• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

All Dressed Up and No Place to Go

The table is set, at least so far as the tools of war are concerned; enormous quantities of American men, machines, and ordnance now stand ready to strike at any number of potential targets around the Middle East. Any day now is the word from Washington. But meantime there is no public sign that the Bush administration is any closer to plotting a course past the many complications that attend its retaliation for the September 11 bombings. Two things seem clear: Bush puts a premium on acting soon, and bin Laden country in eastern Afghanistan is a primary target. The rest, by all appearances, remains up for grabs even on the eve of attack. Air strikes on Afghanistan? Land war there? Secondary theaters of battle in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon?

All those questions are being weighed now, out of view of the public and the U.S.’s ostensible allies, give or take Britain. You know the refrain: National security and the exigencies of war demand the utmost secrecy. In this case it means handing the administration a blank check in the naming of enemies and targets. When Colin Powell intimated a more moderate course by suggesting the U.S. would release its evidentiary brief against bin Laden, he was quickly rebuked by the president himself. So much for coalition-building, not to mention the informed consent of the American citizenry.

So why hasn’t Bush gone ahead? For starters any initial strike has to include bin Laden, and the U.S. apparently has no idea where he is at the moment-somewhere in east central Afghanistan, they think, but without more specific knowledge it’s hard to cast an attack on Afghanistan as a mission to get bin Laden. This is not a very big stumbling block in the end. They would prefer to find him and kill him with a minimum of wasted effort, for face-saving reasons; Bush does not want another embarrassment like the one Clinton sustained in going after bin Laden in 1998. But if it has to, the U.S. can simply make up news regarding his whereabouts, the workings of intelligence services being what they are. And it may well come to this, because American forces face a fairly intractable deadline in the coming of winter in Afghanistan. Snow is already falling in the Khyber Pass, Britain’s The Telegraph noted on Wednesday, and “ground operations by special forces [will be] almost impossible in a few weeks.”

Winter in the Afghan mountains is hardly the sharpest spur to quick military action. Pakistan, the state most indispensable to the U.S. as a military staging area and fly zone, is already in a state of near-revolt following waves of anti-U.S. protests in the past week. The Musharraf government likely will not stand for long in the event of a protracted U.S. presence. Nor is the U.S. in a position to count on getting much from its alliances with the moderate governments of the region. The case of Saudi Arabia is emblematic: That country severed all diplomatic ties with the Taliban on Tuesday, but not before instructing the U.S. it would not be permitted to use its Saudi air bases to mount attacks in Afghanistan. The Americans are on a short fuse with their putative Arab allies, and Bush’s refusal to make public the evidence against bin Laden has only cut it shorter.

The biggest wild card in all this is Israel, though you would never know it from most of the timorous think pieces in American media. Unless the Israelis can be restrained from using the situation to press their advantage against the Palestinians, any U.S. pretense at maintaining the so-called coalition of moderate Arab states will collapse sooner rather than later. And Israel, accustomed to the unconditional love and heavy-handed support of its patron, is not inclined to make accommodations. “Just look at what Mr. Sharon has done since the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon,” wrote an editorialist in Wednesday’s London Independent. “Immediately, he intensified attacks on the Palestinians, thinking the West would turn a blind eye. He sent his forces into the towns of Jenin, Jericho and Ramallah, which are supposed to be under Palestinian self-rule, launched helicopter missile assaults on the Gaza Strip and tightened Israel’s grip on mainly Arab east Jerusalem. Admittedly, there were provocations for these actions, but they also suited Mr. Sharon’s temperamental desire to defeat the Palestinians rather than negotiate with them.”

Wednesday’s resumption of peace talks between Israel and the PLO was an entirely pro forma gesture; no further meetings were scheduled and the two principals, Peres and Arafat, refused so much as a glance at each other when they shook hands for the cameras. Meanwhile Israel is openly lobbying the U.S. to include Iran, Syria, and Lebanon-backers of Hamas and Hezbollah forces-on its hit list of prospective military targets.

And the Pentagon is inclined to agree in principle, though the enemies of choice there tend toward Iraq and Iran. For the past week-plus, there have been regular dispatches in U.S. and U.K. papers detailing the split in the Bush administration between a moderate Powell-led faction and a band of Pentagon hawks led by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. As mentioned here previously, the Powell group wants to move slowly, cement alliances, and limit the scope of initial military actions; the Pentagon crowd wants to launch war on multiple fronts in quick succession. This week the tilt has been decidedly to the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz side. Bush’s public reversal of Powell on Monday was not only a personal slap; in flouting international calls for disclosure of the evidence against bin Laden, it amounted to an embrace of the Pentagon line that what the U.S. needs now in the Middle East is fewer partners and more targets.

It’s hard to believe Bush will want to launch wars on multiple fronts as a first resort, given the enormous difficulties he already faces in pursuing bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan. Then again, how better to distract attention from that likely fiasco than by resurrecting efforts to get Saddam, or the sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah? CP

Steve Perry writes frequently for CounterPunch and is a contributor to the excellent cursor.org website, which offers incisive coverage of the current crisis. He lives in Minneapolis, MN.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 22, 2019
Gary Leupp
The Kurds as U.S. Sacrificial Lambs
Robert Fisk
Trump and the Retreat of the American Empire
John Feffer
Trump’s Endless Wars
Marshall Auerback
Will the GOP Become the Party of Blue-Collar Conservatism?
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Trump’s Fake Withdrawal From Endless War
Dean Baker
Trump Declares Victory in China Trade War
Patrick Bond
Bretton Woods Institutions’ Neoliberal Over-Reach Leaves Global Governance in the Gutter
Robert Hunziker
XR Co-Founder Discusses Climate Emergency
John W. Whitehead
Terrorized, Traumatized and Killed: The Police State’s Deadly Toll on America’s Children
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World Partnership for Ecopolitical Health and Security
Binoy Kampmark
The Decent Protester: a Down Under Creation
Frances Madeson
Pro-Democracy Movement in Haiti Swells Despite Police Violence
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Challenges Logging and Burning Project in Methow Valley
Chelli Stanley
Change the Nation You Live In
Elliot Sperber
Humane War 
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail