How does zinn view the war on terrorism

am calling it "our" war on terrorism because i want to distinguish it from bush's war on terrorism, and from sharon's, and from putin's. what their wars have in common is that they are based on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries that you can deal with terrorism by war. these rulers say you can end our fear of terrorism—of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to americans—by drawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists come from (afghanistan, palestine, chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with (iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever lives within that circle.

since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. is it strange, or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?

even within their limited definition of terrorism, they—the governments of the united states, israel, russia—are clearly failing. as i write this, three years after the events of september 11, the death toll for american servicemen has surpassed 1,000, more than 150 russian children have died in a terrorist takeover of a school, afghanistan is in chaos, and the number of significant terrorist attacks rose to a twenty-one-year high in 2003, according to official state department figures. the highly respected international institute for strategic studies in london has reported that "over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of iraq."

with the failure so obvious, and the president tripping over his words trying to pretend otherwise (august 30: "i don't think you can win" and the next day: "make no mistake about it, we are winning"), it astonishes us that the polls show a majority of americans believing the president has done "a good job" in the war on terrorism.

isolationism is a doctrine practiced by the united states for much of its history with the aim of not intervening in external affairs that did not pose a real threat to their country. the united states managed to maintain a state of political isolation throughout the nineteenth century and the first part of the xx. few nations have been able to maintain such a position for such a long period of time. historians argue that it is largely due to geographical reasons, given the physical distance between europe and the usa. uu the venataja of this situation is that the national state can spend its resources in satisfying all the needs of its inhabitants, without the need to invest in armament and equipment for a war that does not directly affect the country.

internationalism is a political and cultural movement that advocates for greater political and economic cooperation among nations for mutual benefit. this novimiento was transformed over time, today it includes military intervention in international conflicts with the objective of maintaining peace. the advantage of this move is in the international contacts and the influence developed by the country that carries it forward.

between the two modes of relations between states, i prefer the first, since i believe it is of the utmost importance to satisfy the needs of citizens and work for their development and as a last option to act on the international level.