|
The
Attack against the World
Trade Center
in New York and the Pentagon
in Washington,
What is it, that really threatens Civilization and - what
kind of a Civilization is this?, by Wolfgang Fischer -
The
awesome cruelty of a doomed
people
by Robert Fisk - On
the Bombings
by Noam Chomsky - Inevitable
ring to the unimaginable
by John Pilger - Folks
out there have a "Distaste of Western Civilization and
Cultural Values"
by Edward
S. Herman - Respond
to Violence: Teach Peace, Not
War,
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman -
TwinTowers,
by Uri Avnery, Acts
of Terrorism - Acts of War,
Venomous Butterfly - Emperor's Clothes comments:
'Washington's
Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy' Article
from "Washington Post' -
'Taliban
Camps U.S. bombed in Afghanistan Were Built by
NATO'
Documentation from the 'N.Y. Times'. Combined U.S. and
Saudi aid to Afghan-based terrorism totaled $6 billion or
more - 'CIA
worked with Pakistan to create
Taliban'
- 'Osama
bin Laden: Made In USA'
(Excerpt from article on U.S. bombing of a pill factory
in Sudan in August, 1998. Argues that bin Laden was and
still may be a CIA asset)- 'Excerpts
from News Reports - Bin Laden in the
Balkans'
evidence that bin Laden aided or is aiding the
U.S.-sponsored forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia-
'Into
the Abyss'
by Rick Rozoff - 'Washington
Created Osama bin Laden'
by Jared Israel - 'Russian
Navy Chief Says Official 9-11 Story
Impossible'
-
September
11 And Its Aftermath
by
Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom -
The
Need for Dissent - Radicalism is retreating, but it's more
necessary than ever before
by George Monbiot - Welcome
to the Warnacular
by
Laura Flanders
- What
Kind of War?
by Michael T. Klare- America
Under Attack?
by
Dan Berger - White
House lied about threat to Air Force
One
by Jerry White - Tony
Blair's bin Laden dossier: a pretext instead of
proof
by Chris Marsden and Barry Grey - A
Brief (and partial) History of US Sponsored Terrorism
Abroad,
Mark Zapezauer - If
CIA and the government weren't involved in the September 11
attacks what were they
doing?
by Michael C. Ruppert - US
planned war in Afghanistan long before September
11
by Patrick Martin - Gaping
Holes in the 'CIA vs. bin Laden'
Story
by Jared Israel, Was
the US government alerted to September 11
attack?,
"What
really happend on
9-11?"
Jared Israel interviewed by Mark Haim (April
2002) (pdf.version)
see
also: Who
Is Osama
Bin Laden?
by Michel Chossudovsky
and: The
GW Bush - Osama Bin Ladin
Connection
Where
is the Bush administration taking the American
people?
By the WSWS Editorial Board (Sept.22.01)
Emergency,
Terrorism
and War
on ZNet
and: a
kind of different
statistics
WAR
- looking behind the smoke: War
of Lies
by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen
The
Top Five Lies About This
War
Kill,
Kill,
Kill
by Russell Mokhiber
EMPEROR'S
CLOTHES ARTICLES ON 9-11
* A GUIDE
/
site
mirror here
The
Complete 9/11 Timeline
by Paul Thompson
9/11
WIDOW'S BUSH
TREASON SUIT
DISAPPEARS FROM MEDIA,by
W. David Kubiak (Dec. 03)
Why
Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (02.06)
Pentagon
Strike - What hit the Pentagon on 911 ???
IRAQ
-
Occupation and Resistance
Report,
Psychoanalysts
for Peace and Justice
Senior
Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials
Question
9/11 Commission Report
Loose
Change (10. 06):
loosechange911.com
A
CALL TO ACTION FOR PEACE
The
Attack against the World
Trade Center
in New York and the Pentagon
in Washington and the Consequences
What
is it, that really threatens Civilization and - what kind of
a Civilization is this?
By
Wolfgang Fischer
(
german
version
) (spanish
version)
The
attack against the WTC and the Pentagon.
The
sorrow and suffering of the innocent victims of this attack
and of their relatives and friends is added to the pain of
all people, who have had to suffer since ages from the fact,
that 'Justice', as meted out by those in power - is robbing
the powerless majority of a viable future.
What
is really threatening civilization, the attack itself or the
historically developed causes and backgrounds, which drive
people into humiliation to such an extent, that it is
motivating them to deadly and suicidal attacks?
Have
we really been confronted with a new dimension of violence
on Sept. 11. 2001 or is a well known dimension only showing
up at quite an unexpected location?
Are
not, for example, the Iraqi people suffering from daily
bombardements and what else have been those two bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki than acts of terror?
We
must allow such questions if we do not totally want to
forfeit any hope for a peaceful future.
So
why all this violence?
On
the one hand we have politically motivated violent expansion
of power against the vital interests of human beings and
whole peoples, who are being deprived of their living space
and material as well as spiritual nourishment. And what is
no less reprehensible: - people of questionable moral
motivation are being financed and strategically used by
secret services to satisfy the criminal interests of the
investors.
And
on the other hand we find the resistance against all the
insanity of the world, acts of despair committed by people,
who want to draw attention to the hopelessness and
desperation of their existence. Permanent humiliation gives
birth to the courage of despair and hatred, the spirit of
ultimate destruction.
Violence
must come to an end.
Only
a politics considering the basic interests of Life, treating
peoples of all different religions, races and nations as
equal - a politics which respects Life and takes care of
Nature as our basic source of existence will instantly lead
to a termination of violence. If, however, we fail to move
in this direction of an 'Infinite Justice' by means of
actions such as used by Gandhi, further losses of freedom
and quality of Life around the globe are
inevitable.
The
US-built anti-terror alliance named their answer to the
attacks of Sept.11.: "Enduring Freedom"
According
to the goals of capitalism the motto seems correct as this
war is only trying to reinforce the freedom of exploitation
and suppression by the industrialized countries. Pretending
to be guided by humanistic motivations in waging this kind
of war is pure lie and hypocrisy.
Privatised
Violence in the Service of State
Terrorism
is Threatening World Peace
(w.f.,
21.12. 2001)
For
decades, and ever more aggressively, the US through their
secret service agencies have been supporting sources of
conflict all over the world with a view to destabilising
certain situations to suit their own interests. This is a
clear-cut strategy, thought out by clever heads like former
Security Adviser Brzezinski ("The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives") and supported by
scenarios like those designed by US historian Huntington
("The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order")
If
such views are familiar to our former State Secretary of
Defence and Federal Research Minister Andreas von
Bülow, who publicised them in book form ("In the Name
of the Government - CIA, BND and the Criminal Intrigues of
the Secret Services"), and if he claims without any official
denial, that even in 1993 when the first bombing of the WTC
took place, the primer had been supplied by the FBI, then a
man like Schily, our Minister of the Interior, cannot be
ignorant of them. Speaking of a "war beyond nations", Otto
Schily is showing his true face as a collaborator with
terror, and the same goes for all other politicians who
support this manipulative interpretation.
On
the one hand, they cover up for all those who, with profits
from the trade with heroin and cocaine, are financing the
terror at the cost of an army of millions of addicts,
thereby in contravention of international law globally
preventing peaceful coexistence. And on the other hand, they
have a terrorising effect upon citizens at home, whose basic
human rights continue to be abrogated through so-called
anti-terror" legislation.
more
(source: http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm)
September
11 And Its Aftermath
By
Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom
We
are writing this on September 17, less than a week after the
horrific terrorist attacks against the United States. We are
still dealing with our grief and trauma and we are still
profoundly moved by the many acts of heroism, generosity,
and solidarity that have taken place. Some may find it
inappropriate to offer political analysis this early, but
however discordant some may find it, the time for political
analysis should be before actions are taken that may make
the situation far worse. Critics of war across the U.S. and
around the world are working hard to communicate with people
who, for the moment, mainly seek retribution. Below we
address some of the many questions that are being asked. We
hope the answers we offer, developed in consultation with
many other activists, will assist people in their daily
work.
Who
did it?
The
identity of the 19 individuals who hijacked the four planes
is known, but what is not yet known is who provided the
coordination, the planning, the funding, and the logistical
support, both in the United States and elsewhere. Many
indications point to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, but
if his role is confirmed, this is the beginning, not the
end, of the inquiry: Were any other organizations involved
and, if so, which ones? Were any national governments
involved and, if so, which ones? The danger here is that the
U.S. government may answer these questions based on
political criteria rather than evidence.
Who
is Osama bin Laden?
Osama
bin Laden is an exiled Saudi, who inherited a fortune
estimated at $300 million, though it's not clear how much
remains of it. Fanatically devoted to his intolerant version
of Islam-a version rejected by the vast majority of
Muslims-bin Laden volunteered his services to the Afghan
Mujahideen, the religious warriors battling the invading
Soviet Union from 1979 to 1989. The Afghan rebels were
bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and the United States and trained
by Pakistani intelligence, with help from the CIA. The
United States provided huge amounts of arms, including
Stingers- one-person anti-aircraft missiles-despite warnings
that these could end up in the hands of terrorists.
Washington thus allied itself with bin Laden and more than
25,000 other Islamic militants from around the world who
came to Afghanistan to join the holy war against the
Russians. As long as they were willing to fight the Soviet
Union, the U.S. welcomed them, even though many were
virulently anti-American, some even connected to the 1981
assassination of Anwar Sadat of Egypt. When Moscow finally
withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, some of these Islamic
militants turned their sights on their other enemies,
including Egypt (where they hoped to establish an Islamic
state), Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Bin Laden
established an organization of these holy war veterans-al
Qaida. In February 1998, bin Laden issued a statement,
endorsed by several extreme Islamic groups, declaring it the
duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens-civilian or
military-and their allies everywhere.
Where
is Osama bin Laden?
After
some attacks on U.S. interests in Saudi Arabia, Saudi
authorities revoked bin Laden's citizenship. Bin Laden went
to the Sudan and then on to Afghanistan. His precise
location is unknown, since he frequently moves or goes into
hiding. Afghanistan is led by the Taliban, a group of
extreme Islamic fundamentalists, who emerged out of the
Mujahideen. The Taliban does not have full control over the
country-there is a civil war against dissidents who control
some 10-20 percent of the country. Afghanistan is an
incredibly poor nation-life expectancy is 46 years of age, 1
out of 7 children die in infancy, and per capita income is
about $800 per year. Huge numbers of people remain refugees.
Taliban rule is dictatorial and its social policy is
unusually repressive and sexist: for example, Buddhist
statues have been destroyed, Hindus have been required to
wear special identification, and girls over eight are barred
from school. Human rights groups, the United Nations, and
most governments have condemned the policies of the Taliban.
Only Pakistan, and the two leading U.S. allies in the Gulf,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, recognize the
Taliban government.
Why
did the terrorists do it?
We
don't entirely know who did it, at this writing, so we can't
say for sure at this point why they did it. There are,
however some possibilities worth thinking about. One
explanation points to a long list of grievances felt by
people in the Middle East-U.S. backing for Israeli
repression and dispossession of the Palestinians, U.S.
imposition of sanctions on Iraq, leading to the deaths of
huge numbers of innocents, and U.S. support for autocratic,
undemocratic, and highly inegalitarian regimes. These are
real grievances and U.S. policy really does cause tremendous
suffering. But how do these terror attacks mitigate the
suffering? Some may believe that by inflicting pain on
civilians, a government may be overthrown or its policies
will change in a favorable direction. This belief is by no
means unique to Middle Easterners-and has in fact been the
standard belief of U.S. and other government officials for
years. It was the belief behind the terror bombings of World
War II by the Nazis, the U.S. and Britain, and behind the
pulverizing of North Vietnam and the strikes on civilian
infrastructure during the Kosovo war. It is the same
rationale as that offered for the ongoing economic sanctions
against Iraq: starve the people to pressure the leader. In
addition to the deep immorality of targeting civilians as a
means of changing policy, its efficacy is often dubious.
In
this case, one would have a totally inaccurate view of the
United States if one thought that the events of September 11
would cause U.S. officials to suddenly see the injustice of
their policies toward the Palestinians, etc. On the
contrary, the likely result of the attacks will be to allow
U.S. leaders to mobilize the population behind a more
uncompromising pursuit of their previous policies. The
actions will set back the causes of the weak and the poor,
while empowering the most aggressive and reactionary
elements around the globe.
There
is a second possible explanation for the September 11
attacks. Why commit a grotesquely provocative act against a
power so large and so armed as the United States? Perhaps
provoking the United States was precisely the intent. By
provoking a massive military assault on one or more Islamic
nations, the perpetrators may hope to set off a cycle of
terror and counter-terror, precipitating a holy war between
the Islamic world and the West, a war that they may hope
will result in the overthrow of all insufficiently Islamic
regimes and the unraveling of the United States, just as the
Afghan war contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union.
Needless to say, this scenario is insane on every count one
can assess.
But
even if provocation rather than grievances is what motivated
the planners of the terror strikes against the U.S., this
still wouldn't mean grievances are irrelevant. Whatever the
planners' motives, they still needed to attract capable,
organized, and skilled people, not only to participate, but
to give their lives to a suicidal agenda. Deeply-felt
grievances provide a social environment from which fanatics
can recruit and gain support.
How
should guilt be determined and how should the punishment be
carried out?
The
answers to these questions are all important. In our world,
the only alternative to vigilantism is that guilt should be
determined by an amassing of evidence that is then assessed
in accordance with international law by the United Nations
Security Council or other appropriate international
agencies.
Punishment
should be determined by the UN as well, and likewise the
means of implementation. The UN may arrive at determinations
that one or another party likes or not, as with any court,
and may also be subject to political pressures that call
into question its results or not, as with any court. But
that the UN is the place for determinations about
international conflict is obvious, at least according to
solemn treaties signed by the nations of the world. Most
governments, however, don't take seriously their obligations
under international law. Certainly, history has shown that
to U.S. policy makers international law is for everyone else
to follow, and for Washington to manipulate when possible or
to otherwise ignore. Thus, when the World Court told the
U.S. to cease its contra war against Nicaragua and pay
reparations, U.S. officials simply declared they did not
consider themselves bound by the ruling.
Why
us? Why the U.S.?
The
terrorists wreaked their havoc on New York and Washington,
not on Mexico City or Stockholm. Why?
George
W. Bush has claimed that the United States was targeted
because of its commitment to freedom and democracy. Bush
says people are jealous of our wealth. The truth is that
anti-Americanism rests on feelings that the U.S. obstructs
freedom and democracy as well as material well being for
others. In the Middle East, for example, the United States
supports Israeli oppression of Palestinians, providing the
military, economic, and diplomatic backing that makes that
oppression possible. It condemns conquest when it is done by
Iraq, but not when done by Israel. It has bolstered
authoritarian regimes (such as Saudi Arabia) that have
provided U.S. companies with mammoth oil profits and has
helped overthrow regimes (such as Iran in the early 1950s)
that challenged those profits. When terrorist acts were
committed by U.S. friends such as the Israeli-supervised
massacres in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in
Lebanon, no U.S. sanctions were imposed. But about the U.S.
imposed sanctions on Iraq, leading to the deaths of hundreds
of thousands of innocent children, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright could only say that she thought it was
worth it. When the U.S. went to war against Iraq, it
targeted civilian infrastructure. When Iran and Iraq fought
a bloody war, the United States surreptitiously aided both
sides.
On
top of specific Middle Eastern concerns, anti-Americanism is
also spawned by more general grievances. The United States
is the leading status-quo power in the world. It promotes a
global economic system of vast inequality and incredible
poverty. It displays its arrogance of power when it rejects
and blocks international consensus on issues ranging from
the environment, to the rights of children, to landmines, to
an international criminal court, to national missile
defense.
Again,
these grievances may have nothing to do with the motives of
those who masterminded the terror strikes of September 11.
But they certainly help create an environment conducive to
recruitment.
Isn't
it callous to talk about U.S. crimes at a time when the U.S.
is mourning its dead?
It
would be callous if the people talking about U.S. crimes
weren't also horrified at the terror in New York and if the
U.S. wasn't talking about mounting a war against whole
countries, removing governments from power, engaging in
massive assaults, and evidencing no concern to discriminate
terrorists from civilian bystanders.
But
since critics are feeling the pain and the U.S. is already
formulating its notions of justice in precisely those
unconstructive terms, for critics to carefully point out the
hypocrisy, and the likely consequences even as we also mourn
the dead, feel outrage at the carnage, and help relief
efforts, is essential. It is how we help avoid piling
catastrophe on top of catastrophe.
Suppose
bin Laden is the mastermind of the recent horror. Imagine he
had gone before the Afghan population a week or two earlier
and told them of the U.S. government's responsibility for so
much tragedy and mayhem around the world, particularly to
Arab populations as in Iraq and Palestine. Imagine that he
further told them that Americans have different values and
that they cheered when bombs were rained on people in Libya
and Iraq. Suppose bin Laden had proposed the bombing of U.S.
civilians to force their government to change its ways. In
that hypothetical event, what would we want the Afghan
people to have replied?
We
would want them to have told bin Laden that he was demented
and possessed. We would want them to have pointed out that
the fact that the U.S. government has levied massive
violence against Iraq's civilians and others does not
warrant attacks on U.S. civilians, and the fact of different
values doesn't warrant attacks of any sort at all.
So
isn't this what we ought to also want the U.S. public to say
to George Bush? The fact of bin Laden's violence, assuming
it proves to be the case, or that of the Taliban, or
whatever other government may be implicated, does not
warrant reciprocal terror attacks on innocent civilians.
By
talking about U.S. crimes abroad, aren't we excusing
terrorist acts?
To
express remorse and pain, and to also seek to avoid
comparable and worse pain being inflicted on further
innocents (including Americans) is not to evidence a lack of
feeling for the impact of crimes against humanity, but
instead indicates feelings that extend further than what the
media or the government tells us are the limits of
permissible sympathy. We not only feel for those innocents
who have already died, and their families, but also for
those who might be killed shortly, for those we may be able
to help save.
U.S.
crimes in no way justify or excuse the attacks of September
11. Terror is an absolutely unacceptable response to U.S.
crimes. But at the same time, we need to stress as well that
terror-targeting civilians-is an absolutely unacceptable
response by the United States to the genuine crimes of
others.
The
reason it is relevant to bring up U.S. crimes is not to
justify terrorism, but to understand the terrain that breeds
terrorism and terrorists. Terrorism is a morally despicable
and strategically suicidal reaction to injustice. But
reducing injustice can certainly help eliminate the seeds of
pain and suffering that nurture terrorist impulses and
support for them.
Bush
has said that the "war on terrorism" needs to confront all
countries that aid or abet terrorism. Which countries
qualify?
The
current thinking on this topic, promulgated by Bush and
spreading rapidly beyond, is that anyone who plans, carries
out, or abets terrorism, including knowingly harboring
terrorists, is culpable for terrorist actions and their
results-where terrorism is understood as the attacking of
innocent civilians in order to coerce policy makers. Some
people might argue with some aspect of this formulation, but
from where we sit, the formulation is reasonable enough. It
is the application that falls short.
The
U.S. State Department has a list of states that support
terrorism, but it is-as one would expect-an extremely
political document. The latest listing consisted of Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and
Sudan-significantly omitting Afghanistan. Cuba is included,
one suspects, less because of any actual connection to
terrorism, than because of longstanding U.S. hostility to
the Cuban government and the long record of U.S. terrorism
against Cuba. If we are talking about terrorism of the sort
exemplified by car and other hand-delivered bombs,
kidnappings, plane hijackings, or suicide assaults, we can
reasonably guess that most of the countries on the State
Department list, along with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and some
other poor nations would qualify with varying degrees of
culpability.
On
the other hand, if we are talking about terrorism of the
sort exemplified by military bombing and invasion, by food
or medical embargoes affecting civilians rather than solely
or even primarily official and military targets, by hitting
"soft targets" such as health clinics or agricultural
cooperatives, or by funding and training death squads, then
we would have a rather different list of culpable nations,
including such professed opponents of terrorism as the
United States, Britain, France, Russia, and Israel.
At
times the parties engaged in either list point to the
actions perpetrated by those on the other list as
justification for their behavior. But, of course, terror
does not justify subsequent terror, nor does reciprocal
terror diminish terror from the other side.
Do
Palestinians support the attacks, and, if so, what is the
implication?
There
have been reports of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
cheering the attacks, and similar reports regarding
Palestinians in the United States. Fox News has played over
and over the same clip of some Palestinians in the occupied
territories celebrating. But the media fails to explain that
they are showing only a small minority of Palestinians and
that official Palestinian sentiment has expressed its
condemnation of the attacks and sympathy for the victims.
The media have been especially remiss in not reporting such
things as the statement issued by the Palestinian village of
Beit Sahour movingly denouncing the terror, or the
candlelight vigil in Arab East Jerusalem in memory of the
victims.
There
is no reason to doubt, however, that some Palestinians-both
in the U.S. and in the Middle East-cheered the attacks. This
is wrong, but it is also understandable. The United States
has been the most important international backer of Israeli
oppression of Palestinians. Politically immature
Palestinians, like the Americans who cheered the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima or many lesser bombings such as that of
Libya in 1986, ignore the human meaning of destroying an
"enemy" target.
But
that some Palestinians have reacted in this way, while
disappointing, should have no bearing on our understanding
of their oppression and the need to remedy it. In fact,
given that Israel seems to be using the September 11 attacks
as an excuse and a cover for increasing assaults on
Palestinians, we need to press all the more vigorously for a
just solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
What
is the likely impact of the attacks within the U.S.
policy-making establishment?
The
catastrophic character of these events provides a perfect
excuse for reactionary elements to pursue every agenda item
that they can connect to "the war against terrorism" and
that they can fuel by fanning fears in the population. This
obviously includes expanding military expenditures that have
nothing whatever to do with legitimate security concerns and
everything to do with profit-seeking and militarism. For
example, even though the events of September 11 should have
shown that "national missile defense" is no defense at all
against the most likely threats we face, already the
Democrats are beginning to drop their opposition to that
destabilizing boondoggle. Amazingly, certain elements will
even extrapolate to social issues. For example, our own home
grown fundamentalists-like Jerry Falwell-have actually
declared (though retracted after wide criticism) that
abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU are at
fault. Others hope to use the attacks as a rationale for
eliminating the capital gains tax, a long-time right-wing
objective. But the main focus will be military policy. In
coming weeks, we will see a celebration in America of
military power, of a massive arms build-up, and perhaps
assassinations, all touted as if the terror victims will be
honored rather than defiled by our preparing to entomb still
more innocent people around the world.
So
what is the likely U.S. response?
U.S.
policymaking regarding international relations (and domestic
relations as well) is a juggling act. On one side, the goal
is enhancing the privilege, power, and wealth of U.S.
elites. On the other side, the constraint is keeping at bay
less powerful and wealthy constituencies who might have
different agendas, both at home and abroad.
Since
the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has had a problem-how to
get the public to ratify policies that don't benefit the
public, but that serve corporate and elite political
interests. The fear of a Soviet menace, duly exaggerated,
served that purpose admirably for decades. The ideal
response to the current situation, from the elite
standpoint, will be to replace the Cold War with the
Anti-Terror War. With this accomplished, they will again
have a vehicle to instill fear, arguably more credible than
the former Soviet menace. Again they will have an enemy,
terrorists, whom they can blame for anything and everything,
trying as well to smear all dissidents as traveling a path
leading inexorably toward the horrors of terrorism.
So
their response to these recent events is to intone that we
must have a long war, a difficult struggle, against an
implacable, immense, and even ubiquitous enemy. They will
declare that we must channel our energies to this cause, we
must sacrifice butter for guns, we must renounce liberty for
security, we must succumb, in short, to the rule of the
right, and forget about pursuing the defense and enlargement
of rights. Their preferred response will be to use the
military, particularly against countries that are
defenseless, perhaps even to occupy one and to broadly act
in ways that will not so much reduce the threat of terror
and diminish its causes, as to induce conflict that is
serviceable to power regardless of the enlargement of terror
that results.
Already
Congress has been asked to give the president a blank check
for military action, which means further removing U.S.
military action from democratic control. Only Rep. Barbara
Lee had the courage to vote "no" on Congress's joint
resolution, authorizing the president "to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any future acts of international terrorism against
the United States by such nations, organizations or
persons."
What
response should the U.S. take instead?
The
best way to deal with terrorism is to address its root
causes. Perhaps some terrorism would exist even if the
grievances of the people of the Third World were dealt
with-grievances that lead to anger, despair, frustration,
feelings of powerlessness, and hatred-but certainly the
ability of those who would commit terror, without grievances
to recruit others, would be tremendously reduced. As a
second step, we might help establish a real international
consensus against terrorism by putting on trial U.S.
officials responsible for some of the atrocities noted
earlier.
Of
course, these are long-term solutions and we face the horror
of terrorism today. So we must consider what we want the
United States government to do internationally right now.
The
U.S. government's guiding principle ought to be to assure
the security, safety, and well-being of U.S. citizens
without detracting from the security, safety, and well-being
of others. A number of points follow from this principle.
We
must insist that any response refrain from targeting
civilians. It must refrain as well from attacking so-called
dual-use targets, those that have some military purpose but
substantially impact civilians. The United States did not
adhere to this principle in World War II (where the direct
intention was often to kill civilians) and it still does not
adhere to it, as when it hit the civilian infrastructure in
Iraq or Serbia, knowing that the result would be civilian
deaths (from lack of electricity in hospitals, lack of
drinking water, sewage treatment plants, and so on), while
the military benefits would be slight. We would obviously
reject as grotesque the claim that the World Trade Center
was a legitimate target because its destruction makes it
harder for the U.S. government to function (and hence to
carry out its military policies). We need to be as sensitive
to the human costs of striking dual-use facilities in other
countries as we are of those in our own country.
We
must insist as well that any response to the terror be
carried out according to the UN Charter. The Charter
provides a clear remedy for events like those of September
11: present the case to the Security Council and let the
Council determine the appropriate response. The Charter
permits the Council to choose responses up to and including
the use of military force. No military action should be
carried out without Security Council authorization. To
bypass the Security Council is to weaken international law
that provides security to all nations, especially the weaker
ones.
Security
Council approval is not always determinative. During the
Gulf War, the U.S. obtained such approval by exercising its
wealth and power to gain votes. So we should insist on a
freely offered Security Council authorization. Moreover, we
should insist that the UN retain control of any response;
that is, we should oppose the usual practice whereby the
United States demands that the Council give it a blank check
to conduct a war any way it wants. In the case of the Gulf
War, although the Council authorized the war, the war was
run out of Washington, not the UN. To give the United States
a free hand to run a military operation as it chooses
removes a crucial check.
We
should insist that no action and no Security Council vote be
taken without a full presentation of the evidence assigning
culpability. We don't want Washington announcing that we
should just take its word for it-as occurred in 1998, when
the U.S. bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, asserting
that it was a chemical warfare facility, only to acknowledge
some time later that it had been mistaken.
If-and
it's a big if-all these conditions are met, then we should
no more object to seizing the perpetrators than we object to
having the domestic police seize a rapist or a murderer to
bring the culprit to justice. And what if a state is also
found to be culpable or if a state determines to use
military means to protect the terrorists? The dangers of
harm to civilians are much greater in the case of a war
against a state. Military action would be justified only
insofar as it did not cause substantial harm to civilians.
In
addition, if the goal of a proposed military action is to
enhance U.S. security rather than to wreak vengeance, such
envisioned benefits would have to be weighed against the
prospects of driving thousands of others in the Islamic
world into the hands of terrorism. In other words, military
action needs to be the smallest part of the international
response. More important are diplomatic pressures, cutting
off funding for terrorist organizations, reducing the
grievances that feed frustration, and so on.
It
is critically important to also note, however, that even
non-military actions can cause immense civilian suffering
and that such options too must be rejected. Calling for
Pakistan to cut off food aid to Afghanistan, for example, as
the United States has already done, would likely lead to
starvation on a huge scale. Its implications could be far
worse than those of bombing or other seemingly more
aggressive choices.
What
should we do to protect ourselves from these sorts of
attacks?
Beyond
pursuing the implementation of international law through
appropriate international channels and beyond trying to
rectify unjust conditions that breed hopelessness and
despair that can become the nurturing ground of terror, it
is also necessary to reduce vulnerability and risk.
Some
things are far easier than the media would have us believe.
If we don't want to ever see a commercial airliner turned
into a missile and used to destroy people and property, we
can disconnect the pilots' cabin and the body of the plane,
making entry to the former from the latter impossible.
Likewise, it is significant that the U.S. airline industry
has, up until now, handled airport security through private
enterprise, which means low-paid, unskilled security
personnel with high turn-over. In Europe, on the other hand,
airport security is a government function and the workers
are relatively well-paid, and hence much more highly
motivated and competent.
Other
tasks will be harder. What we should not do, however, is
curtail basic freedoms and militarize daily life. That
response doesn't ward off terror, but makes terror the
victor.
How
do we respond to what seems like militaristic
flag-waving?
To
harshly judge the way some show their feelings for the U.S.
in times of crisis can be callous and unconstructive. The
image of firefighters running up stairs to help those above
is heroic and deserves profound respect. The vision of
hundreds and thousands of people helping at the scene,
working to save lives, donating, supporting, is similarly
worthy and positive. Even the flag waving, which can at
times be jingoistic, should not be assumed to be such.The
important thing is to increase awareness of the relevant
facts and values at stake, the policies that may follow and
their implications, and what people of good will can do to
influence all these.
What
should progressives do?
Change
depends on organized resistance that raises awareness and
commitment. It depends on pressuring decision makers to
respect the will of a public with dissident and critical
views. Our immediate task is to communicate accurate
information, to counter misconceptions and illogic, to
empathize and be on the wavelength of the public, to talk
and listen, to offer information, analysis, and humane aims.
The
United States and Middle East: Why Do They Hate
Us?
The
list below presents specific incidents of U.S. policy. It
minimizes the grievances against the U.S. because it
excludes long-standing policies, such as U.S. backing for
authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the
secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid
to Turkey as it attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list
also excludes actions of Israel in which the U.S. is
indirectly implicated because Israel has been the leading or
second-ranking recipient of U.S. aid for many years and has
received U.S. weapons and benefitted from U.S. vetos in the
Security Council.
1949:
CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of
Syria.
1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected
Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the
British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of
dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in
Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.
1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S.
does not support invasion, but the involvement of NATO
allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the
region.
1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve
"stability."
1960s (early): U.S. unsuccessfully attempts
assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.
1963: U.S. reported to give Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon
to be headed by Saddam Hussein) names of communists to
murder, which they do with vigor.
1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council
to enforce SC Resolution 244, calling for Israeli withdrawal
from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and
U.S. prepare to intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs
PLO.
1972: U.S. blocks Sadat's efforts to reach a peace
agreement with Egypt.
1973: U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the
tide in war with Syria and Egypt.
1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When
Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the
border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge.
Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not
be confused with missionary work."
1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the
Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation"
and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S.
tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no
avail.
1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in
Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion. Over the next
decade U.S. provides more than $3 billion in arms and
aid.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the
U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the
invasion. U.S. removes Iraq from its list of nations
supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred
to Iraq. U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in
1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to
Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq
uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores
diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its
navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an
aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian
airliner, killing 290.
1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the
coast of Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi.
In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and two
Libyan planes were subsequently shot down. In 1986,
Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S.
attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore
installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub,
killing two, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it
(possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya,
killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted
daughter.
1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of
Lebanon, where more than 10,000 civilians were killed. U.S.
chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of
U.S. weapons except in self-defense.
1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a
multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a
civil war. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine
barracks.
1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on
civilian airliner.
1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own
Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them.
The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
1990-91: U.S. rejects diplomatic settlement of the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt
to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and
Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war
against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted. To promote
"stability" U.S. refuses to aid uprisings by Shi'ites in the
south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to
captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi
helicopter flights.
1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on
Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them.
Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council stated
sanctions were to be lifted once Hussein's programs to
develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington
makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as
Saddam remains in power. Sanctions strengthen Saddam's
position.
1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming
self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt on
former president Bush two months earlier.
1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over weapons
inspections, even though Security Council is just then
meeting to discuss the matter.
1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's
pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on
U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was
involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges there
is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
The
Need for Dissent - Radicalism is retreating, but it's more
necessary than ever before
By
George Monbiot
If
Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to
invent him. For the past four years, his name has been
invoked whenever a US president has sought to increase the
defence budget or wriggle out of arms control treaties. He
has been used to justify even President Bush's missile
defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are
known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile
technology. Now he has become the personification of evil
required to launch a crusade for good; the face behind the
faceless terror.
The
closer you look, the weaker the case against bin Laden
becomes. While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's
dreadful wound in the world may have been inspired by him,
there is, as yet, no evidence that they were instructed by
him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt rests on the supposition
that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his
culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western
governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions of
pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and
terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are
liabilities.
By
using bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military
spending, weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have
enhanced his iconic status among the disgruntled. His
influence, in other words, has been nurtured by the very
industry which claims to possess the means of stamping him
out. This is not the only way in which the new terrorism
crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power.
The
lax airport security which enabled the hijackers to smuggle
weapons onto the planes was the result of corporate lobbying
against the stricter controls the government had proposed.
Some reports suggest that so many died in the south tower of
the World Trade Centre partly because some of the companies
there instructed their employees to return to work after the
north tower had been hit.
Now
Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish
the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This
week, while the world's collective back is turned, Tony
Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant at Sellafield
to start operating. The decision would have been front page
news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but
invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the
nuclear industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will
lead to a massive proliferation of plutonium, and a near
certainty that some of it will find its way into the hands
of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is
using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which
would be unacceptable at any other time.
For
these reasons and many others, radical opposition has seldom
been more necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable.
The right is seizing the political space which has opened up
where the twin towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.
Civil
liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to
lift its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad
by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ
human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless mean
training and funding a whole new generation of bin Ladens.
The British government is considering the introduction of
identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already
been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now
we're likely to be treated as such.
One
of the peculiar problems we radicals face is that the
targets of Tuesday's terror represented more clearly than
any others the powers we have long opposed. For those of us
who have campaigned against the predatory behaviour of the
financial sector and the defence industry, the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon had come to symbolise all that was
rotten in the state of the world. So, though ours is a
movement built on peace, it has not been hard for our
opponents to equate our dissidence with terror.
The
authoritarianism which has long been lurking in advanced
capitalism has started to surface. In the Guardian
yesterday, William Shawcross -- Rupert Murdoch's courteous
biographer -- articulated the new orthodoxy: America is, he
maintained, "a beacon of hope for the world's poor and
dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom of
thought and deed". These believers would presumably include
the families of the Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain
and the US have imposed; the peasants murdered by Bush's
proxy war in Colombia; and the tens of millions living under
despotic regimes in the Middle East, sustained and sponsored
by the United States.
William
Shawcross concluded by suggesting that "we are all Americans
now", a terrifying echo of Pinochet's maxim that "we are all
Chileans now": by which he meant that no cultural
distinctions would be tolerated, and no indigenous land
rights recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that those
who question American power are now the enemies of
democracy. It's a different way of formulating the warning
voiced by members of the Bush administration: "if you're not
with us, you're against us".
The
Daily Telegraph has set aside part of its leader column for
a directory of "useful idiots", by which it means those who
oppose major military intervention. Doubtless I will find my
name on the roll of honour there tomorrow. So, perhaps, will
the families of some of the victims, who seem to be rather
more capable of restraint and forgiveness than the leader
writers of the rightwing press. Mark Newton-Carter, whose
brother appears to have died in the terrorist outrage, told
one of the Sunday newspapers, "I think Bush should be caged
at the moment. He is a loose cannon. He is building up his
forces getting ready for a military strike. That is not the
answer. Gandhi said: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole
world blind' and never a truer word was spoken." But when
the right is on the rampage, victims as well as perpetrators
are trampled.
Mark
Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never
grow large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad
act, until they have inquired into the politics or the
nationality of the man who did it." The radical left is able
to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism was a
dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right
can't bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's
new invasions of Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the
US-backed terror in East Timor, or the carpet bombing of
Cambodia. Its critical faculties have long been suspended
and now, it demands, we must suspend ours too.
Retaining
the ability to discriminate between good acts and bad acts
will become ever harder over the next few months, as new
conflicts and paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may
be that a convincing case against bin Laden is assembled,
whereupon his forced extradition would, I feel, be
justified. But, unless we wish to help George Bush use
barbarism to defend the "civilisation" he claims to
represent, we on the left must distinguish between
extradition and extermination.
Tuesday's
terror may have signalled the beginning of the end of
globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to
precipitate, coupled with a new and understandable fear
among many Americans of engagement with the outside world,
could lead to a reactionary protectionism in the United
States, which is likely to provoke similar responses on this
side of the Atlantic. We will, in these circumstances, have
to be careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate
globalisation, if it merely gives way to something even
worse.
The
governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in
New York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to
cause the problem: building up the power of the defence
industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the kind which
inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action.
Corporations are securing new resources to invest in
instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and
blaming liberal asylum policies for terrorism. As a result
of the horror on Tuesday, the right in all its forms is
flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must not be cowed.
Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to voice.
Welcome
to the Warnacular
By
Laura Flanders
We
were still reeling from the Bush lexicon. Now here comes the
Warnacular. In less than a week, many familiar terms have
taken on new meanings. Here's a partial list:
The
United States = "America"
America
= "the Civilized World."
An
attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon has
become an attack on the American "way of life."
Anyone
who hates America hates freedom and democracy. Why might
someone be motivated to carry out last week's attacks?
"Obviously he's filled with hate for the United States and
for everything we stand for... freedom and democracy," Vice
President Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Sunday's "Meet The
Press." He went on, "It must have something to do with his
background, his own upbringing." Nothing to do with U.S.
policy. Cheney wants us to believe that parents are to
blame.
Speaking
of democracy. Democracy, these days = Bipartisanship. What
does bipartisanship mean? Why, Democrats agree to everything
Republicans want, of course. It's unanimous when the vote is
420 to 1 and that one is a an African-American female from
the peacenik Bay Area.
Allies
are states that support the U.S. president no matter how
unilaterally he acts. Will critics of the U.S.A. be called
racist or anti-Semitic? Probably that comes next. But we're
getting ahead of ourselves.
The
biggest news this week is that patriotism has become holding
on to, or better yet, buying stock. Anyone who sells on New
York's newly reopened trading floor, is "betting against
America," says Richard Grasso, chairman of the New York
Stock Exchange and a chorus of newly dubbed "civic leaders"
(which is to say brokers and corporate executives, Warren
Buffett et al.,) agree.
What
will make us safer? Security comes from permitting the FBI
into our phone conversations and releasing the CIA to work
with "unsavory characters," yeah, even human rights abusers
and possibly terrorists. It's worked so well in the past.
For safety's sake, the U.S. must "not rule out", as John
McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee put it, the
possibility of using nuclear weapons against any country at
any time.
If
we the people let it happen, "War Powers" will become the
power to get the media to declare that we are in a war.
Grief will have become a cry for killing.
Normalcy
(which has entirely replaced normality for some reason) will
be all we long for. And Normalcy, it seems, is to carry on
doing exactly what we did before. Exactly what got us here.
What
Kind of War?
By
Michael T. Klare
President
Bush has called upon the nation to engage in a "war against
terrorism," a war that must be pursued until final "victory"
is achieved. Most Americans support tough action aimed at
the eradication of Osama bin Laden's terrorist networks and
those of like-minded extremists. But it is not a war against
terrorism, per se, that Bush envisions, but a war to ensure
continued U.S. military dominance in the Middle East.
In
thinking about the war to come, it is important to recognize
that "terrorism" is not a cause, like communism, or an
identifiable organization, like the PLO or the IRA. Rather,
it is a strategy. Throughout history, those who are weak in
traditional forms of military power have used unconventional
tactics, including terrorist attacks, to overcome those with
greater military strength. In the world today, many groups
are using such tactics -- the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the
Basques in Spain, the rebel forces in Chechnya, the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, Hamas in Israel
and so on. There is no evidence that President Bush seeks to
make war on all of these groups; rather, he clearly intends
to fight those who threaten American interests in the
Persian Gulf region.
The
United States has, of course, been involved in conflict in
the Persian Gulf for a very long time. Ever since the
British pulled out of the area in 1972, U.S. forces have
been on call to protect friendly governments -- especially
Saudi Arabia and the conservative Gulf sheikdoms -- and to
resist any threat to the free flow of oil. This was the
genesis of the "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, and formed the
backdrop for Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Since
Desert Storm, the United States has amassed sufficient
military power in the Gulf area to deter its two leading
antagonists, Iran and Iraq, from conducting a direct assault
on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Some 20,000 to 25,000 U.S.
military personnel are in the area at all times, and large
quantities and arms and equipment have been "pre-positioned"
in the area to permit a rapid expansion of U.S. strength.
Although
successful in deterring established states like Iran and
Iraq, the U.S. military buildup has not succeeded in
preventing attacks on U.S. interests by extremists and
irregular forces, like the terrorist networks associated
with Osama bin Laden. These groups abhor the presence of
American military personnel -- most of whom are non-Muslims
-- in the vicinity of Islam's holiest sites, especially
Jidda and Mecca. They also resent U.S. support for Israel
and the continuing U.S.-backed economic sanctions on Iraq,
which are said to punish ordinary Muslim Iraqis
unfairly.
The
anti-American extremists of the Persian Gulf area know they
cannot expel the U.S. presence from their midst through
conventional military means, so they rely on terrorism. They
bombed the U.S.-supported headquarters of the Saudi Arabian
National Guard in 1995, the Khobar Towers (a U.S. military
apartment complex) in 1996, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. Now they have
struck in New York and Washington.
As
claimed by President Bush and many others, the terrorist
strikes on September 11 were an act of war against the
United States. But they were not mere expressions of
anti-American or anti-Western sentiment, as suggested by
some. Rather, they were a major assault in the continuing
struggle between the United States and its adversaries for
control of the Persian Gulf. Now, a new chapter in that
conflict is about to unfold.
>From
all that we are hearing in Washington, President Bush
intends a major escalation of this continuing war. "We are
planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our
country and eradicate the evil of terrorism," he declared on
Saturday. In all likelihood, this will involve air strikes
against terrorist camps in Afghanistan, along with
commando-type raids to seize bin Laden and his associates.
It is also likely to involve punishing attacks on Iraq and
other countries that may have harbored bin Laden's teams or
assisted them in some manner. Ground troops may be sent into
the area to secure key positions (for example, the border
between Afghanistan and Pakistan) and to subdue any
resistance to U.S. attacks.
No
one can predict where all of this will lead. The Soviets
invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prevent the rise of an
anti-Soviet regime, only to depart in ignominious defeat
some six years later. No doubt U.S. forces will work very
hard to avoid the mistakes made by Moscow, but the terrain
and the environment are not conducive to American-style
high-tech warfare. It is also hard to know whether ordinary
Afghans will welcome American troops as liberators or, as in
the case of Soviet forces, as alien invaders.
President
Bush has received a strong mandate from Congress and the
American people to take vigorous action to punish those
responsible for last Tuesday's attacks on New York and
Washington. But he owes it to all of us to be honest about
his intentions and -- without going into military details --
to spell out the implications of the various scenarios he is
considering. Congress should also be given an opportunity to
discuss the relative merits of various military options --
as occurred in January 1991, during the historic Senate
debate on U.S. strategy in the Gulf that preceded the onset
of Operation Desert Storm.
It
is abundantly clear that a campaign against those directly
responsible for Tuesday's attacks, aimed at bringing them to
justice, is something that most Americans support. But a
bloody, protracted war in the wasteland of Southwest Asia
would not only fail to eradicate terrorism -- it could
produce sharp divisions at home as well.
Michael
T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies
at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of
"Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict"
(Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2001)
Emanzipation
Humanum,
version 9.2001, Criticism, suggestions as to form and
content, dialogue, translation into other languages are all
desired
http://emanzipationhumanum.de/english/WTC01.html
|