War Is A Lie is a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those that have been most widely defended as just and good. This is a handbook of sorts, an engaging, always informative manual that can be used to debunk future lies before the wars they’re deployed to justify have any chance to begin. Veteran antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg calls War Is A Lie "a terrific tool for recognizing and resisting war lies before it's too late." This updated and expanded edition outlines lessons from America’s most recent wars, what can be done to end warmaking, and an epilogue that analyzes new trends in war lying and in resistance to it. No one to whom you give this book can claim they haven't been warned!
|Publisher:||Just World Books|
|Edition description:||Second Edition, Second edition|
|Product dimensions:||5.90(w) x 8.90(h) x 0.70(d)|
About the Author
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, public speaker, and radio host. His books include When the World Outlawed War, and War No More: The Case for Abolition. Swanson serves as director of World Beyond War, and host of Talk Nation Radio. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. In the early 2000’s, he helped to expose the “Downing Street Minutes” and other attempts to lie the United States and its allies into the Iraq war. In 2015, he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Read an Excerpt
War Is a Lie
By David Swanson
Just World Publishing, LLCCopyright © 2016 David Swanson
All rights reserved.
WARS ARE NOT FOUGHT AGAINST EVIL
One of the oldest excuses for war is that the enemy is irredeemably evil. He worships the wrong god, has the wrong skin and language, commits atrocities, and cannot be reasoned with. The long-standing tradition of making war on foreigners and converting those not killed to the proper religion "for their own good" is similar to the current practice of killing hated foreigners for the stated reason that their governments ignore women's rights. From among the rights of women encompassed by such an approach, one is missing: the right to life, as women's groups in Afghanistan have tried to explain to those who use their plight to justify the war. The believed evil of our opponents allows us to avoid counting the non-American women or men or children killed. Western media reinforce our skewed perspective with endless images of women in burqas, but they never risk offending us with pictures of women and children killed by our troops and air strikes.
Imagine if war were really fought for strategic, principled, humanitarian goals, the "march of freedom," and the "spread of democracy." Wouldn't we count the foreign dead in order to make some sort of rough calculation of whether the good we were trying to do outweighed the damage? We don't do so, for the obvious reason that we consider the enemy evil and worthy of death and believe that any other thought would constitute a betrayal of our own side. We used to count the enemy dead, in Vietnam and earlier wars, as a measure of progress. In 2010, Gen. David Petraeus revived a bit of that in Afghanistan, without including civilian dead. For the most part now, however, the higher the number of dead is, the more criticism there is of the war. But by avoiding counting and estimating, we give the game away: we still place a negative or empty value on those lives.
But just as the supposedly irredeemable heathen were converted to the correct religion when the screaming and dying stopped, so too do our wars eventually come to an end, or at least to a permanent occupation of a pacified puppet state. At that point, the irredeemably evil opponents become admirable or at least tolerable allies. Were they evil to begin with or did saying so just make it easier to take a nation to war and persuade its soldiers to aim and fire? Did the people of Germany become subhuman monsters each time we (the U.S. government and those persuaded to identify with it) had to make war on them, and then revert to being full humans when peace came? How did our Russian allies become an evil empire the moment they stopped doing the good humanitarian work of killing Germans? Or were we only pretending they were good, when actually they were evil all along? Or were we pretending they were evil when they were only somewhat confused human beings, just like us? How did Afghans and Iraqis all become demonic when a group of Saudis flew airplanes into buildings in the United States, and how did the Saudi people stay human? Don't look for logic.
Belief in a crusade against evil remains a strong motivator of war supporters and participants. Some supporters and participants in U.S. wars are motivated, in fact, by a desire to kill and convert non-Christians. But none of this is central to the real, or at least the primary and surface-level, motivations of war planners, which will be discussed in Chapter 6. Their bigotry and hatred, if they have any, may ease their minds, but do not typically drive their agenda. War planners do, however, find fear, hatred, and revenge to be powerful motivators of the public and of military recruits. Our violence-saturated popular culture makes us overestimate the danger of violent attack, and our government plays on that fear with threats, warnings, color-coded danger levels, airport searches, and decks of playing cards with faces of the most evil enemies on them.
Evil vs. Harm
The worst causes of preventable death and suffering in the world include wars. But here in the United States, the leading causes of preventable death are not foreign cultures, foreign governments, or terrorist groups. They are illnesses, accidents, car crashes, and suicides. The "war on poverty," "war on obesity," and other such campaigns have been failed attempts to bring to bear on other great causes of harm and loss of life the same passion and urgency usually associated with wars against evil. Why is heart disease not evil? Why is cigarette smoking or the lack of workplace safety enforcement not evil? Among the rapidly growing unhealthy factors impacting our life chances is global warming. Why do we not launch urgent all-out efforts to combat these causes of death?
The reason is one that makes no moral sense, but makes emotional sense to us all. If someone tried to hide the danger of cigarettes, knowing this would result in much suffering and death, he would have done so to make a buck, not to hurt me personally. Even if he did act for the sadistic joy of hurting lots of people, though his acts might be counted evil, he still would not have specifically set out to hurt me in particular through a violent act.
Athletes and adventurers put themselves through fear and danger just for the thrill. Civilians enduring bombing raids experience fear and danger, but not the trauma suffered by soldiers. When soldiers return from wars psychologically damaged, it is not primarily because they have been through fear and danger. The top causes of stress in war are having to kill other human beings and having to directly face other human beings who want to kill you. The latter is described by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book On Killing as "the wind of hate." Grossman explains:
We want desperately to be liked, loved, and in control of our lives; and intentional, overt, human hostility and aggression — more than anything else in life — assaults our self-image, our sense of control, our sense of the world as a meaningful and comprehensible place, and, ultimately, our mental and physical health. ... It is not fear of death and injury from disease or accident but rather acts of personal depredation and domination by our fellow human beings that strike terror and loathing in our hearts.
This is why drill sergeants are pseudo-evil toward trainees. They are inoculating them, conditioning them to face, handle, and believe they can survive the wind of hate. Most of us, fortunately, have not been so trained. The airplanes of September 11, 2001, did not hit most of our homes, but the terrorized belief that the next ones might hit us made fear an important force in politics, one that many politicians only encouraged. We were then shown images of foreign, dark-skinned, Muslim, non-English speaking prisoners being treated like wild beasts and tortured because they could not be reasoned with. And for years we bankrupted our economy to fund the killing of "rag heads" and "hadji" long after Saddam Hussein had been driven out of power, captured, and killed. This illustrates the power of belief in opposing evil. You will not find the eradication of evil anywhere in the papers of the Project for the New American Century, the think tank that pushed hardest for a war on Iraq. Opposing evil is a way to get those who will not profit in any way from a war on board with promoting it.
In any war, both sides claim to be fighting for good against evil. (During the Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush mispronounced Saddam Hussein's first name to sound like Sodom, while Hussein spoke of "Devil Bush.") While one side could be telling the truth, clearly both parties in a war cannot be on the side of pure goodness against absolute evil. In most cases, something evil can be pointed to as evidence. The other side has committed atrocities that only evil beings would commit. And if it hasn't really done so, then some atrocities can easily be invented. Harold Lasswell's 1927 book Propaganda Technique in the World War includes a chapter on "Satanism," which states:
A handy rule for arousing hate is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man. Originality, while often advantageous, is far from indispensable. In the early days of the War of 1914 [later known as World War I] a very pathetic story was told of a seven- year old youngster, who had pointed his wooden gun at a patrol of invading Uhlans, who had dispatched him on the spot. This story had done excellent duty in the Franco-Prussian war over forty years before.
Other atrocity stories have more bases in fact. But usually similar atrocities can also be found in many other nations against which ours has not chosen to make war. Sometimes the U.S. government makes war on behalf of dictatorships that are themselves guilty of atrocities. Other times the United States is guilty of the same atrocities or even played a role in the atrocities of its new enemy and former ally. Even the primary offense against which the United States is going to war can be one it is guilty of. It is as important, in selling a war, to deny or excuse one's own atrocities as to highlight or invent the enemy's. President Theodore Roosevelt alleged atrocities by the Filipinos, while dismissing those committed by U.S. troops in the Philippines as of no consequence and no worse than what had been done at the massacre of the Sioux at Wounded Knee, as if mere mass murder were the standard of acceptability. One U.S. atrocity in the Philippines involved slaughtering over 600, mostly unarmed, men, women, and children trapped in the crater of a dormant volcano. The general in command of that operation openly favored the extermination of all Filipinos.
In selling the war on Iraq, it became important to stress that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons, and equally important to avoid the fact that he had done so with U.S. assistance. George Orwell wrote in 1948:
Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when it is committed by "our" side. ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
At some point we have to raise the question of whether the atrocities are the real motivation of the war planners, which should lead us to also look into the question of whether war is the best tool for preventing atrocities.
A Plank in Our Own Eye
The record of the United States, sadly, is one of big lies. We are told that Mexico has attacked us, when in reality the United States attacked them. Spain was denying Cubans and Filipinos their liberty, when we should have been the ones denying them their liberty. Germany was practicing imperialism, which was interfering with British, French, and U.S. empire building. Howard Zinn quotes from a 1939 skit in his A People's History of the United States:
We, the governments of Great Britain and the United States, in the name of India, Burma, Malaya, Australia, British East Africa, British Guiana, Hongkong, Siam, Singapore, Egypt, Palestine, Canada, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands, hereby declare most emphatically, that this is not an imperialist war.
Britain's Royal Air Force kept busy between the two world wars dropping bombs on India and took the prime responsibility for policing Iraq by fire-bombing tribes who did not or could not pay their taxes. When Britain declared war on Germany, the British imprisoned thousands of people in India for opposing World War II. Were the British fighting imperialism in World War II, or just German imperialism?
The original enemies of bands of human warriors may have been large cats, bears, and other beasts that preyed on our ancestors. Cave drawings of these animals may be some of the oldest military recruitment posters, but the new ones haven't changed much. During World War II the Nazis used a poster depicting their enemies as gorillas, copying a poster that the American government had produced for the first world war to demonize or sub-humanize the Germans. The American version carried the words "Destroy This Mad Brute," and had been copied from an earlier poster by the British. U.S. posters during World War II also depicted the Japanese as gorillas and bloodthirsty monsters.
The British and U.S. propaganda that persuaded Americans to fight in World War I focused on demonization of the Germans for fictional atrocities committed in Belgium. The Committee on Public Information, run by George Creel on behalf of President Woodrow Wilson, organized "Four Minute Men" who gave pro-war speeches in movie theaters during the four minutes it took to change reels. A sample speech printed in the committee's Four Minute Men Bulletin on January 2, 1918, read:
While we are sitting here tonight enjoying a picture show, do you realize that thousands of Belgians, people just like ourselves, are languishing in slavery under Prussian masters? ... Prussian "Schrecklichkeit" (the deliberate policy of terrorism) leads to almost unbelievable besotten brutality. The German soldiers ... were often forced against their wills, they themselves weeping, to carry out unspeakable orders against defenseless old men, women, and children. ... For instance, at Dinant the wives and children of 40 men were forced to witness the execution of their husbands and fathers.
Those who commit or are believed to have committed such atrocities can be treated as less than human (while Germans committed atrocities in Belgium and throughout the war, those that received the most attention are now known to have been fabricated or remain unsubstantiated and very much in doubt).
In 1938 Japanese entertainers falsely described Chinese soldiers as failing to clear away their dead bodies after battles, leaving them to the beasts and the elements. This apparently helped justify the Japanese in making war on China. German troops invading the Ukraine during World War II could have converted surrendering Soviet troops to their side, but they were unable to accept their surrender because they were unable to see them as human. U.S. demonization of the Japanese during World War II was so effective that the U.S. military found it hard to stop its troops from killing Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. There were also incidents of Japanese pretending to surrender and then attacking, but those do not explain away this phenomenon.
Japanese atrocities were numerous and hideous, and did not require fabrication. U.S. posters and cartoons depicted Japanese as insects and monkeys. Australian Gen. Sir Thomas Blamey told the New York Times, "Fighting Japs is not like fighting normal human beings. The Jap is a little barbarian. ... We are not dealing with humans as we know them. We are dealing with something primitive. Our troops have the right view of the Japs. They regard them as vermin."
A U.S. Army poll in 1943 found that roughly half of all GIs believed it would be necessary to kill every Japanese on earth. War correspondent Edgar L. Jones wrote in the February 1946 Atlantic Monthly, "What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought anyway? We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter openers."
Soldiers don't do that sort of thing to human beings. They do it to evil beasts.
In fact, enemies in war are not just less than human. They are demonic. During the U.S. Civil War, Herman Melville maintained that the North was fighting for heaven and the South for hell, referring to the South as "the helmed dilated Lucifer." During the Vietnam War, as Susan Brewer recounts in her book Why America Fights:
War correspondents frequently did 'citizen soldier' interviews with articulate young officers who would be identified by name, rank, and hometown. The soldier would talk about being "here to do a job" and express confidence in eventually getting it done. ... In contrast, the enemy was routinely dehumanized in news coverage. American troops referred to the enemy as "gooks," "slopes," or "dinks."
Excerpted from War Is a Lie by David Swanson. Copyright © 2016 David Swanson. Excerpted by permission of Just World Publishing, LLC.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
1 Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil 17
2 Wars Are Not Launched in Defense 41
3 Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity 71
4 Wars Are Not Unavoidable 87
5 Warriors Are Not Heroes 105
6 War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives 133
7 Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers 155
8 Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields 167
9 Wars Are Not Won and Are Not Ended by Enlarging Them 183
10 War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers 195
11 War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable 209
12 Wars Are Not Legal 227
13 Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided 243
14 War Is Over if You Want It 251
Epilogue: War Lies 2010-2015 265
About the Author 335
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Some early reviews: "David Swanson despises war and lying, and unmasks them both with rare intelligence. I learn something new on every page." - Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR and author of Cable News Confidential. "While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, War Is A Lie reveals decade after decade the sordid side of our history - that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military." - Colonel (retired) Ann Wright, author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience. "This book is every American's best defense against the greatest danger we face as human beings: the threat of war. Swanson reveals how American leaders (from both major political parties) have confused the public to create the illusion of consent for endless destruction and slaughter. Behind the fear-mongering, flag-waving and lies of George W. Bush and the blandishments of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama lies the ugly reality that our leaders have been seduced by political ambition, delusions of military superiority, and the promise of secrecy and impunity to commit otherwise unthinkable crimes." - Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. "David Swanson is an antidote to the toxins of complacency and evasion. He insists on rousing the sleepwalkers, confronting the deadly prevaricators and shining a bright light on possibilities for a truly better world." - Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. "This book is revolutionary, and certainly truth-telling in a remarkable and brave way. The writing is so clear and easy-to-read, too. A pleasure to read, except that the content is so devastating, because it all means that not only are we utterly deceived but our entire reality is based on that deception. Swanson has gotten to the core of something. The only thing is I'm not sure he realizes how hopeless it is to expect a change -- and yet that is part of the appeal of his writing: his hopefulness in the face of lies and repression and denial." - Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. "War Is A Lie is an important and compelling book that arrives at a time when America is engaged in its longest running war to date. Swanson offers an incisive examination of the rationalizations, justifications, and outright lies that have led the United States, and other nations, into battle. And he shows the personal cost to the current generation of combatants returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." - Cynthia Wachtell, author of War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature 1861-1914.
This is my first (and to date, only) book discussing pacifism. I found it a pretty eye-opening experience. The author forcefully makes his points about the evils of war, and even more so, the evils behind the motives and the callousness of those in charge who launch wars. Overall, I had mixed feelings about the book, but it has significantly changed my viewpoint of war and pacifism, so I would consider the book a success in that regard. I'll sum up pluses and minus below:Pros:+ The author has done extensive research and backs up much of what he states with primary sources, with an extensive list of references.+ Clear, direct style -- there's no ambiguity about any of his points+ Can be very persuasive...my worldview is different after reading this bookCons:- Very obvious, forceful, liberal viewpoint ("bias" to some) that will undoubtedly turn many off- Confrontational style of writing which became rather obnoxious at timesIn summary, there's a lot of good information to be gleaned here, if you can get past the style. I do wish he had managed to keep a more neutral tone and do more to simply present the facts. The facts seem to speak for themselves in many cases, and they're not pretty.