FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Operation Destabilization

by NICK RING

It’s not really surprising that the Bush administration is making as much political hay as possible from the recently recovered tape which purportedly features Osama bin Laden noting “convergent interests” among Iraq’s Ba’athists and his own Islamists. What’s surprising is how insecure that same “security state” is willing to let the world become in order to serve its own sometimes unfathomable interests. Drawing the wrong conclusions is one thing ­ intentionally misreading evidence in a case of life or death is inexcusable.

The facts should be plain by now: Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist organization that cannot be combated in the Cold War, Rumsfeldian terms of nation-states. The U.S. carried out widescale bombing and installed a “U.S.-friendly” government in Afghanistan; Al-Qaeda’s major leaders escaped arrest and assassination (despite unsupported claims of capture or death of one-third of those leaders), while their cadre continued to successfully carry out attacks on civilians all over the world. If it wasn’t apparent before that warfare against a given state would not majorly affect Al-Qaeda’s ability to operate, incidents following wholesale destruction of their “base of operations” should have convinced any doubters. The current drive for war with Iraq betrays the government’s lack of will to confront the terrorist threat on multilateral, internationalist terms. It instead suggests some other motivation for constant war that can be measured in false leaps and bounds as various states fall to the U.S. machine. Whether that goal be international oil, control over foreign and domestic security policy with no room for dissent, or something as yet undiscovered by the American people, it is obvious that it is not to stop Al-Qaeda.

More dangerous is the side-effect: the U.S. has now entered into the business of helping to create “convergent interests” between international terrorists and states like Iraq. The newest tape provides no evidence for an Iraq-armed Al-Qaeda; it does weigh greatly, however, towards the idea that a U.S.-born conflict could yet make the strangest and deadliest bedfellows. Figures in opposition must begin to question directly the uselessness of unilateralism in doing anything but exacerbating existing problems.

There is simply no unilateral way to fight international terrorism. The U.S. could establish direct military control over every “rogue state” in the world, and the Al-Qaeda network would still function effectively enough to carry out terrorist attacks against targets all over the world. This is because Al-Qaeda is both too modern to be subject to any state’s control even if it has its support (along the lines of multinational corporations), and too fringe to ever find a “base of operations” in any one state, no matter how Islamist (as the war on Afghanistan has shown). Certainly, attacking secular dictatorships like Iraq, run by the “infidels” deprecated by bin Laden on the same tape, will do little but further the popularity and aims of Islamist revolutionaries in those states’ borders. It almost seems like pure disgust from the White House for carrying forward a difficult, diplomatically complex international war on terrorism when a war on the villain-of-the-week will suffice.

Why is it so shocking, given the new policy of pre-emptive strikes against possible threats to an amorphous U.S. security, that bin Laden is now deciding to express the same sympathy with the Iraqis that he always has claimed with Palestine? We have given him his popular coup: a neverending war between America and the Arab states that will fuel Al-Qaeda’s hit-and-run operations for years to come. Now, we are strengthening his base by providing an ally in Iraq where there once was an enemy ­ making attacks on U.S. troops, instead of civilians, very likely. The administration has responded with its own domestic terror alerts, taking advantage of its policy of violence abroad to stir paranoia in the homeland.

For the first time in months, the administration is actually talking about bin Laden again, but only in terms of the coming inevitable attack on Iraq. Yet, Bush’s warmongering dove, Powell, accuses France, Germany, and Belgium of destablizing NATO by refusing to send military hardware to Turkey, another country known for its brutal repression of its Kurdish minority and misuse of foreign aid for its own designs. One might wonder if by pursuing a useless war against international opinion, one which we now know will promote the “convergence” of current foes like Al-Qaeda and Iraq, we might rationally be seen as more than a bit destructive ourselves?

NICK RING is a freshman at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. He can be reached at: jnring@bulldog.unca.edu

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail