FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Operation Destabilization

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:
September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail