A Newsletter With An Eye On Political Media from The American Prospect
 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

View this email in your browser

A NEWSLETTER WITH AN EYE ON POLITICAL MEDIA

Even a Failed War Can Make You Lots of Money
If you're an enterprising ex-general

"Adding up the money spent on the War on Terror in 2001 is a sobering
exercise," but Adam Tooze gives it a shot
.
When we ask, as the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs does, "Who
won the war on terror?
"
the obvious answer certainly is the ex-generals and admirals and other
defense contractors who made millions off of it. The man who spun the
"war" into the most gold is likely Stanley McChrystal, the loudmouth
general who got fired over a Rolling Stone article
.
But before you start getting all critical, remember: "People have to
feed their families
"
(Farah Stockman has more
).

What's one of the best ways to get these contracts, inquisitive
generals and admirals who have yet to cash in want to know. Well,
there's always the "liberal media
."
For instance, I read in The Washington Post that "[H.R.] McMaster
appeared seven times on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News between Aug. 16 and Aug.
26, according to a new

tally from the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America.
The same report found that retired general Barry McCaffrey, who in 2010
publicly opposed a proposed timeline for troop withdrawal [from Iraq]
without disclosing a conflict of interest
,
made 13 appearances on MSNBC during that same time stretch. Retired Gen.
David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan between 2010
and 2011 [and who was also fired for being a loudmouth
, though just with
his author/mistress] appeared six times across the big three cable news
networks."

What bothers me, aside from everything else, is the fact that the entire
idea of a "war on terror," which has invited countless abuses under
its rubric, is intellectually incoherent. Terror is a tactic; it's not
a pretty one, but neither is bombing people from planes or killing them
and their families with drones. When people are willing to both kill and
die for a cause, whatever we may think of it, their calculation is one
of costs and benefits: Is what we call "terrorism" (or even more
incoherently, "state terrorism") likely to help you achieve your
goals or undermine them? From bin Laden's perspective, the 9/11
attacks got him and many members of his family killed, but he clearly
won his war with the United States and the West many times over. Had we
been smarter about fighting our genuine enemies, instead of declaring
"war" on terror, we would today be a far healthier, wealthier, and a
more respected and beloved nation.

And before anyone gets on his, her, or their high horse, I can think of
two societies whose origins rest in significant measure on the
successful use of terrorism. One is the United States of America, or at
least the American South. Here
is a short account of the
successful terrorist attacks carried out by the settlers of the
Jamestown Colony in 1609-1614: "[S]paring neither infants nor the
infirm," the settlers "burned Powhatan villages, murdered native
priests, assassinated chiefs, looted temples, conquered tribal
territories, and starved a once-thriving population through harvest-time
'feed fights.'" The second one is Israel. Bruce Hoffmann, author
of Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947
,
describes the conflict in pre-state Israel as "the first post-World
War II 'war of national liberation' to clearly recognize the
publicity value inherent in terrorism; the violence was often
choreographed for an audience far beyond the immediate geographic locus
of the terrorists' struggle." He credits its success with hastening
the British government's ultimate decision to end its mandate and
withdraw its troops, thereby paving the way for the Zionist victory.

After 9/11, however, the power of the T-word was such that the "war"
against it could justify almost anything. The Pew Research Center
informs us

that "Americans widely supported the use of military force to end
Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq." It reminds us that "most Americans
thought-erroneously, as it turned out-there was a direct connection
between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In October 2002, 66% said
that Saddam helped the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon." Pew does not mention that
perhaps they got that idea from all the lies that were told to them to
tie Iraq to the "global war on terror." (Here
is a talk I gave on this topic at
a 2004 conference sponsored by the journal Social Research.)

George W. Bush came to the presidency speaking of the necessity for
humility on the world stage. "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll
resent us," he said, but "if we're a humble nation, but strong,
they'll welcome us." But the post-9/11 version of George W. Bush
embraced a more expansive definition of U.S. national security and
empire than any previous president had. No longer would the U.S.
"stand by while peril draws closer and closer." Never again would we
"permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the
world's most destructive weapons." The United States was undertaking
a crusade against "evil," and other nations needed to decide whether
they were "with us or against us." Bush decided that America would
now "take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the
worst threats before they emerge," which is how we ended up in Iraq; a
decision that Bush apparently made (we have just learned) as early as
three days after the attacks
.
The reason, as Donald Rumsfeld explained
,
privately, on 9/11 itself, was "We need to bomb something else [other
than Afghanistan] to prove that we are, you know, big and strong and not
going to be pushed around by these kinds of attacks."

Looking back, we might actually consider ourselves lucky that we got
stuck in Iraq, given how many wars the neocons whom Bush soon embraced
had in mind. Among their nominations:

* Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Seth Lipsky, former editor of the
Jewish Daily Forward, called for U.S. attacks "from Afghanistan to
Iran to Iraq to Syria to the Palestinian Authority."

* The New Republic editors demanded that the Bush administration "move
ruthlessly to prevent Iran from acquiring the deadliest arsenal of
all."

* Weekly Standard editor William Kristol also hoped for an immediate
"military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

* Charles Krauthammer argued in The Washington Post that after the U.S.
was done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and
Iraq.

* Norman Podhoretz, writing in Commentary, termed George W. Bush's
mission to be "to fight World War IV-the war against militant
Islam." Among his favored targets: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, as well as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian
Authority.

Let's give the last word(s) on 9/11 to the great man (Bruce),
appearing at the 9/11 20th anniversary ceremony in Lower Manhattan this
past weekend
:
"May god bless our fallen brothers and sisters, and their families,
their friends, and their loved ones."

Odds and Ends

I wrote a pretty long review
of Thomas
Dyja's book New York, New York, New York (which I heard Eric Adams
tell David Remnick he was in the middle of reading) for Democracy. Part
of the reason it's long is that I also comment on Devon Gordon's
wonderful book on the Mets, So Many Ways to Lose. Read it while watching
ESPN's excellent new "30 for 30" miniseries about the '86 Mets,
Once Upon a Time in Queens. (Mike Tomasky gets credit for the excellent
"Jungleland" hed.)

Life without live music is worth living, but only just barely. This past
weekend, I saw a lovely show downstairs at Birdland
by Nellie McKay
, among the most eclectic musicians alive.
Nellie is a terrific pianist, a pretty fair ukulele player, and writer
of amazingly idiosyncratic lyrics, and also so far left politically that
she berated herself onstage for failing to stick it to The Man and
getting herself vaccinated. This was an admittedly confusing black mark
on an otherwise delightful show that began with a straightforward
rendition of "Red Rubber Ball "
(co-written, unbeknownst to most, by Paul Simon) and closing (or almost
closing) with a song about a young Black girl who wants to grow up to be
both (a) a female Jeffrey Dahmer murdering people by way of drills to
their skulls, but also (b) president of the United States. Here

she is channeling Doris Day.

Here are a few post-9/11, post-Yom Kippur but not, alas, post-pandemic
pick-me-ups for the weekend:

* Here 's Bonnie Raitt doing
"Runaway," the 1961 Del Shannon hit, on a 1977 Midnight Special.

* Here is a "Reach Out" contest between two great, great songs:
Friend & Lover, "Reach Out of the Darkness
" vs. The Four Tops, "Reach Out
(I'll Be There) ."

* And Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell doing "Ain't No Mountain High
Enough ."

* Also, the late, great Mike Bloomfield with "Albert's Shuffle
."

Also also, here 's a welcome new
discovery for me, a whole Warren Zevon show at the Capitol Theatre in
Passaic from 1982. If you're too busy for the whole show, here
Warren sings one of the few songs ever
written about U.S. Middle East diplomacy, in honor of the now-forgotten
"envoy" Philip Habib.

And here
,
finally, is a wonderfully written piece about the Dead archives by Max
Abelson in n+1 with a bonus appearance from my high school math-nerd
friend, now king of the internet, Brewster Kahle. This guy

picked out what he thinks are five of the band's best performances on
video. I refuse to choose.

See you next week.

~ ERIC ALTERMAN

Become A Member of The American Prospect Today!

Eric Alterman is a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn
College, an award-winning journalist, and the author of 11 books, most
recently Lying in State: Why Presidents Lie-and Why Trump Is Worse
(Basic, 2020). Previously, he wrote The Nation's "Liberal Media"
column for 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @eric_alterman

A MESSAGE FROM A PROSPECT PARTNER

Today, corporate narratives dominate our media.
Want an alternative?

Welcome to OptOut, a new network of independent, diverse, truth-telling
news outlets. We're all about justice, labor, the environment, and
voices that the corporate media overlooks. There, you can read Prospect
stories alongside your other favorite outlets. Sign up for our free
weekly newsletter and learn about our app here.

CLICK TO SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER:

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

 

[link removed]

[link removed]

 

To receive this newsletter directly in your inbox, click here to
subscribe. 

 

[link removed]

YOUR TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

Thank you for reading, The American Prospect, Inc.
1225 I Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC xxxxxx
United States
To opt out of American Prospect membership messaging, click here
.

To manage your newsletter preferences, click here
.

To unsubscribe from all American Prospect emails, including newsletters,
click here
.

Copyright (C) 2021 The American Prospect. All rights reserved.