Terror" to stop, take a step back, and question the entire ephemeral project. Yet, they fail to do so; probably, because to acknowledge the contradiction would mean acknowledging the complete meaninglessness of waging wars that have no tangible definition, duration, form, and sometimes even enemy. Of course, the US wouldn't be accused of double-speak if it hadn't made a Dadaist term the linchpin of its anti-terrorist programme. If, in an act of now anachronistic American honesty, the US had simply said that terrorism is violence by those whom we disapprove of, it would actually arouse a great deal of appreciation, even from its critics.

Instead, hypocrisy on the part of the US stokes anti-Americanism across the world because explicit violations of one's own standards - like supporting terrorists when it suits us - is considered hypocritical in every country in the world. Then we ask why they hate us.

Comments

[erichwwk]

We know why they hate us.

Only a small part of America remains deluded, with support for Congress in the low teens. But as in Germany, when the "good" Germans finally realized how screwed they actually were, the opportunity to oppose what the American Nazis are doing is rather limited, as Bush crony's (Hunt Oil comes to mind) continue with their theft of US and foreign assets.

As M K Bhadrakumar writes: [ http://tinyurl.com/ystw96 ]

"The same is the case with Israel. Israeli businessmen are having a whale of a time in northern Iraq. They are there for the long haul. They have bought up much real estate in and around Suleymaniah. They are traveling in a gravy train with corrupt Kurdish local officials. They have grandiose business plans riveted around the evacuation of northern Iraq's oil and gas via Turkish pipelines. They are thick with Barzani too."

But yes, this too shall pass, much as the third Reich and USSR collapsed under the weight of corruption and delusion.

[Annoula]

THANK YOU, Ali!
Nobody could have said it better!
Since the Bush & Cheney gang took over, things are what THEY say they are, WHEREVER and WHENEVER they decide to declare them what they are. And they also reserve the right to change the standard whenever they please so that labels can shift without notice whenever it is convenient. That's what AMERICA has become, unfortunately thanks to the bunch of Neo-cons that are running the assylum.
And yes, then we wonder why they hate us...
And we also wonder why some people celebrated the attacks on 9/11/01...
Osama has fulfilled his dream. He said he was going to destroy the US and he has succeeded to a larger extent than he ever imagined...
Now, the whole planet wants to see us dragged to our knees thanks to our arrogance and hypocrisy.
The next time we'll get hit, the whole world will have a PARTY!
Mission accomplished, Osama!

[noam4prez]

"...the complete meaninglessness of waging wars that have no tangible definition, duration, form, and sometimes even enemy."

Not true. This war, as with any war is to increase the wealth/power of the already wealthy/powerful.

That's the definition and motivation.

The duration in this case: until the oil becomes uneconomical to extract.

The form: brutal occupation.

The enemy, and at the same time the most valuable resource: all of us - the exploitable who will buy the oil, fight the wars, pay the taxes.

[retarius]

I think we have MSM to thank for a lot of this stuff. The White House chooses the labels for things and give them a value; and the MSM go ahead and popularize the labels...think of the difference in value of 'mercenary' vs 'contracto­r'...merce­nary is strongly negative whereas 'contractor is 'neutral'. Think of the word 'insurgent'. Americans are notoriously ignorant...98% of the population had never heard nor used the word 'insurgent' before the WH made it the label that we use to describe Iraqis bombing each other and Americans. The term had no value since no-one knew what it was. WH usually calls people who bomb indiscriminately 'terrorists'...why didn't Rove want to use 'terrorist' for the insurgents? I don't know, but the more importnat issue is why does the MSM keep going along with these labels...'surge' instead of 'troop increase'? Think about labels like 'socialized medicine' instead of 'universal health care'; 'pro-life' vs 'anti-abortion'; or even 'compassionate conservative' vs 'stone-hearted, self-interested skinflint'.
The Palestinians have successfully been branded as a bunch of terrorists by successive governments, the Jewish lobby, and MSM. How would we feel about the conflict if the Jews were called 'baby-killers', the settlers as 'land thieves' and the Palestinians refered to as valiant victims trying to reclaim their land?

[Plowboy]

What kindf of stuff is this? A terrorist is whomsoever our dear leader says he is, and if our leader tells us another fellow doing the same thing or worse isn't a terrrorist, he isn't one. There is nothing contradictory in that. Bush speaks with God. And I suppose God tells him who is and who isn't a terrorist. Or perhaps he tells God? Who knows for sure? The ways of the Lord are hard to understand. Sometimes the ways of Bush are. (Well, OK, only if you believe. But you do believe, don't you? Otherwise, you might be a terrorist.)
But, of course, there is a future Democratic president who understands and approves of them. But don't ask her about that. She cannot give away state secrets.

As for torture, it's like this: if we do it, it ain't torture even if it might look like it and even feel like it to the fellow it is being done to. We don't torture.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think it'd probably be better for all concerned if we stopped wasting tax revenue
on trying to help other countries fix their
problems anymore. 9 trillion in the red,
and climbing, a runaway open tab for 'defense',
financial and lending institutions on a
credit binge high that they're starting
to come down from in a big crash, and in
between all of that, you've got people
from other nations trying to come and lobby
their cause in front of our Congress and
to the american people to get more money
to buy more guns to perpetrate more crap and
THEN, and THEN, have the gall to come back
and blame OUR country for it. I say 'stop
handing out the money', and let's do some
honest work on our own borders...and
have everybody else stop, yes, STOP, and
actually sit down and read about the history
and the purpose of the United Nations, and
how it can properly be employed to assist
in resolving international disputes, help
bring warring parties to the negotiation
table etc. That's what it's for, if it's
not being used, then maybe we can at least
stop paying for that too...

[LarryMcD]

I've wondered for a year or so why, if the presence of Iranian arms in the hands of Iraqi terrorists killing Americans makes the Iranian El Kud a terrorist sponsoring organization, the presence of American arms in the hands of Kurdish terrorists killing Turks doesn't make the U.S. Army a terrorist sponsoring organization?

Your post certainly helps clear that up. I just wish the idea of the United States as a terrorist sponsoring organization didn't make most Americans' eyes glaze over and foam come out of their mouths.

[RumiSouth]

here's what most people don't get: In Bush country, every day is Opposites Day. America "does not torture," it "renditions" to countries that DO torture. And torture is not torture.

Further examples abound. "No Child Left Behind" leaves all American children behind equally. Failure is "success." And so on.

http://www.osborneink.com

[BushSunkOurShip]

Most Americans see the enemy and they are in the WH and our government.

[taikan]

The administration's hypocrisy is not new. However, even on those rare occasions when its hypocrisy has been pointed out in the MSM, most people in this country have acted as if they don't care about it. Otherwise, Bush would not have been reelected.
Unless and until the majority of the public acts as if the administration's hypocrisy and dishonesty is unacceptable, don't expect the MSM to say anything about it.

[Unsui]

Great post Mr.Eteraz. Thanks for this little synopsis of the absurdity we are witness to in modern America these days.

[LindaJay]

What do you want to bet that Bush is going to use these PJAK terrorists to help him get his war with Iran? First he'll fund them and help them do their nasty little deeds inside Iran. Than when Iran fights back and goes after them, it will be this action that he uses to prove that the Iranians are spreading terror in Iraq. And just watch our Democratic congress and the MSM fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

[oldpotsmuggler]

What about when Ollie North was running a terror operation out of The Whitehouse? Oh, that's right, they were freedom fighters. Never mind.

And then it's crazy how Iran went from being a bad guy (Carter), to being a good guy (Reagan), and then back to being a bad guy (and a good guy at the same time when offering to help out in Afghanistan).

Of course none of this boils down to mere expediency.

[NorCalNative]

Ali, you have made several important points about U.S. rationale for war. You correctly state that "terrorism is violence by those of who we disapprove of." That is in fact the position of the U.S. government.

When a government is so misleading in reasons for war, this U.S. citizen believes it is an attempt to ensure that the military industrial complex will always be well-fed and always be well taken care of.

Also, permanent war seems to give the President the idea he can do any damn thing he wants at any time. In addition, the "Fog of War" creates wonderful opportunities for economic growth. If all you care about is profit and could give a shit about domestic priorities this tactic makes sense.

Shame on the American "idiocracy" for buying into this illegal war and occupation.

[jdm58]

Just saw a very interesting video, entitled "Why We Fight"(highly recommend it). The events of this post are just further examples of the "blowback" we are encountering for bad judgement (backing the Shaw of Iran, sending weapons to the Taliban to fight the Soviets) and worse policies (ignoring Israeli human rights violations imposed on Palestinians, invading Iraq when they don't bow down and do as they're told), when it comes to our relationship to the Middle East. Too bad Condi Rice majored in Soviet Foreign Affairs, and not Middle Eastern Affairs, but even she isn't entirely to blame. No, this war is the marriage of the Military Industrial Complex to Imperial Oil Capitalists. Now, since we have failed at conquering all of Iraq, and in order to appease the public outcry to bring our troops home, we will shift focus on the Kurds and their relatively small, oil rich region, since they seem to be the only ones willing to "deal". Hunt Oil is already negotiating to pipe oil out of the area. Bush can abandon the rest of Iraq now, since the Kurds seem willing to give us what we want- power over their oil in exchange for protected autonomy from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. We'll get to stay in the region under the guise of quitting Iraq, and of protecting our new friends, the Kurds, so the Military Industrial Complex can continue wasting billions of government dollars on weapons, and so we'll get access to a huge reserve of mid-eastern oil. This should be enough to supply our oil addicted masses and appease any further environmentalists opposition to drilling in the Arctic Circle (not that we'll be able to anyway, since the icecap is melting, making getting to the oil that much more difficult). We have only begun to pay the piper for our past mistakes, and I'm afraid our next "regime" will have little ability to change it, since it will look worse for us to abandon friends, than to abandon opponents.