|
CounterPunch
September
21, 2002
Doing as
the Romans Did
Bush's War on Terror is a Sick Joke
by
TARIQ ALI
The consequences of 11 September remain visible
on several fronts. Psychologically, the American empire has constructed
a new enemy: Islamic terrorism. Its practitioners were evil,
the threat was global and, for that reason, bombs had to be dropped
unilaterally and wherever necessary. The leaders of the United
States wish to be judged by their choice of enemies rather than
the actual state of the world, leave alone the concrete results
of the 'war against terrorism'. Politically, the United States
decided to use the tragedy and re-map the world. Its military
bases now cover every continent. The largest of these is situated
in one of the tiniest states: Qatar in the Persian Gulf. There
are 189 member states of the United Nations. There is a US military
presence in 120 countries. Domestically, the Bush administration
sought and obtained extensive new powers to curb dissent and
to detain and deport suspects at will. On the East Coast alone,
over a thousand immigrant workers of South Asian origin were
arrested and deported to their countries of origin, without any
outcry in the mainstream media.
A year on, what is the balance sheet
of the war? With the help of its Pakistani creators, the Taliban
regime was overthrown without a serious struggle, though approximately
3000 innocent Afghan men, women and children perished under the
bombs. For the West, these lives were not even worth half as
much as those of the US citizens who died in New  York and Washington. No memorials
honouring innocent victims will be built in Kabul. The torture
and mass execution of prisoners of war leaves many liberal supporters
of 'humanitarian wars' unmoved. However, despite all this, the
central aim of the military operation, which was the capture
('dead or alive') of Osama Bin Laden and his confederates and
the physical destruction of Al-Qa'eda, has still not been accomplished.
On 16 June 2002, The New York Times reported:
"Classified investigations of the
Qa'eda threat now underway at the FBI and CIA have concluded
that the war in Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to
the United States, the officials said. Instead the war might
have complicated counter-terrorism efforts by dispersing potential
attackers across a wider geographic area."
Nor has the imperialist occupation of
Afghanistan led to stability, peace or prosperity in the region.
The character of the Afghan government is symbolised by the fact
that the US-backed leader, Hamid Karzai, asked for and received
bodyguards consisting exclusively of US soldiers. He did not
feel safe being guarded by Afghans. The lack of trust is mutual.
The factions of the Northern Alliance who rule outside Kabul
dislike Karzai and would despatch him overnight if they could
do so without incurring retaliatory bombing raids. To preserve
this regime the United States will have to maintain a permanent
military presence. In other words democracy, human and social
rights, etc, are as remote as they ever were.
The 'wider geographical area' includes
neighbouring Pakistan. Washington's closest ally is the country's
newest military dictator. The first Afghan War (1979-89) required
a Pakistan general prepared to play the Islamic card. Zia-ul-Haq
obliged. The result was the creation of the Taliban. This time
the events required a secular general to help demolish the Taliban.
Enter General Musharraf (or Busharraf according to local wags)
who has institutionalised the Pakistan army as the country's
major political party, accountable only to itself and the Pentagon.
The Pakistan army is the proud possessor of nuclear weapons and
has the ability to use them. Likewise India, the regional hegemon.
A nuclear tussle over Kashmir has frightened the rest of the
world but not the generals in India and Pakistan. The policy-makers
in New Delhi are ready to accept Washington's dictates globally
if they are permitted to mimic the empire locally. So far permission
has been refused and the presence of US soldiers and pilots in
Pakistan acts as a safeguard. But for how long?
While the 'war against terror' has destabilised
South Asia, it has buttressed Israel still further. If the United
States had been serious in its oft-stated desire to stop the
flow of recruits to organisations like Al-Qa'eda, it would have.
Ariel Sharon has been supported by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
in his attempt to obliterate the political identity of the Palestinians
-- what a dissident Israeli historian, Baruch Kimmerling, has
referred to as 'politicide'. The blank cheque given to Israel
by the US Senate and the House of Representatives is without
precedent in recent history. The result has been spectacular.
Since September 2001 over 100,000 Palestinian refugees have fled
to Jordan. Sharon does not even try and conceal the fact that
his aim is a major ethnic cleansing ('transfer') of the Palestinians
from the West Bank. Gaza will be transformed into a modern equivalent
of an Indian reservation. This is being done by a combination
of direct physical force and by making everyday life unbearable
for the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. Even
if these plans succeed, the notion that they will help defeat
'terrorism' is a sick joke. The brutal punishment being inflicted
on the Palestinians for refusing to accept Israeli suzerainty
can be seen every day by the entire Arab world on Al-Jazeera
television. Till now the Arabs have watched and suffered in silence,
but this passivity is deceptive. There is growing anger and signs
of unrest in every capital. There have been large demonstrations
in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The region could erupt if the 'war
against terror' is extended to Iraq.
There is no support for this war anywhere
in the Arab world. A near-universal view is that if waged and
won, far from being seen as a deterrence, it would greatly facilitate
the growth of mass support for terrorist groups. Even Kuwait
has expressed serious concerns and suggested that in the current
climate a war would be an act of political ineptitude. The reason
for this is simple. The large-scale sufferings of the Palestinians
are not perceived as being simply the work of Israel. Many Arab
intellectuals see Israel as the biblical ass whose jaw has been
borrowed by an American Samson to destroy the real and imagined
enemies of the empire. This is also a popular perception and
the opening of a third front in the infinite war that could have
far more serious consequences than the shenanigans in Afghanistan.
These have destabilised South Asia and Saudi Arabia. The consequences
of invading an oil-rich Arab state to create a puppet regime
are not quantifiable. In the wake of September 11, the United
States won near-universal support from states and governments
when it went to war in Afghanistan. This unanimity, dented by
disagreements on Palestine, is now confronting serious problems
as the time for a new war against Iraq approaches. Here, unlike
Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, the West is divided. Apart from
Blair and Berlusconi, no other European leader is keen on the
project. Schroeder, Chirac and the Scandinavians have made this
perfectly clear. They are unlikely to hinder the United States,
but nor will they stop the growth of a mass anti-war movement.
German public opinion is strongly opposed to the idea.
Even in Blairland a majority of the population
is now opposed to the war. A list of unusual suspects have expressed
their opposition in disdainful and disparaging tones. These include
serving and retired generals and the odd field- marshal, not
to ignore the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Will he bless the
bombers in the fashion of his predecessors? Seems unlikely. Nor
will he be isolated. An ICM poll in The Guardian (19 March 2002)
revealed that 51 per cent of the British public is opposed to
a war. The sample discovered that of these 6 per cent were Lib-Dem
voters, 48 per cent were Conservative supporters and 46 per cent
voted Labour. In line with this mood, the mass-readership Daily
Mirror has been campaigning regularly against supporting Washington's
adventure. Its editor has, till now, managed to ignore the bullying
calls from Downing Street and the defence secretary. And public
opinion in the United States is also extremely uneasy about this
one. The Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former chief of
US Central Command, has sounded the tocsin to warn against simple-
mindedness. He is offended by the aw-shucks-I'm-just-a- simple-patriot
tone and diction affected by a mass of Congressmen and Senators
and warns:
"There are congressmen today who
want to fund the Iraqi Liberation Act, and let some silk-suited,
Rolex-wearing guys in London gin up the expedition. We'll equip
a thousand fighters and arm them with 97 million dollars' worth
of AK- 47s and insert them into Iraq. And what will we have?
A Bay of Goats, most likely."
Nonetheless opinion polls in the US suggest
that 60 per cent favour sending in the daisy-cutters, but the
figure drops to 36 per cent at the suggestion that the US should
go in alone. In this respect, Blair is not an unimportant fig-leaf.
Of course, the Democrats could stall an assault by insisting
on a War Powers Resolution and voting against it, but they would
be guided by opinion polls. If they abandoned their noisy bi-
partisan patriotism, they could win support from maverick Republicans
(Armey, Lugar) who have already voiced misgivings about an attack
on Iraq.
Another factor that could stop the war-drive
would be a sudden, steep plunge on Wall Street, as opposed to
a gradual decline. Then there is always the possibility that
Baghdad would allow 'UN' inspection teams back into the country,
complete with CIA sleepers. This would necessitate reverting
to the charge of complicity with 9/11, something which nobody
believes.
The question is: why is the current regime
in the United States so determined to wage this war? Here there
are three considerations. The first is that Iraq, a rich oil-producer,
remains outside the control of the United States. The second
is the size of its army... it is now the only force in the region
that could threaten greater Israel. And thirdly there are domestic
considerations. To wean the pro-Zionist Jews away from the Democrats
is an important tactical goal and the Christian fundamentalists
of the Republican Party make no secret of their unflinching support
for every Israeli atrocity. The Old Testament decrees that the
Land of Zion belongs to the Jews.
The months following the anniversary
of 9/11 will be dominated by the dynamic of two developments:
preparation for war on Iraq and the deterioration of the economy.
The interaction of these two will decide the shape of the global
conjuncture over the next few years. The great thinker-president
and his hard-core advisers appear to have broken decisively from
the Clinton formula of the '90s: American supremacy plus allied
support plus permanent deregulation equals global governance
accompanied by third-way rhetoric. This formula appears to have
been ditched. Leaving aside the moral question as to why an unjust
war would become just if backed by the Security Council, it's
perfectly possible for the United States to secure UN Security
Council support to invade Iraq. The French could be bribed and
the Chinese offered some concessions on Taiwan to secure their
abstentions. But Cheney and Rumsfeld clearly regard these methods
as abhorrent. They know perfectly well that Anglo-American bombing
raids of Iraq of the last 15 years have bypassed the Security
Council with impunity. They are the leaders of the world's only
empire and they will behave accordingly. Some of the Bush ideologues
in the media compare Washington to ancient Rome. It is a permissible
fantasy, but they should remember that (a) the Romans never expected
to be loved and (b) that Rome, too, fell.
As for me, I prefer Goethe's maxim: 'The
world only goes forward because of those who oppose it.'
Tariq Ali
is an editor of New Left Review and a frequent contributor to
CounterPunch. This article is extracted from his new book The
Clash Of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads And Modernity,
published by Verso.
Today's Features
Joan Hoff
Debating
War:
the Forgotten Tradition
Norman Madarasz
Lessons from a Cyncial Master
Jean Chretien's New York
State of Mind
Mitchel Cohen
Toxic Wastes
and
the New World Order
Peter Lee
Why Bush
Wants This War
Bruce Jackson
20 Questions
About Bush's
War Against Arabs
Krystal Kyer
Greenwashing the Marketplace
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Hunting Commie Perverts:
The Scarlet Professor
- DC's Best Political
Mind; DC's Most Dangerous Man;
- Dershowitz the Torturer:
Guess Why He Wants Clean Needles;
- Lese Majeste: That's
Against the Law Too;
- The Greatest Endorsement
AAA Will Ever Get;
- Merle Haggard on Civil
Liberties;
- Dullness Hailed: The Press on the Defeat of McKinney,
Traficant and Barr;
- National Review Puffs
into Town.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
September
20, 2002
Joan Hoff
Debating
War:
the Forgotten Tradition
Norman Madarasz
Lessons from a Cyncial Master
Jean Chretien's New York
State of Mind
Mitchel Cohen
Toxic Wastes
and
the New World Order
Peter Lee
Why Bush
Wants This War
Bruce Jackson
20 Questions
About Bush's
War Against Arabs
Krystal Kyer
Greenwashing the Marketplace
September
19, 2002
Ron Jacobs
Cheney's
Vermont Breakfast
Ilija Trojanow
/ Ranjit Hoskote
Who Cares
for Human Rights?
It's a "Just" War
Jordy Cummings
How
to Silence
Pro-Palestinian Voices
Salam Rahal
The Rape
of a Nation
Richard Falk
& David Krieger
War with
Iraq:
It's Not Bush's Decision
Ralph Nader
How Congress
Can Fight Corporate Crime
Kurt Nimmo
Bush Senior:
Hating Saddam, Selling Him Weapons
September
18, 2002
Rep. Cynthia
McKinney
Goodbye
to All That
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Cancerous
Air
Born Under a Bad Sky
Ben Tripp
Smoking
Gun
of a Hatchet Job
Peggy Thomson
20 Years
After:
Sabra and Shatila
Thomas Mountain
September
1982
Sabra and Chatila (Poem)
William Cook
Yet Another
Bush Doctrine
Kathleen Christison
Israel's Other Voices
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|