Terrorists often justify killing random civilians based on the fact that there are no innocent civilians; if a nation is perpetrating atrocities, they reason that its citizens are responsible to stop it. This justification was used by such diverse terrorists as Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh and the 1970s United States group, the Weather Underground. Arguably, the justification has been used by U.S. troops while fighting guerilla wars, in which it is nearly impossible to tell the enemy from the general population, so everyone is fair game.
Imperial Ignorance
Robert Jensen, journalism professor at the University of Texas, in “Combating Ignorance, Avoiding Arrogance,” points out that he and others opposed the invasion of Iraq and that history had proved that they were right to do so. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had no connection with Al Quaeda. Ten years later, after massive costs in resources and human lives, Jensen maintains that it still doesn’t matter that the invasion was unjustified to most American citizens and wonders why.
Imperialism Defined
Jensen describes U.S. imperialism as “a desire to deepen and extend U.S. power around the world, especially in the most strategically crucial regions, such as the energy-rich Middle East; always with an eye to derailing the attempts of any Third World society to pursue a course of independent development outside the U.S. sphere; and containing the possibility of challenges to U.S. hegemony from other powerful states.”
Imperial Ignorance
Jensen believes that the anti-imperialist movement is a failed movement, and attributes this, in part, to the ignorance of the citizens. The idea that people would do the right thing if only they had the right information goes back to the Enlightenment and assumes that ignorance is the problem and education, therefore, is the cure. If people only knew what was really going on, they would rise up and stop it, according to this line of thought.
Imperial Misinformation
This may be partly correct, since the massive protests against the war in Vietnam did affect those in power, at least to the extent of controlling war news coverage in subsequent conflicts, in order to prevent citizens from learning about deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deaths of innocent civilians have a profound affect on Americans, who like most normal human beings, abhor such things. In the recent conflicts, no such stories were aired, dead civilians were renamed “collateral damage,” and the war was presented to the public as so technologically advanced that a drone missile could surgically remove a terrorist with great accuracy.
Effective Misinformation
Disinformation was so successful, according to Jensen, that in January 2003 44 percent of Americans thought that “most” or “some” of the hijackers were from Iraq (none were,) 65 percent thought Saddam and al Quaeda were allies, and 91 percent thought Saddam had been hiding weapons of mass destruction. The misperceptions of the respondents corresponded to their support of the war; the more misperceptions, the stronger their support for the war. Apparently ignorance has tangible affects in the real world.
Media and Ignorance
In addition to the ignorance manipulated by the media machinery, Jensen sees a willed ignorance, or a desire not to know. This is compounded by a perceived lack of reliable sources of information. If the news media is lying, why bother to watch the news? Although reliable information can be obtained with some effort, and Jensen thinks citizens are obligated to do this, it appears that most will not.
Public Helplessness
Many people ask, “If terrible things are happening, why get depressed when there is nothing I can do to stop it?” A current television commercial featuring comedian Wyatt Cenac illustrates this attitude. After praising his TV as the perfect room mate, he says his TV tries to inform him about Afghanistan, which, Cenac says, sounds depressing. The TV then asks if he wants to watch two ladies make out, to which he answers, “Yes, I do.”
Some Protests
Another answer to the non-responsiveness of Americans to imperialism is that some Americans do respond. They join activist organizations, inform their friends and advocate for an end to imperialism the best they can. In 1899, when the United States was taking over Cuba and the Philippines under the guise of liberating them and spreading democracy, an influential group was formed called the American AnitImperialist League. This group contained such prominent members as psychologist-philosopher William James and author Mark Twain.
AntiImperialist League
The platform of the League was introduced with these words:
“We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our Government.”
In spite of the passion and influence of the League members, the U.S. pursued its policies in Cuba and the Philippines. If the military-industrial complex is organized, determined, and never rests, then perhaps it is naïve to assume that anything less than equal sustained effort can overcome them. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Robert Jensen, Combating Ignorance, Avoiding Arrogance, Al-Jazeera, September 13, 2011
Fordham University: Modern History Sourcebook American Anti-Imperialist League, 1899
Terrorism: What Terrorists Have in Common
US Imperialism: Why Do They Hate Us?
