|
CounterPunch
September
11, 2002
How Warmongers
Exploit 9/11
by Norm Dixon
In the week before the first anniversary of the
devastating September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York
and Washington, TV networks aired a seemingly never-ending string
of ``special events'' featuring ``exclusive'' or ``never before
seen'' footage of the collapse of the twin towers of the World
Trade Center (WTC) and its aftermath. People around the world
again experienced the horror, anger and tragedy of that terrible
day, when almost 3000 working people were murdered.
Culminating on the anniversary of the
day itself, thousands of journalists and TV presenters from across
the globe will converge at ``ground zero'' in New York for ``remembrance
and reflection''. Solemn ceremonies will be telecast and patriotic
speeches by top US politicians broadcast, restating Washington's
determination to pursue its ``war on terrorism''.
But by the end of the 9/11 anniversary
hoopla, after the thousands of hours of TV time and the column-kilometres
published in the world's newspapers and magazines, you can be
sure that the most glaring aspect of the post-9/11 period will
have remained unmentionable by all but the most honest commentators:
that Washington's ``war on terrorism'' is a cynical fraud.
The most repeated 9/11 media cliche is
that on that day ``the world changed''. However, few commentators
have bothered to explain how.
September 11 did mark a change in the
US and world politics -- just how permanent remains to be seen.
On that day, the US rulers realised that those awful acts of
terrorism provided them with a golden opportunity to achieve
the US capitalist ruling class' long-held objective of world
domination -- the ``American century'' it predicted was at hand
at the end of World War II.
Top officials in President George Bush
junior's administration seized that opportunity, coldly calculating
that the traumatised US people would now support significant
military interventions by US ground troops abroad, in the guise
of fighting ``terrorism'', even if there was a risk of large
numbers of US casualties -- something they have refused to accept
since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975.
Before September 11, Washington had long
labelled governments and political movements it opposed as ``terrorists''.
The US State Department each year publishes a list of countries
that ``support terrorism''; for years it has included Iran, Iraq,
Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Until September 11,
that was not enough to convince the US people to support sustained
military operations against them.
Almost as soon as the smoke from the
rubble of the WTC had cleared, the Bush administration moved
to take the focus of the ``war on terrorism'' from the alleged
perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities -- Osama bin Laden and his
al Qaeda network of religious reactionaries -- to US-defined
``terrorism'' and ``evil'' in general.
``From this day forward'', Bush told
Congress on September 20, ``any nation that continues to harbour
or support terrorism will be regarded as a hostile regime''.
The ``first war of the 21st Century'' will not end, he declared,
``until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated''.
The bombing of Afghanistan began on October
7. On November 21, Bush outlined what has become known as the
``Bush doctrine'': ``Afghanistan is just the beginning of the
war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America
and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor
them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats
are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will
fight these evil ones, and we will win
``America has a message for the nations
of the world: if you harbour terrorists, you're terrorists; if
you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist; if you feed
or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held
accountable by the United States and our friends.''
On November 26, with Iraq now in his
cross-hairs, Bush expanded the scope of the ``war on terrorism''
further when he stated, ``If they develop weapons of mass destruction
that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable''.
The transformation was complete with
Bush's January 29 State of the Union speech. The next stage of
Washington's ``war on terrorism'' was officially delinked from
the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden
or al Qaeda. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had suddenly taken
the elusive Bin Laden's place as public enemy number one.
The ``axis of evil'' that now topped
Washington's hit-list -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- has no
proven links with al Qaeda, bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks. Nor
do three of the four organisations Bush cited by name -- Hamas,
Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- have a connection with al Qaeda;
their ``crime'' was to oppose Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine.
Bush also bluntly stated that the US
had the right to unilaterally launch military action against
``terrorists'' inside any country, and launch preemptive military
strikes against states that Washington suspected of developing
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons: ``Some governments will
be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it,
if they do not act, America will.''
Bush reminded the world that US vengeance
has no geographic limits. ``Our armed forces [in Afghanistan]
have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United
States: even 7000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on
mountain tops and in caves, you will not escape the justice of
this nation'', he warned.
In less than six months, Bush's ``war
on terrorism'' had morphed seamlessly from action directed at
the alleged perpetrators and backers of the 9/11 mass murders
into a war against any Third World state or political movement
that Washington considers too independent, too defiant or a hurdle
to the goal of US global hegemony.
Bush's State of the Union speech was
the formal announcement that Washington is unashamedly seeking
world domination. As the February 1 New York Times editorial
noted: ``The application of power and intimidation has returned
to the forefront of American foreign policy Not since America's
humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam more than a quarter-century
ago has US foreign policy relied so heavily on non-nuclear military
force, or the threat of it, to defend American interests around
the world.''
Since the end of World War II, the US
ruling class' overarching strategic goal has been the maintenance
of overwhelming military, economic and political dominance and
the prevention of the emergence of other powers -- great or regional
-- that could challenge that position. This goal was dubbed the
``American century'' at the end of World War II.
However, Washington's expectations of
total world domination were frustrated for nearly 50 years by
the industrial and military strength of the Soviet Union and
the national liberation struggles, beginning with the victory
of the Chinese revolution in 1949 and the Cuban revolution in
1959, followed by the wave of successful independence struggles
in Africa and Asia throughout the 1960s that culminated in the
historic defeat of US forces in Vietnam in 1975.
Washington's defeat in Vietnam was a
political defeat as well as a military one. Over time, with the
assistance of a growing anti-war movement, the US people had
come to realise that the US rulers had cynically lied when they
proclaimed the bloody war against the people of Vietnam as a
fight for democracy -- at the cost of 50,000 young US soldiers'
lives and the deaths of millions of Vietnamese -- when in fact
it was an unjust, imperialist war of aggression.
The ``Vietnam syndrome'' was born, and
for more than 25 years, it made it politically impossible for
Washington to deploy large numbers of ground troops in ``hot''
wars overseas.
Militarily and politically hamstrung
by the Vietnam syndrome, US imperialism suffered further setbacks
in the late 1970s with the victories of the independence struggles
in Angola and Mozambique, a revolution in Ethiopia in 1977, the
1978 Afghan revolution, and the revolutionary processes begun
in Nicaragua and Grenada in 1979.
The overthrow of the pro-US Shah of Iran
in 1979 was also a serious threat to US imperialism's hold on
the strategic oil-rich Persian Gulf.
Under President Ronald Reagan, who came
to power in 1980, the US ruling class launched a counter-attack
against what it dishonestly dubbed ``Soviet expansionism''. Washington
massively funded and armed counter-revolutionary bandits and
terrorists, such as RENAMO in Mozambique, UNITA in Angola, the
contras in Nicaragua and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Reagan
also boosted US support to the apartheid regime in South Africa
and dictatorial regimes like those in Pakistan, Indonesia and
Chile.
However, Reagan's strategy was also specifically
engineered to avoid putting US troops in harm's way. When Reagan
ordered US troops to invade Grenada in 1983 (and when George
Bush senior ordered the invasion of Panama in 1989), the operation
relied on massive firepower before elite US troops entered and
then left as quickly as possible.
However, Reagan massively boosted US
war spending across the board, including on the ``star wars''
missile defence system. The goal of this fanciful project was
to achieve the ability to launch a first-strike nuclear attack
on the USSR without fear of retaliation. Attempts to match these
massive military expenditures played a role in ``bleeding'' the
Soviet Union, hastening its collapse.
With the demise of the USSR in 1991,
the US rulers hoped that the ``American century'' was again on
the horizon. George Bush senior hailed the US victory over Iraq
in the 1990-91 Gulf War as also marking the ``end of the Vietnam
syndrome'' and declared that Washington would now oversee a ``New
World Order''.
However, he spoke too soon. Bush senior
had been not prepared to test the Vietnam syndrome. The US military
had relied on the use of its overwhelming air superiority and
its massive technological edge to avoid significant ground operations.
Fear of the Vietnam syndrome in part deterred Bush from sending
US troops into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Throughout the 1990s, this was the pattern
of US military operations. The Vietnam syndrome was shown to
be alive and kicking with the public outcry in the US to the
deaths of 18 soldiers during Washington's ``humanitarian'' intervention
in Somalia.
The Bush senior and the Clinton administrations
clothed their military actions in the guise of defending human
rights, halting ``ethnic cleansing'' or providing humanitarian
assistance. They were conducted under the cover of regional or
UN ``peacekeeping'' operations and were generally conditional
on winning multilateral endorsement.
The American people's hopes that the
end of the Cold War would result in much reduced military spending
and a ``peace dividend'' also frustrated US ruling class demands
for the maintenance of military spending at Cold War levels.
With 9/11, the dominant wing in Bush
junior's administration clearly believes the Vietnam syndrome
has finally been put to rest.
The claim that the attacks on the WTC
``changed the world'' are part of a myth that is being carefully
crafted: that the launch of the ``war on terrorism'' was simply
a response to the terrible events of one day.
This myth-making is exemplified by a
melodramatic September 5, 2002, article by Associated Press White
House correspondent Ron Fournier: ``In a cramped nuclear shelter
deep beneath the White House, President Bush stared across a
spare wooden table and told his national security team, `Get
the troops ready'. Twelve hours after the terrorist strikes,
moments after his nationally televised address, Bush was preparing
for a war that would transform and define his presidency `This
is a time for self defence', he told his war council. `This is
our time'.''
The truth is more straightforward. In
the 12 months following 9/11, Bush junior's administration has
cynically seized upon and exploited the terror attacks to launch
a drive to achieve the US ruling class dream of an ``American
century'' or ``New World Order'' -- an unchallenged global US
military, political and economic empire.
The power behind the throne of George
Bush junior's regime is vice president Dick Cheney and a warmongering
team made up of veterans of the Reagan and Bush senior administrations.
Throughout the 1990s, these ``hawks''
organised for their return to power, formulated their programs
for unchallenged US hegemony and advocated the unbridled use
of US military power through a network of tightly interlocked
right-wing ruling-class think-tanks -- the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute, Americans
for Victory over Terrorism and the Center for Security Policy.
The Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and the editorial pages of
the Wall Street Journal championed their views (and continue
to do so).
The lessons of the Bush senior and Clinton
administration, the new ``centurions'' constantly claimed, was
that US power should not be constrained by attempts to balance
US interests with those of its European or other allies. Alliances,
international organisations or multilateral treaties must not
get in the way of the unfettered exercise of US military or economic
power.
Other key planks pushed by the hawks
have been unconditional military and political support for Israel
-- Washington's key ally in the Middle East -- and implacable
opposition to any regimes in that region that could pose a threat
to US domination of the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf. As
a result, a trademark of the centurions has been extreme hostility
towards the regimes in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and even Lebanon,
as well as cheering every move made by Tel Aviv to crush the
national liberation movement in occupied Palestine.
In 1997, the PNAC was established to
promote ``American global leadership''. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld
(now US defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (now deputy defence
secretary) and Jeb Bush (Bush junior's brother) were signatories
to the PNAC's founding ``statement of principle''. It stated
bluntly: ``[Conservatives] seem to have forgotten the essential
elements of the Reagan administration's success: a military that
is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges;
a foreign policy that boldly and purposely promotes American
principles abroad; and a national leadership that accepts the
United States' global responsibilities
``America has a role in maintaining peace
and security in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. If we shirk
our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental
interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught
us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises
emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history
of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of
American leadership.''
The PNAC argued that the US must ``increase
defense spending significantly'' and ``modernize our armed forces
if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today''
; ``strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values''; ``promote the
cause of political and economic freedom abroad''; and ``accept
responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending
an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity,
and our principles''.
``Such a Reaganite policy of military
strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today'', the
PNAC conceded. ``But it is necessary if the United States is
to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure
our security and our greatness in the next.''
In September 2000, the PNAC fleshed out
its imperial vision with the release of a report, Rebuilding
America's defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
Century. The project's participants included Wolfowitz, Lewis
Libby (now Cheney's chief of staff) and Weekly Standard editor
William Kristol.
The report's introduction noted that
the US ``is the world's only superpower, combining preeminent
military power, global technological leadership and the world's
largest economy At present the US faces no global rival. America's
grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous
position as far into the future as possible''. To preserve this
``desirable strategic situation'', the report stated, the US
``requires a globally preeminent military capability both today
and in the future''.
The report's authors admitted that they
had built upon the 1992 draft of the Pentagon's Defense Planning
Guidance (DPG), which was prepared for Cheney, who was then US
defence secretary in the Bush senior administration, Wolfowitz
and Libby.
This document stated bluntly that the
US must continue to ``discourage ... advanced industrial nations
from challenging our leadership or ... even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role ... [To achieve this, the US] must retain
the preeminent responsibility for addressing ... those wrongs
which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies
or friends, or which seriously unsettle international relations.''
This was an admission that the massive
build-up of US military might in Europe, Asia and the Middle
East after 1945 was not simply directed at containing ``Soviet
expansionism'', crushing Third World revolutions and controlling
natural resources such as Middle Eastern oil -- as vital to US
interests as they were. It was also aimed at enmeshing its potential
capitalist rivals -- Britain, France, Germany and Japan -- within
US-dominated military alliances designed to prevent them developing
independent armed forces.
The PNAC report endorsed the DPG's ``blueprint
for maintaining US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great
power rival, and shaping the international security order in
line with American principles and interests... The basic tenets
of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound.''
The PNAC report recommended that the
US turn around the 1990s ``decade of defence neglect'' and boost
war spending to a minimum of 3.5-3.8% of GDP (up from around
3%) by adding US$15 billion to US$20 billion annually; increase
the numbers of active-duty military personnel from 1.4 million
to 1.6 million; and ``reposition US forces ... by shifting permanently
based forces to southeast Europe [the Balkans] and Southeast
Asia [preferably the Philippines and/or Australia], and by changing
naval deployment patterns to reflect growing US strategic concerns
in East Asia [meaning the `containment' of China and the `defence'
of Taiwan]''.
The report also urged Washington to develop
the capability to ``fight and win multiple, simultaneous major
theater wars'' and at the same time ``perform the `constabulary'
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical
regions''; maintain ``nuclear strategic superiority'' by developing
smaller ``bunker-buster'' nuclear weapons and resuming nuclear
testing; develop the ``star wars'' global ``missile defence system'';
and ``control the new `international commons' of space and `cyberspace'
and pave the way for the creation of a new military service --
US Space Forces -- with the mission of space control[!]''.
As all the above indicates, the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz
cabal have had a long-standing program for the expansion of US
hegemony. What it lacked was the ``trigger'' to implement it
or the existence of a serious enough ``threat'' that would convince
the US people to abandon their desire for a ``peace dividend''
and their opposition to US war casualties abroad.
Which is why the 9/11 attacks were a
godsend for the Bush gang. Washington immediately recognised
the opportunity with which it was presented. As Bush junior's
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted: ``I really
think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947 in that the events
... started shifting the tectonic plates in international politics.
And it's important to try to seize on that and position American
interests and institutions before they harden again.''
Since 9/11, Bush's new centurions have
fast-tracked the implementation of their agenda in case the ``window
of opportunity'' closes. They have won a massive increase in
military spending of US$48 billion, to US$379.3 billion, in 2002-2003.
Adding non-Pentagon military spending, mostly by the energy department
for the nuclear weapons program, total military spending will
be US$396.1 billion.
A further US$38 billion is to be spent
on ``homeland defence'' -- mainly for the plethora of US police
agencies. Washington has projected that the war budget will steadily
increase to more that US$451 billion by 2007, a 30% increase.
Washington has signalled -- with its
repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions,
the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court
and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty -- that US military, economic
and political power will not be subject to any form of international
constraint.
It has been revealed that the US has
plans to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states under
guise of eliminating the threat of ``weapons of mass destruction''.
There have also been reports that US special forces will soon
be authorised to kill or capture ``terrorists'' anywhere in the
world, whenever the opportunity arises, without having to obtain
permission from the relevant government.
As a result of its war to overthrow the
Taliban, Washington has secured a permanent military bases and
stationed tens of thousands of troops for the first time in the
increasingly strategic Central Asian region. From these bases,
the US can more easily ``contain'' Russia and China, control
the emerging oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea region,
strengthen its hold over the Persian Gulf and increase further
its military stranglehold on most of the world's vital energy
resources.
Using the cover of the ``war on terrorism'',
Washington has increased or resumed military funding for notoriously
repressive regimes -- including as Yemen, Georgia, Indonesia,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Colombia and the former Soviet Central
Asian republics -- as well as sending thousands of troops and
military advisers to help them crush anti-government movements.
Washington has given the green light
for Russia to continue its brutal campaign against the Chechen
freedom struggle and the Chinese government's repression of separatists
in Xinjiang.
The September 11 attacks and the subsequent
US ``war on terrorism'' has presented the US ruling-class warmongers
with their biggest opportunity yet to ``cure'' the Vietnam syndrome.
The greatest test of this will be the coming US invasion of Iraq.
Anti-war activists need to organise and
mobilise in massive numbers to stop this war and to revive as
rapidly as possible the seemingly dormant anti-war consciousness
of the US people. Solidarity must be offered to the inevitable
resistance to the imperialist warmongers that will develop throughout
the US empire.
This essay originally appeared in the
Australian Green Left
Weekly.
CounterPunch Special Report:
9/11 One Year After
Bill Christison
A
Year Later: It's Happening Here
Alexander Cockburn
The
Tenth Crusade
Susan Davis
Mr. Ashcroft's
Neighborhood
Bruce Jackson
When
War Came Home
David Krieger
Looking
Back on September 11
Mike Leon
Bush and War
Peter Linebaugh
Levellers
and 9/11
William McDougal
September 11 One Year On:
That's Entertainment!
Riad Z. Abdelkarim and Jason Erb
How American Muslims Really Responded
to 9/11
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Trouble
with Normal
Tom Stephens
Rise Up...Dump Bush
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- War Talk As White Noise:
Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton
Out of the Headlines;
- First Hilliard, Then
McKinney: Jewish
Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the
Middle East; Intimidation
is the Name of the Game; Smearing
"Insane" McKinney As Muslims' Pawn;
- The Missing Terrorist?
Calling Scotland
Yard: "Where's Atif?"
- They Never Booed Dylan!:
Tape Transcript Shows
Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter
Yarrow!
- New Shame from the Liffey
Shrike
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
/
|