Much is being made of Donald Trump’s recent statement that he respects Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly aired before the Super Bowl, Trump stated in response to O’Reilly’s quip that Putin was a killer: “There are lots of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think your country’s so innocent?”
Besides the sin of equating US violence with another country’s and, consequently, violating the unwritten law of “American exceptionalism,” Trump seems merely to be guilty of telling the truth on this issue. The fact that the US is responsible for large amounts of death delivered via drone, special forces, B-52 bombing raids and the lesser-known but very real impact of sanctions, could certainly be used as proof that US presidents have killed and will continue to do so.
A 2015 report by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War stated that “at least 1.3 million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan from direct and indirect consequences of the US ‘war on terrorism.'” At best, the US public’s inability to equate US military violence with killing is simply a matter of semantics. At worst, it is a collective inability to make critical connections between US policy and murder.
If the latter is true, perhaps a brief look at a few recent acts of US allies would at least put Putin’s “killing” in perspective. For if the bar the US sets for its allies in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel — to name only three — is any indicator of what the US will support or tolerate, Putin might not make the grade as a US supported “killer.”
In the Saudi case, the kingdom beheaded 47 people on January 2, 2016, including the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr who was arrested for the crime of leading peaceful protests in 2011. His nephew was arrested also, and is now in prison with the specter of crucifixion hanging over his head after the Obama administration ignored pleas to intercede on his behalf. And though the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen is not thoroughly covered in the US press, the civilian casualties continue to mount there. But instead of reprimanding the Saudis for repression in the kingdom, Bahrain and Yemen, the US attitude is best summed up by Obama’s testimonial to King Abdullah upon his death in 2015: “As our countries worked together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions.”
In Egypt, the US government supported Hosni Mubarak until 2011, despite well-known human rights abuses and political killings. Although the US abandoned Mubarak when it became apparent that the Tahrir Square protests would unseat him, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had as recently as 2009 warmly noted that, “I really consider president and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” After a short-lived alliance with the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration returned to awarding an Egyptian strongman, General Sisi, with $1.3 billion in military aid in 2015. It would be hard not to consider Sisi a killer, especially regarding the thousands that have been killed since he took power in 2014.
But the most controversial US partnership remains the special relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel. The two highest profile Israeli incidents of “killing” that have made their way into the press in recent years are Operation Cast Lead and Operation Protective Edge in 2008-2009 and 2014, respectively. The UN decried Israeli abuses in both conflicts in Gaza that left thousands, including many children, dead. Yet, this has not stopped the steady flow of military aid to Israel which, according to a 2016 agreement, will receive $3.3 billion annually for “military financing” for the next 10 years.
These three examples represent only a small number of the repressive governments with whom Washington constructively engages. Given these and the numerous historical examples of US-backed military regimes and juntas throughout South America, Africa and Asia, it seems disingenuous to be appalled by Trump’s respecting Putin and questioning of US innocence.
One can only hope that critical thinking is not lost in the sea of usual “doublethink” that allows the US government and mainstream media to praise violence done by allies while calling countries like Russia to task for similar and, in some cases, lesser crimes. That said, we should not expect an about-face by the tepid US corporate press.
Although Trump may not have intended it, his comment about “killers” and “innocence” may inspire some pundits to challenge the conventional wisdom concerning the actions of US allies and foes, or even the US itself.
In the least, Trump’s brashness should force Americans to take a harder look at who they are and what is done in their name.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.