Professors Against the War on Terror
AIM Column | By Bethany Stotts | May 12, 2008
Lustick’s article amounts to little more than an anti-American attack on par with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.
The complaint that the Iraq War is the result of a neoconservative conspiracy to unduly expand U.S. interests abroad has become popular among professors and antiwar activists, as is the assertion that the War on Terror has undermined American civil liberties and destroyed America’s reputation abroad.
A new policy report by Politics professor Ian Lustick, published by the Independent Institute, is no different. However, the University of Pennsylvania professor’s report is unique in that he derives most of his inflammatory material from news outlets, including ABC News, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Time Magazine, Democracy Now, US World and News Report, and Al Jazeera English.
Lustick believes that the War on Terror is a self-inflicted disaster promoted by a supremacist, neoconservative cabal intent on recreating the Crusades and Holy American Empire at the expense of innocent Muslim youth who only “sympathize” with the plight of the Palestinians and their violent methods. He also implicitly defends Palestinian activists working with charities “linked to Hamas or Islamic Jihad” as victims of an America “in search of enemies and self-justification.”
Characterizing the search for terrorists as “McCarthyite hysteria,” he writes,
“We overcame the McCarthyite anti-communist hysteria, including baseless fantasies of communist “sleeper cells” ready to take over the country...and went on to adjust psychologically, politically, and militarily to the real capacity of the Soviet enemy to incinerate our cities on a moment’s notice. Why...are we having such a difficult time calibrating our response to the problem of terrorism?”
Instead, he argues, “our leaders continue to conjure the images of these ragged bands of Muslim fanatics as if they were the historic enemies of the Christian West that they wish to promote” (emphasis added).
Readers of this column and other Accuracy in Academia writings need little reminder that new research demonstrates that Senator Joseph McCarthy only pursued Communist suspects under FBI investigation. “When people say [he made false accusations], I usually say ‘Name one.’ Who were the innocent people that Joe McCarthy smeared? It’s kinda hard to find them,” said M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted By History, at an AIA event this Fall.
Lustick bases his assertion that America has found no “evidence of a threat anywhere near the magnitude of the response” on an ABC news article, “Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaeda Capabilities.” However, he seems to not have read the entire article.
The report does indicate that there are no sleeper cells in the United States, but then goes on to discuss other popular Al-Qaeda recruitment methods. ABC quotes the report as saying
“‘A senior al Qa’ida detainee instructed an operative who is currently in U.S. custody, to settle in the United States with his family and maintain a low profile before eventually conducting an attack...Al-Qa’ida operatives have also married U.S. women to obtain U.S. visas and foreign documentation from other countries, according to sensitive reporting.’”
The authors make this dual point abundantly clear, writing in the very first line of the article that “A secret FBI report obtained by ABC News concludes that while there is no doubt that al Qaeda wants to hit the United States, its capability to do so is unclear” (emphasis added). Lustick, author of Trapped in the War on Terror, somehow concludes that this means there is no significant threat to the United States.
Indeed, Lustick’s analysis is replete with inaccuracies and non-sequiturs, displaying an ignorance of basic facts about counterterrorism. For example, he criticizes the FBI for paying a Lodi, California informant $250,000 for claiming to have seen Ayman al-Zawahiri in 1999. “The intelligence community knew (or at least should have known) this report was false because of its knowledge of al-Zawahiri’s whereabouts at the time of the supposed sighting,” he writes.
Lustick conveniently forgets that in 1999, the FBI and CIA were not allowed to communicate or share information. The 9/11 Commission belabored this point at length as one of our key weaknesses. Even in the post-9/11 climate, interagency information exchanges remain limited.
Lustick makes a similar mistake when citing a Syracuse University study as evidence of police force “entrapment.” He writes, “These figures reflect the fact that the great majority of these prosecutions are not really for terrorism offenses but for visa violations, telling untruths to law enforcement officers, and the like.”
Again, the author overlooks the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that Al-Qaeda’s attack was made possible primarily through the ease of obtaining American visas. Lustick’s own cited evidence indicates that greater visa scrutiny has foiled Al-Qaeda attempts to infiltrate and forced other tactics, such as marrying American women.
In all, Lustick’s article amounts to little more than an anti-American attack on par with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Not only does he accuse Christians of promoting Crusader interests and a “New American Century,” but he characterizes the entire United States population as engaging in “baseless fantasies” over nonexistent threats. He accuses police officers of government-sponsored entrapment for political convenience and condemns homeland security efforts as little more than pork-barrel spending. America becomes the evil empire run by a predatory cabal intent on subjecting the world to its hegemonic will at the expense of democratic ideals and humanitarian interests at home and abroad.
To add insult to injury, Independent Institute Fellow Ivan Eland—the moderator at Lustick’s panel—recently defended Reverend Wright’s condemnation of America as a terrorist nation. His article can be read here.
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer for Accuracy in Academia, and can be contacted at
10 Comments | Post a Comment
Ah, the land of equal opportunity…to be totally uninformed, then speak as though thoroughly “in the know.”
I am reminded of the old joke in the early 70s: how do you keep older Americans uninformed? (A: Take away their Reader’s Digest.)
How do you KEEP elderly Americans uninformed? (A: Give it back to them.)
[This was back when Michael Barone was still with RD, and it was a worthwhile read…or at least you could find something that interested you. My wife was a RD fanatic until they “improved” the mag until it was limp noodles. When her subscription ran out, that was that.]
While I read MRC’s (Media Research Center) email summary of the more uninformed and hysterical propaganda disguised as news in the MSM, it wouldn’t occur to me to actually get my “news” from ABC, CBS, nor NBC. (MRC also reports on “The View,” another great source of uninformed opinion, and other shows of this ilk.)
I get my news from Internet sites and emails such as AIM’s, Patriot Post (which quotes AIM from time to time), NewsMax, Nealz Nuze (who should proofread his “writing” on his site, which is otherwise quite good and often entertaining), and Drudge, who doesn’t care which side gets negative or positivie coverage, but just gives you the more interesting headlines as links to the full stories. (Interestingly, studies of bias find Drudge to be fair right down the middle, but he’s still a far right extremist bomb-thrower to the leftists.)
I suspect that many of the anti-war crowd couldn’t find: a) Iraq or Iran on a map/globe; or b) their butts with both hands and a map.
Obama says he’d talk to the leaders of terrorist-sponsoring nations…but they know he’s a liar, too! (I assume that the terrorists are much better informed than the American people.)
The left has done one thing pretty well: it has given the word “conservative” a negative connotation to balance out the negative aspects of calling someone a “liberal,” while the left now prefers “progressive,” which is code for “socialist.” Mainstream republicans have become spineless worms…right along with Bush.
The best thing Bush could do is to publicly denounce ethanol and Global Warming/Climate Change as the ridiculous (and expensive) hoaxes that they are. For someone who claims to read so many books, he surely doesn’t seem to take much away from what he has read. Take away his Reader’s Digest!
Regarding Lustick’s conclusion regarding the valididity of McCarthy’s accusations ask him if he is familiar with the Venona tapes collected by the Communist USSR’s KGB.
Ni Illigitimi Carborundum!
Voxoreason’s comment reminded of something I was thinking about the other day. Is the word “change” a code word for “revolution”?
voxoreason:
For excellent insight into what’s happened to Democrat versus Republican or liberal versus conservative, check out a lecture given by Ayn Rand in 1964 titled “The Anatomy of Compromise” which can be found in a collection of her essays and lectures titled “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.” She clearly showed how the politics of this country were moving inexorably toward socialism.
Here’s the book, you can find audio CDs or MP3s of the collection there as well.
voxoreason:
Here’s another analysis of what’s happened to conservativism:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-fall/decline-fall-american-conservatism.asp
Funny thing about Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neoconservativism”—here’s a quote about himself:
“Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo-that’s all, neo dash nothing.” http://www.pbs.org/arguing/reviews.html
My God is NOT the author of confusion.
The author of this story equates those who are ‘Anti-Neocon’ with Muslim supporters, in NO uncertain terms.
Niether view is correct, and the author knows NOT anything to which she espouses—-
She is a rabble-rousing confusionist who hopes to decieve the TRUE right-wing Republic-ans (this nation IS a Republic, patriots!) with her rhetoric about Moslems, mixing it in with leftist professors, and trying to prove that leftist views are anti-American. There is some truth in every thing, and these left-leaning quacks are just waking up to the truth, but the Neo-Con author is diverting this awakening, and using it to her propagandistic advantage, as a weapon,or ‘tool in the arsenal’ (a phrase the police state we live in coins all too often!).
This author claims to be somewhat of an American, while she defends the police state that GWB and company strives for. Perhaps she actually SUPPORTS songbird McCain! Billary and Osama bin Obama are two other sides of the same totalitarian coin, damn it!
Geeze, people, give us a small break, and discuss the cost of the ‘WAR ON TERROR’, a war on an emotion, for God’s sake! A crusade upon an emotion, which will overshadow the ‘war on poverty’, and the ‘war on drugs’!
They BOTH failed to deliver, and in fact exaserbated both issues. How many more ‘wars’ do you wish to wage, in your ultimate goal of world domination, author? Perhaps just a LITTLE more confusion, and the sheeple will aquiese—-
John Galt (nice alias)
I am familiar with the works of Ayn Rand, but went back to “Anatomy” for a refresher. It’s been a while…and just about everything she said was accurately descriptive of what has been going on ever since, while a nice summation of the past. John McCain comes across as the “inconsistent” candidate, despite the blatant lies of Barry and Hillary, which aren’t really philosophical so much as self-serving in Hillary’s case and defensive in Barry’s case. (This, of course, would not have occurred to me earlier.)
My favorite part was about the incremental change from freedom to communism by way of socialism, (although the contrast between the thief and the industrialist is a great point; but I think it was Lenny Bruce who said that if there were no criminals, the police would be unemployed). I’ve seen others restate this, including Rand’s “real world” opponents, who have learned to demand everything on the menu, but settle for one from column A and one from column B. Okay, they didn’t really expect to get everything on the menu, but were satisfied with the incremental change, which was very real. Then: repeat as necessary. This is the way DC works.
I am reminded of the Smothers Brothers, who faced a good deal of censorship. Tom (the “goofy” one who was actually the brains of the outfit) noted that when they were worried about one sketch being too far out there, they would come up with something that was even more blatantly unacceptable to “take the bullet for the team,” while the desired sketch was televised.
Of course, Rand’s description of the UN was spot on…and remains as timely today as way back when.
Those who ridicule the “neo-cons” miss the point. If the Founding Fathers were to assess the UN, they would surely be amazed that America could sink into such a quagmire. While a proposed League of Global Democracies (not sure just what it’s called, but this is close) is described as “one-world government,” this is patent nonsense as every country in the world isn’t a free democracy, but they exist nonetheless.
Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to do constructive things as part of a collective that wasn’t blocked at every turn by China and Russia… and the rest of the usual suspects?
Thanks for the intelligent conversation.
“Who is John Galt?”
[BTW, there is a portrait of Ayn Rand sitting behind me on a table as I haven’t decided where to hang it just yet. At a Charlotte university, a major contributor wanted a tasteful reading room paying hommage to Ms Rand, with a single portrait and a modest plaque, while using portions of Atlas Shrugged in a survey course of economic models much like a course on comparative religion. An incompetent official (overpaid and under-qualified) went overboard and plastered the walls with 36 portraits. After the storm, a stack of these portraits ended up just sitting around. I managed to secure one of these portraits through my wife, who works there. The Dean of the Business College who had set this up a couple of years ago left for a better-paying position, so the Chancellor put the blame on the former Dean for this overkill when charges of “academic freedom” arose (were stirred up by a religious studies professor, who was friends with a fellow religious studies prof at another local college, and the friend was married to a newspaper columnist). The former Dean, when questioned for a newspaper article on this blame game, slyly retorted that he would not presume to speak for the chancellor.]
Truly, it seems there is little difference in the mythical right/left, rep/dem.
In the last half century, we have had one party or the other in the WH, controlling Congress. The things that are harmful to this country have marched right along. The rhetoric is different - the bombast is different - each has a role to play. When it comes to the crunch, they all work to be sure that this country will cease to exist as a free society.
These people remind me of professional wrestling. They all get in front of the cameras and do their bits - each wearing one uniform or the other. They put on their little show and pretend indignation and outrage, or pious ‘good guy’ roles. Some time one is the bad guy and some time the other. Sure they all would like have top billing, but they know in order to stay in the business, they have to play the part assigned them. When the lights go out, they collect their pay from the same people (and I don’t mean the relatively meager paycheck they get from taxpayers).
This administration made conservative a bad word -
why has no one confessed the existence of Hillary’s human rights crime against Barry Titus, now fifteen years long in front of the media, who kept silent about the obvious violation of the constitution, because Bill and Hillary lied that Titus requested religious and psychological ghelp fromt he federal government.
May 13 at 10:21 am | #1 | Link
I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOUR ARTICLE TONIGHT ON MY SHOW. http://WWW.BLOGTALKRADIO.COM SOAP. LET ME KNOW IF IT IS OK WITH YOU.
TOM