<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Real Left
Review: "Terrorism and War" presents a clear, concise explanation of Howard Zinn's views on war, terrorism, democracy, progressive movements, and capitalism. This tiny book is based on a series of interviews (Dec. 2001-Jan. 2002) with Zinn, who was a bombardier in World War II and now a well-known historian. (He wrote "A People's History of the United States"...)
Zinn makes a strong case for opposing the war on terrorism. His ideas are basically those of the antiwar, socialist Left. Not much new here, but he does a good job in the interviews of explaining his views. My basic complaint is that Zinn, like many Leftists, makes facile, broad generalizations about "capitalism." He also fails to properly distinguish between violence perpetrated by states and that done by non-state actors. They are all "terrorism" for him, which is not a very rigorous argument, and certainly not compelling to the American public. The issue of intentionality and moral relativism must be tackled head on if the Left is to win the war over the American mind. We can do better.
Rating: 
Summary: Insight into Current Events
Review: "Terrorism and War" is based on a series of interviews given by Howard Zinn in late 2001 and early 2002, regarding current events such as the bombing of Afghanistan, the "war on terrorism" in general, and the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As should come as no surprise to readers familiar with Dr. Zinn's writing and opinions, he denounces all three events, arguing that while the events of September 11th were horrible atrocities, killing people around the world in a potentially endless war (whose targets currently include residents of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and many other countries) is no solution - and quite possibly could simply exacerbate the problem. Altogether convinced that "we must do something" to respond to 9/11, he is just as certain that we must not respond with bombs and war.What I appreciated more than the arguments made for this case (which can be found in the literature of any self-respecting progressive or anti-war organization) are the chances that the questioner gives Dr. Zinn to explain his personal views on various aspects of war, pacifism, patriotism, civil liberties and politics, both in the present day and throughout history. As a veteran of the "Good War" who has come to believe that there is no such thing as a 'good war,' Zinn explains the reasoning that lead him to this conclusion, demonstrating warfare's inability to improve the world and discussing viable alternatives to mass killing. In this well-organized publication, Zinn is also able to fire back at attackers who have accused him (and others) of "blaming America first" (a reference to the 1940s pseudofascist pro-Nazi organization 'America First'). Comparing this to the tactics used by McCarthyists in the 1950s, he illustrates how it is just a part of a largely successful effort to intimidate, marginalize and silence any who may be opposed to war or simply want to examine the roots of terrorism and "why they hate us". Neither Dr. Zinn nor this book are anti-American in any way; no one should be frightened away by any such baseless accusations. All in all, this slim volume contains far more worthwhile discussion than I can summarize here. From optimism and alternatives for the future to America's historical support for global terrorism and anti-democratic forces, Dr. Zinn's considerable historical knowledge and capacity for critical analysis emanates from every page. Dozens of reference notes have been added by the editor to the text of the interviews, and the book includes a useful index, bibliography, and contact information for a variety of anti-war and alternative information sources. Excerpts from the Geneva Protocols are also included in an appendix. This short volume is an easy and informative read which I enthusiastically recommend to anyone who has a couple of hours to spare.
Rating:
Summary: A deeply profound book
Review: Dr. Zinn says in this book--probably more correctly than he could ever know at the time he said it-- that it is foolish to advocate indiscriminatley dropping bombs on Afghanistan or anywhere else to end the terrorism of groups like Al Qaida. He says that it might make alot of difference if people could see close up the suffering of the victims of our bombing as we have seen constantly in the media about the victims of 9-11. He quotes from several backpage stories in the media from reporters on the scene describing kids blinded with amputated legs, people who are lone survivors from villages destroyed, parents who have lost their children and their spouses and children who have lost their parents. Or the refugee who have been fleeing their villages and cities by the hundred of thousands who have been bombed. Or the red cross warehouse twice bombed by the U.S. which was supposed to be bombed a third time but hit a residential neighborhood instead. Or the camp at Maslakh camp near Herat where dozens of people are dying every day from starvation and exposure. It is such an idea which made him circulate a letter to him by an Iraqi exile doctor in London about the time of the bombing of Iraq which started in December 1998. His brother and father had been killed by Saddam Hussein but in this bombing an American cruise missle struck his mother's home on the outskirts of Baghdad, killing his mother and his brother's widow and there three children. Saddam Hussein started the killing of his family and Bill Clinton finished them off. This adds the human face to bombing defenseless people rather than seeing it through statistics and explosions from thirty thousand feet. He has some interesting things to say about "why they hate us." And he says that there is a very simple test. Why did Bin Laden like us before 1990 when we were helping him and his bandits destroy Afghanistan and dislike us after that time. Well, after that time, U.S. troops occupied Saudi Arabia and we just about completely destroyed Iraqi civillian infrastructure and our murderous sanctions have increased that destruction. Zinn, remarks that though Bin Laden invokes "religous symbolism and Islam" he expresses great rage about these things and U.S. providing arms to Israel to slaughter Palestinians. He notes that while medieval religous fanatacism played an influence in the Sept 11 attacks, there is obviously something deeper there. You don't just commit terrorism like that because you're just a lunatic. He notes that there are millions of people out there in the world who are enraged about U.S. policy but are not yet willing to commit terrorist acts. Though this could change if we keep perpetrating death and destruction against their countries. He responds to our president's pieties about how we are a "peaceful nation" with god on our side and all that. Of course, he notes we have been an extremely warlike nation, particluarly since World War II. There was Korea, where we killed about two million civillians, then Vietnam where we killed a couple million more, then a couple thousand in Pannama, and invading the Dominican Republic and Grenada, destroying Iraq, bombing civillians in Yugoslavia, bombing medicine factories in the Sudan, providing crucial support to killers like General Suharto of Indonesia get into power by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people then a couple hundred thousand more in East Timor after 1975. We actively train terrorists at places like the School of Americas. As to how Zinn would have responded to Sept 11, he mentions the International criminal court but he notes, the U.S. dosen't want that because people like Henry Kissinger might possibly be at risk for the massive war crimes they committed. He talks a great deal about his theory of what a "just war" might be. He notes the planned drastic cuts in health care and housing programs in the midst of Bush's 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut and demands for another 50 or 70 billion dollars to be added to our 300 billion dollar annual military budget. This is not to increase our security but to enrich the military industrial complex which the Bush administration and the rest of our politicians serve. And there is of Course the Patriot Act and the military tribunals. He quotes economist Edward Alexander as saying that the richest one percent in this country own 38 percent of the household wealth and 47 percent of the financial wealth. Real unemployment is rising and the number of homeless on the streets is quietly rising. He speculates that this might come back to haunt Bush Jr's administration once the "War on Terrorism" loses its Public relations momentum, as economic malaise came to trouble Papa Bush after the Gulf war.
Rating:
Summary: Highly relevant to current times !
Review: Howard Zinn puts forth two most important points in this book. Firstly, governments lie. Secondly, war is another form of terrorism. In these days of mass hysteria about terrorism and cries for war, these points should be drilled in the minds of people who blindly believe in what the government is telling them to achieve their war objectives for financial gains. He puts to rest the argument that "We are a peaceful nation" as stated by George W. Bush, by bringing forth various example showing that our government has been the aggressor in several conflicts in this century. History should not be forgotten as we are once again repeating the terrible mistakes we have made in the past.
He questions the need for the US to become a military superpower with over $300 billion annual military budget when for a small fraction of this money, millions of people dying of diseases throughout the world could be saved.
Indeed, in these days of misplaced patriotism, people like Zinn are called traitors when in fact, it should be people like Zinn who have defined democracy by questioning the government and questioning the true motives of those in power. Governments lie, and lie a lot for personal gains.
Rating:
Summary: Terrorism and War: A breath of fresh air
Review: In this collection of interviews, Zinn does what he does best: telling it like it is in thirty words or less. Framed by the incisive questions of interviewer and editor Anthony Arnove, Zinn's commentary ranges from the so-called "war on terrorism" to the recession to the assault on civil liberties, providing a compact yet comprehensive overview of the current political moment. Zinn puts the tragic events of September 11th in perspective by sewing a "Made in U.S.A." label on terrorism: "In its foreign policy, the United States has consigned several million people to their deaths and supported terrorist governments in various parts of the world ...You might say that there is a reservoir of possible terrorists among all those people in the world who have suffered as a result of U.S. foreign policy." He goes on to expose the hypocrisy of the "war on terrorism," noting that, "There is a precise division between who we bomb and who we do not bomb. The division has nothing to do with which countries are harboring terrorists. The division has only to do with which countries we don't control yet. The countries that we control, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can harbor as many terrorists as they want. We will look elsewhere." While Zinn's treatment of the Bush administration is never less than scathing, he sees no alternative in the Democratic party, "which has played such a pitifully obsequious role in this whole affair." Instead, Terrorism and War is remarkable for its faith in the power of ordinary people. Zinn and Arnove, who between them seem to have read everything ever written, quote activists and revolutionaries from Frederick Douglass to Eugene Debs to Emma Goldman to illustrate the fact that the US government has always used war and repression to achieve its ends-and that it has always been resisted. By rooting today's anti-war movement in a tradition of struggle, they open a window to hope and practical advice from the past. Though in one of the earlier essays, Zinn presents some rather unconvincing solutions to the problems of war and terrorism-calling on the US to be "a more modest nation," that no longer "[needs] to be a superpower," by the end of the book, he acknowledges that there will be no end to war without an end to capitalism: "[T]he left is in a position of continually opposing war after war after war, without getting at the root of the problem-which is the economic system under which we live, which needs war and makes war inevitable."
Rating: 
Summary: An intellectual, liberal view on events
Review: Obviously published prompted by and in reaction to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, Terrorism and War is the first full-length work in a number of years. Acutely observant, this sagely historian presents the facets of America's War on Terrorism not covered on CNN or in White House press meetings. The book is in the format of a lengthy interview chunked out in chapters. This approach directs the discussions directly to the mechanics and motivations of America's situation and response. However, this also interrupts the fluid narrative and detailed contextualization found in Zinn's other works, like A People's History of the United States. It is fairly widely known that irony that the U.S. directly supported Taliban et al against Russia as part of the Cold War, but Zinn goes further to reveal more. Zinn disconnects the WTC even from Pear Harbor comparison. (This is not a military attack between nations.) Zinn also unveils the duplicity in America's previous war initiatives. Not only does Zinn recall such recent engagements as Grenada, but the able historian summons up such remote affairs as the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor (vis-à-vis the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen) and the Mayaguez affair which nearly led to out-and-out war with Cambodia. Among the appendices are relevant extractions from the Geneva Protocol on civilian safety during engagements. The 160-page has a thorough index.
Rating:
Summary: Is war terrorism?
Review: Politics,history, foreign policy and current events are topics I used to avoid, but Zinn presents these subjects in language that is accessible. He makes abstract ideas and historical facts relevent to our lives. This book provides historical context to the tragedies this world has endured over the past few years. The information may not be new since Zinn has imparted these perspectives in many forms over the years, but his views concerning the U.S. role in a global society does need to be revisited and re-evaluated in this post-9/11 world. Terrorism and War is thought provoking, and its juxtaposition of war and terrorism and their causes and consequences is enlightening. The book has led me to ask, "Is there a difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism?" and "Is one action more noble than another?" Further, if one does believe that either action is justified, is the justification strong enough to rationalize the consequences of such violent acts? I do not feel that the book answers these questions, but I applaud its attempt to implore readers to consider such ideas. The book is concise and a quick-read. Yet, the ideas and opinions I formed when I initially read this book two years ago have remained with me. Even if one does not agree with Zinn's views and I'm sure that many do not, the discussion concerning U.S. actions needs to continue and this book sustains the dialogue.
Rating:
Summary: Can I get a Table Dance?
Review: The wide blue yonder
Zinn dissents in black and white
Is it read, or red?
Rating:
Summary: Namby-Pamby In Its Approach
Review: Zinn defends the terrorists against certain accusations. For instance, he says that terrorists have demands that we should consider meeting and that terrorists are not like insane people who simply go berserk on a killing spree. Zinn thus creates a false dichotomy between the rational terrorist who would stop if only you would go far enough in meeting his demands, and the crazy person. But a moments reflection would reveal that terrorists can have political motives and be crazy too. The Nazis for instance. The DC Sniper who was attacking people this year discussed with a friend in Washington state how unjust US foreign policy was. The DC Sniper claimed that what Al Qaeda did should have been done a long time ago. The DC Sniper travelled to the only synagogue in Tacoma, Washington and shot at it. Yet the DC sniper was also shooting some people for no reason at all. To say that if one has some political beliefs about injustice then one cannot be killing people at random in an insane manner is contrary to common sense. What about the Manson Family who believed that they were precipitating a race war. As mentioned, the Nazis were political, and crazy too. That is why I say that Zinn is namby-pamby. He assumes the best in other people instead of the worst. But in the case of 9-11 is his namby-pamby view of the pure motives of Al Qaeda likely to result in a proper response to the tragedy? I doubt it. Zinn's response is more likely to result in Neville Chamberlain-like "peace in our time" declarations accompanied by a sacrifice of modern-day Czechoslovakias.
Rating:
Summary: A Voice for Peace
Review: Zinn's latest collection of writings--a selection of interviews collected after 9-11--is an important expression of protest against the unjust and illegal war carried out against civilians. Using the the bombing of Afghanistan as its basis, this book examines the consequences and realities of a war supposedly directed against terrorism, which has left thousands of innocent civilians dead and transformed hundreds of thousands into homeless, starving refugees. While some, perhaps even many, would argue that these effects are simply the tragic, yet unintended, consequences of modern war. Tragic it certainly is, but as Zinn shows, the civilian deaths are of little concern to the US military and their allies, who glory in the use of so-called "smart bombs" that seem to be continually missing their "targets". Colin Powell has said in response to the question concerning the number of Iraqi dead during the Gulf War that "it's really not a number I'm terribly interested in", which shows little has changed since his involvement as an advisor during the Vietnam war. In fact, the bombing of civilian targets has been the preferred method of "breaking" the enemy spirit and dates back to at least World War Two and the carpet bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima. Thus the continuing use of this tactic from Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan is based on the same indefensible, immoral logic. It is also interesting to note, as Zinn does, that this tactic embodies the same unconscionable actions we pretend to abhor and is itself a form of state terrorism. In addition to exposing the real nature of our war against terror, he also critically examines the reasoning put forth by our politicians and military leaders. Perhaps, more importantly, though, he directs our attention to the fact that so many simply believe these explanations at their word, and care little to investigate the merits of these policies, which have really devastating effects on many people around the world. Of course, as Zinn points out, the media isn't really doing anything to promote this kind of critical inquiry, they are doing precisely the opposite, which doesn't excuse us for not seeking out the facts that are out there, but may be a little more difficult to find. This book, for example is a fine place to start, in addition to the numerous alternative media outlets that constantly report on these issues. Ultimately, the final responsibility rests with us and as Zinn points out it is only through broad political and social involvement that real change can be achieved.
<< 1 >>
|
