{"id":144820,"date":"2021-04-30T22:25:16","date_gmt":"2021-04-30T22:25:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiofree.org\/?p=193235"},"modified":"2021-04-30T22:25:16","modified_gmt":"2021-04-30T22:25:16","slug":"its-aggression-when-they-do-it-but-defense-when-we-do-worse-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/04\/30\/its-aggression-when-they-do-it-but-defense-when-we-do-worse-2\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s Aggression When \u2018They\u2019 Do It, but Defense When \u2018We\u2019 Do Worse"},"content":{"rendered":"

Aggression, in international politics, is commonly defined<\/a> as the use of armed force against another sovereign state, not justified by self-defense or international authority. Any state being described as aggressive in foreign or international reporting, therefore, is almost by definition in the wrong.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a word that seems easy to apply to the United States, which launched 81 foreign interventions<\/a> between 1946 and 2000 alone. In the 21st century, the United States has attacked, invaded or occupied the sovereign states of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.<\/p>\n

Despite the US record, Western corporate media overwhelmingly reserve the word \u201caggression\u201d for official enemy nations\u2014whether or not it\u2019s warranted. In contrast, US behavior is almost never categorized as aggressive, thereby giving readers a misleading picture of the world.<\/p>\n

\n

The Hill<\/strong> (10\/3\/19<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Perhaps the most notable internationally aggressive act in recent memory was the Trump administration\u2019s assassination<\/a> of Iranian general and political leader Qassem Soleimani last year. Yet in its long and detailed report on the event, the Washington Post<\/b> (1\/4\/20<\/a>) managed to present Iran<\/i> as the aggressor. The US was merely \u201cchoos[ing] this moment to explore an operation against the leader of Iran\u2019s Quds Force, after tolerating Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf for months,\u201d in the Post<\/b>\u2019s words.<\/p>\n

It also gave space to senior US officials to falsely claim Soleimani was aiming to carry out an \u201cimminent\u201d attack on hundreds of Americans. In fact, he was in Iraq for peace talks designed to bring an end to war between states in the region. The Iraqi prime minister revealed<\/a> that he had invited Soleimani personally, and had asked for and received Washington\u2019s blessing to host him. Trump instead used that information to kill him.<\/p>\n

For months, media had been awash with stories, based on US officials\u2019 proclamations, that Iranian aggression was just around the corner (e.g., Yahoo! News<\/b>,  1\/2\/20<\/a>; Reuters<\/b>, 4\/12\/19<\/a>; New York Times<\/b>, 11\/23\/19<\/a>; Washington Post<\/b>, 6\/22\/19<\/a>). The Hill<\/b> (10\/3\/19<\/a>) gave a retired general space to demand that we must \u201cdefend ourselves\u201d by carrying out a \u201cserious response\u201d against Iran, who is \u201ctest[ing] our resolve with aggressive actions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

New York Times<\/strong> (11\/12\/20<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Russia is another country constantly portrayed as aggressive. The New York Times<\/b> (11\/12\/20<\/a>) described a US fishing boat\u2019s mix up with the Russian navy off the coast of Kamchatka as typical Russian aggression, complete with the headline, \u201cAre We Getting Invaded?\u201d The Military Times<\/b> (6\/26\/20<\/a>) worried that any reduction in US troops in Germany could \u201cembolden Russian aggression.\u201d And a headline from the Hill<\/b> (11\/14\/19<\/a>) claimed that \u201cPutin\u2019s Aggression Exposes Russia\u2019s Decline.\u201d In the same sentence that publicized a report advocating that NATO expand to take on China directly, the Wall Street Journal <\/b>(12\/1\/20<\/a>) warned of \u201cRussian aggression.\u201d Suffice to say, tooling up for an intercontinental war against another nuclear power was not framed as Western warmongering.<\/p>\n

Other enemy states, such as China (New York Times<\/b>, 10\/6\/20<\/a>; CNBC<\/b>, 8\/3\/20<\/a>; Forbes<\/b>, 3\/26\/21<\/a>), North Korea (Atlantic<\/b>, 11\/23\/10<\/a>; CNN<\/b>, 8\/9\/17<\/a>; Associated Press<\/b>, 3\/8\/21<\/a>) and Venezuela (Wall Street Journal<\/b>, 11\/18\/05<\/a>; Fox News<\/b>, 3\/10\/14<\/a>; Daily Express<\/b>, 9\/30\/19<\/a>) are also routinely accused of or denounced for \u201caggression.\u201d<\/p>\n

Corporate media even present the Taliban\u2019s actions in their own country against Western occupation troops as \u201caggression\u201d (Guardian<\/b> 7\/26\/06<\/a>; CBS News<\/b>, 11\/27\/13<\/a>; Reuters<\/b>, 3\/26\/21<\/a>). The New York Times<\/b> (11\/24\/20<\/a>) recently worried about the Taliban\u2019s \u201caggression on the battlefield,\u201d while presenting the US\u2014a country that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and still has not left\u2014as supposedly committed to the \u201cpeace process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even as the US has been flying squadrons of nuclear bombers from North Dakota to Iran and back, each time in effect simulating dropping atomic bombs on the country, media have framed this as a \u201cdefensive move\u201d (Politico<\/b>, 12\/30\/20<\/a>) meant to stop \u201cIranian aggression\u201d (Defense One<\/b>, 1\/27\/20<\/a>) by \u201cdeter[ring] Iran from attacking American troops in the region\u201d (New York Times<\/b>, 12\/30\/20<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"Forbes:<\/p>\n

Forbes<\/strong> (3\/26\/21<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In February, President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike on a Syrian village against what the White House claimed were Iran-backed forces. The Department of Defense absurdly insisted<\/a> that the attack was meant to \u201cdeescalate\u201d the situation, a claim that was lamentably uncritically repeated in corporate media, with Politico<\/b> (2\/25\/21<\/a>) writing that \u201cthe strike was defensive in nature\u201d and a response to previous attacks on US troops in Iraq. Needless to say, it did not question the legitimacy of American troops being stationed across the Middle East.<\/p>\n

That the US, by definition, is always acting defensively and never aggressively is close to an iron law of journalism. The US attack on Southeast Asia is arguably the worst international crime since the end of World War II, causing some 3.8 million<\/a> Vietnamese deaths alone. Yet in their seminal study of the media, Manufacturing Consent<\/i>, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (Extra!<\/b>, 12\/87<\/a>) were unable to find a single mention of a US \u201cattack\u201d on Vietnam. Instead, the war was commonly framed as the \u201cdefense\u201d of South Vietnam from the Communist North.<\/p>\n

Even decades later, US actions in Vietnam are still often described as a \u201cdefense\u201d (e.g., Wall Street Journal<\/b>, 4\/29\/05<\/a>; Christian Science Monitor<\/b>, 1\/22\/07<\/a>; Politico<\/b>, 10\/10\/15<\/a>; Foreign Policy<\/b>, 9\/27\/17<\/a>). In a 2018 autopsy of the conflict headlined \u201cWhat Went Wrong in Vietnam,\u201d New Yorker<\/b> staff writer Louis Menand (2\/26\/18<\/a>) wrote that \u201cour policy was to enable South Vietnam to defend itself\u201d as the US \u201ctried to prevent Vietnam from becoming a Communist state.\u201d \u201cMillions died in that struggle,\u201d he adds, as if the perpetrators of the violence were unknown.<\/p>\n

It was a similar story with the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, which was presented as a defense against \u201cSoviet and Cuban aggression in the Western hemisphere\u201d (San Diego Union-Tribune<\/b>, 10\/26\/83<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"US<\/p>\n

US News<\/strong> (4\/26\/21<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

There have only been three uses of the phrases \u201cAmerican aggression<\/a>\u201d or \u201cUS aggression<\/a>\u201d in the New York Times<\/b> over the past year. All came in the mouths of Chinese officials, and in stories focusing on supposedly aggressive Chinese actions. For example, at the end of a long article warning about how China is \u201cpressing its territorial claims aggressively\u201d from the Himalayas to the South China Sea, in paragraph 28 the Times<\/b> (6\/26\/20<\/a>) noted that Beijing\u2019s priority is \u201cconfronting what it considers American aggression in China\u2019s neighborhood.\u201d Meanwhile, two articles (10\/5\/20<\/a>, 10\/23\/20<\/a>) mention that Chinese disinformation calls the Korean War the \u201cwar to resist American aggression and aid Korea\u201d. But these were written off as \u201cvisceral\u201d and \u201cpugnacious\u201d \u201cpropaganda\u201d by the Times<\/b>.<\/p>\n

Likewise, when the phrase \u201cAmerican aggression\u201d appears at all in other leading publications, it is largely only in scare quotes or in the mouths of groups long demonized in corporate media, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen (Washington Post<\/b>, 2\/5\/21<\/a>), the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad (Associated Press<\/b>, 2\/26\/21<\/a>) or Saddam Hussein\u2019s generals (CNN<\/b>, 3\/3\/03<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The concept of US belligerence is simply not being discussed seriously in the corporate press, leading to the conclusion that the word \u201caggression\u201d in newspeak means little more than \u201cactions we don\u2019t like carried out by enemy states.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Related Posts<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n\n

This post was originally published on Radio Free<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Aggression, in international politics, is commonly defined as the use of armed force against another sovereign state, not justified by self-defense or international authority. Any state being described\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1303,190,259,25,4,24,261,262,263],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144820"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/209"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144820"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144820\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":144821,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144820\/revisions\/144821"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}