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 as aggressive in foreign or international reporting, therefore, is almost by definition in the wrong.
It’s a word that seems easy to apply to the United States, which launched 81 foreign interventions 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.
Despite the US record, Western corporate media overwhelmingly reserve the word “aggression” for official enemy nations—whether or not it’s warranted. In contrast, US behavior is almost never categorized as aggressive, thereby giving readers a misleading picture of the world.
Perhaps the most notable internationally aggressive act in recent memory was the Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian general and political leader Qassem Soleimani last year. Yet in its long and detailed report on the event, the Washington Post (1/4/20) managed to present Iran as the aggressor. The US was merely “choos[ing] this moment to explore an operation against the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, after tolerating Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf for months,” in the Post’s words.
It also gave space to senior US officials to falsely claim Soleimani was aiming to carry out an “imminent” 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 that he had invited Soleimani personally, and had asked for and received Washington’s blessing to host him. Trump instead used that information to kill him.
For months, media had been awash with stories, based on US officials’ proclamations, that Iranian aggression was just around the corner (e.g., Yahoo! News, 1/2/20; Reuters, 4/12/19; New York Times, 11/23/19; Washington Post, 6/22/19). The Hill (10/3/19) gave a retired general space to demand that we must “defend ourselves” by carrying out a “serious response” against Iran, who is “test[ing] our resolve with aggressive actions.”
Russia is another country constantly portrayed as aggressive. The New York Times (11/12/20) described a US fishing boat’s mix up with the Russian navy off the coast of Kamchatka as typical Russian aggression, complete with the headline, “Are We Getting Invaded?” The Military Times (6/26/20) worried that any reduction in US troops in Germany could “embolden Russian aggression.” And a headline from the Hill (11/14/19) claimed that “Putin’s Aggression Exposes Russia’s Decline.” In the same sentence that publicized a report advocating that NATO expand to take on China directly, the Wall Street Journal (12/1/20) warned of “Russian aggression.” Suffice to say, tooling up for an intercontinental war against another nuclear power was not framed as Western warmongering.
Other enemy states, such as China (New York Times, 10/6/20; CNBC, 8/3/20; Forbes, 3/26/21), North Korea (Atlantic, 11/23/10; CNN, 8/9/17; Associated Press, 3/8/21) and Venezuela (Wall Street Journal, 11/18/05; Fox News, 3/10/14; Daily Express, 9/30/19) are also routinely accused of or denounced for “aggression.”
Corporate media even present the Taliban’s actions in their own country against Western occupation troops as “aggression” (Guardian 7/26/06; CBS News, 11/27/13; Reuters, 3/26/21). The New York Times (11/24/20) recently worried about the Taliban’s “aggression on the battlefield,” while presenting the US—a country that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and still has not left—as supposedly committed to the “peace process.”
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 “defensive move” (Politico, 12/30/20) meant to stop “Iranian aggression” (Defense One, 1/27/20) by “deter[ring] Iran from attacking American troops in the region” (New York Times, 12/30/20).
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 that the attack was meant to “deescalate” the situation, a claim that was lamentably uncritically repeated in corporate media, with Politico (2/25/21) writing that “the strike was defensive in nature” 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.
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 Vietnamese deaths alone. Yet in their seminal study of the media, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (Extra!, 12/87) were unable to find a single mention of a US “attack” on Vietnam. Instead, the war was commonly framed as the “defense” of South Vietnam from the Communist North.
Even decades later, US actions in Vietnam are still often described as a “defense” (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 4/29/05; Christian Science Monitor, 1/22/07; Politico, 10/10/15; Foreign Policy, 9/27/17). In a 2018 autopsy of the conflict headlined “What Went Wrong in Vietnam,” New Yorker staff writer Louis Menand (2/26/18) wrote that “our policy was to enable South Vietnam to defend itself” as the US “tried to prevent Vietnam from becoming a Communist state.” “Millions died in that struggle,” he adds, as if the perpetrators of the violence were unknown.
It was a similar story with the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, which was presented as a defense against “Soviet and Cuban aggression in the Western hemisphere” (San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/26/83).
There have only been three uses of the phrases “American aggression” or “US aggression” in the New York Times 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 “pressing its territorial claims aggressively” from the Himalayas to the South China Sea, in paragraph 28 the Times (6/26/20) noted that Beijing’s priority is “confronting what it considers American aggression in China’s neighborhood.” Meanwhile, two articles (10/5/20, 10/23/20) mention that Chinese disinformation calls the Korean War the “war to resist American aggression and aid Korea”. But these were written off as “visceral” and “pugnacious” “propaganda” by the Times.
Likewise, when the phrase “American aggression” 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, 2/5/21), the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad (Associated Press, 2/26/21) or Saddam Hussein’s generals (CNN, 3/3/03).
The concept of US belligerence is simply not being discussed seriously in the corporate press, leading to the conclusion that the word “aggression” in newspeak means little more than “actions we don’t like carried out by enemy states.”
“Lions and Tigers and Bears. OH WHY!”
America and Israel are the world’s biggest aggressors.
America even has 800 bases around the world. WHY?
Israel just forgets its obligations to get covid vaccine to the Palestinians and shoots any Palestinians who comes to the Peace Fence. WHY?
Nothing good can ever come to this planet when war games take precedence over the planet and humanity!
While I grant the main premise (that there is a double standard when considering United States aggressions), I have a difficult time with your apparent dismissals of very real aggressions by Russia (Crimea), North Korea (repeated long range missile tests), and China (Uyghurs, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea). These threats to the international order are very real; to imply otherwise is irresponsible.
Missile tests may be preparation for aggressive actions, but the tests are not in themselves aggression. Every country with missiles in its arsenal has conducted missile tests.
You don’t “test” missiles by firing them into other nation’s territory. Just because it didn’t explode in Japanese or Russian territorial waters doesn’t make it non-aggressive.
International waters are NOT territorial waters and as far as I’m aware the Koreans fired their missiles harmlessly into the sea, passing through international airspace as they did do.
I didn’t say international waters ARE territorial waters. I said you don’t test missiles by firing them into another nation’s territory. And at least one of their missiles passed over Japan:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/28/japanese-government-warns-north-korea-missile-headed-toward-northern-japan-report-says.html
Russia annexed the Crimea with the support of about 90% of residents in a referendum. Not exactly a classic case of aggression, though NATO can certainly be accused of aggressive provocations against Russia.
I’m not a fan of North Korea, but its vigorous (so far) defensive military build-up
has been more successful than the stance of Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc., against U.S. aggression.
That referendum was held while Russian soldiers were traipsing around the Crimea and it wasn’t really called for, or sanctioned by, the Ukraine’s government. Most of the world doesn’t think it’s very legitimate.
The Russian soldiers have been in Crimea since 1783, with the exception of the years 1941-1944 when the peninsula was occupied by the Nazi Germany but even then there were some troops left in hiding. They Russian soldiers are not seen by the people of Crimea as invaders but as defenders and are welcomed by them with open arms.
Naturally, the Ukrainian government did not agree to the referendum. If my memory serves me, the US also gained independence from Britain without asking permission from the British government.
OK, but that “military presence” was pretty hostile and combative in February 2014. They seized control of the parliament building and a bunch of other strategic sites. In violation of a lot of treaties and international legal principles.
The people of the Crimea voted for it, but theirs isn’t the only voice that oughta count here.
Why are you ignoring the FACT that Russia had agreements with Ukraine to host their navy base in Crimea in the first instance. Thus there were always, Russian troops present in Crimea. FACT !
Hosting a naval base doesn’t mean that Russia gets to field ground troops to take over government buildings and key strategic locations in advance of a referendum– even if that’s what the populace might vote for. FACT!
Having an agreement for a naval base doesn’t grant rights to Russia to field ground troops to seize locations in advance of the referendum– even if the populace might be sympathetic to it. FACT!
NATO has agreements for military bases all over Europe. It doesn’t mean NATO troops get to take over the Bavarian Parliament Building and shut down the Autobahn.
David T watches too much television, but his mindless regurgitation of government propaganda is strong evidence of the effectiveness of the oligarchy’s total control of the corporate media, exactly as Goebbels described it.
aggressions by Russia (Crimea)? David, please educate yourself – Russian speaking Crimea voted to re-join Russia by 96% after the CIA instigated and supported coup in Ukraine where open neo-fascist Russophobes came to power. BTW, during that “Russian aggression” in Crimea in the spring of 2014 not a single shot was fired! Aggression, indeed.
Every country on the planet, is entitled to conduct missile tests if they so desire. Who are you, to dictated which nation can or cannot conduct such work ? Where is the alleged International Order giving all nations those rights ? I found no aggressions from Russia visavis Crimea. In fact I found the Crimean’s very grateful for the Russian presence in Crimea. A presence b.t.w. that had been current for many years under an agreement with the Ukrainian Government.Where is the aggression in that ?
Uyghur’s, very interesting, as it’s never mentioned that this group of people have sides with Al Quaeda and wage war against the Han Chinese murdering hundreds. Why is this FACT, never addressed, as the FACT, that the U.S. SUPPORTS this group and their terrorist actions, now there is REAL aggression for you.
Hong Kong, belongs to China, therefore it is behoven to China to Govern the place. It is not, and has never been, the responsibility of the U.S. to aggressively impose it’s own desires onto H.K. or China in that regard. And the S.C.S. the U.S. has no business at all, of constantly challenging China in it’s own waters, THAT again is pure AGGRESSION. Now you were saying ?
Ever hear of manufacturing consent? Weapons of mass destruction. Chemical warfare? Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Venezuela, Peru, etc? Implying that the west is not responsible for the destabilization of other countries or practicing international aggression is truly the irresponsible act
This could b an article of historic importance. Finally someone in a media source did their homework and reported in an accurate as possible way the real post ww2 history of the u.s. Thank you.
Could u do a follow up article on the CIA and their instigation of nearly all of the invasions u mentioned? Or how the Dod is staffing Congress with their “ex” CIA n military officers, surely unconstitutional in spirit if not law while also a clear conflict of interest that makes MIC lobbying passé.
Bingo, R.k. What you’re talking about goes back to the early days of the CIA, which gagged news media, Hollywood, and publishers from questioning national security policies, persuading cooperative reporters, directors, and editors to self-censor, and even embedding government operatives into their organizations. See David Talbot’s bio of Allen Dulles and almost anything L. Fletcher Prouty wrote, if you can find it.
This is the elephant in the room of reporting on American foreign policies and interventions, and FAIR should make every effort to shoo it out.
“It was a similar story with the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, which was presented as a defense against ‘Soviet and Cuban aggression in the Western hemisphere’”.
But Grenada was building an airport to attract tourists!
How much more aggressive could a country be?
Your pic makes it look like you’re wearing some kind of special Scottish graduation hat with its tassel.
Which would be cool, I’m not saying this is bad.
US aggression is almost always in support of exploitation of natural resources, and has NOTHING to do with defense. That has been the way since the beginning.
And the corporate media is tied to the narrative that we (the US) are always in the right, and never on the wrong side of history, humanity, nature, and morality.
The corporate media needs to be reigned in and brought to heel. It should served the highest ideals of truth and morality.
I call it “Blob Speak”. You can always decipher what the “corporate-owned-news” (CON) actually means by reversing the meaning. So “Chinese aggression” is actually US aggression. Nicholas Maduro is called a “dictator”, because he is a democratically elected socialist (the opposite of a dictator). “Free Markets” mean rigged, anti-worker capitalism where labor is anything but free to do what it thinks best. Unprovoked US military aggression around the globe is always “defensive” in nature. You get the idea, just reverse the meaning and things will become clear.
That is, It is All, in Orwell’s terms: Newspeak. And so it is – when what we do is mentioned at all…The Newspeak is not only by Commission but also by Omission…e.g. Navalny’s or that Iranian-British woman’s imprisonment versus Mr Assange’s…The former get trumpeted; the latter gets NO mention..
Excellent article, especially in regard to Vietnam. The fact that US media still pretends that the existence of South Vietnam as a serious nation-state is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that US media is part of the empire. The creation of South Vietnam was supposed to be a temporary measure to prepare for an election and re-unification. The US and it’s puppet in South Vietnam realized that the end result of that election would be a unified Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh and, thus, decided not to allow the election to take place. Any framing of the war that does not point this out is absurd.
I would like to know if it’s possible to share your excellent articles in other social media specifically Telegram and What’s up
Is the author of this post connected with FAIR, the group that is against illegal immigration? It doesn’t seem so. I only care about stopping illegal immigration, and this article doesn’t fit that narrative.