|
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - D.D. Eisenhower
Back to: Menu At the bottom: Where the gravest danger comes from ... (added 3/9/2005) Postcript: Is the PNAC finished? (added 23/12/2006)
The so called war on terrorism, some remarks on US policiesAfter the events of September 11th 2001 the USA government declared "war on terrorism". A war against the Al Qaida monster which once was created by the USA government itself during the Afghan war (1979 - 1989) against the Russians. And now this boomerang, as it proved to be, after having hit the Soviets, returned to the WTC killing thousands of innocent civilians. A war in Afghanistan was started to try to get Osama Bin Laden. A war in which still more innocent civilians were killed ("collateral damage"). As shown by the book "The Forbidden Truth" it is doubtful whether the combat against these extremely vicious forms of (Islamic) extremism really had a number one priority before September 11th. One can say that the Taliban has been removed from office in Afghanistan. This means an improvement of the human rights position of the Afghan women. However, although to be welcomed, it was "a benificial side effect". The USA didn't start the war in Afghanistan to liberate the Afghan women from an ultra orthodox Islamic regime. Likewise mrs. Thatcher (who called mr. Pinochet "her friend"!) didn't start the Falkland war to rid the Argentinians of their military regime.
And now the USA have attacked Iraq. O yes, mr. Saddam Hussein was a Son of a Bitch, guilty
of mass murder among the Kurds by means of chemical weapons.
However, this same mr. Saddam Hussein tended to put Islamic extremists in his own country 6 feet deep.
It was a secularist dictatorship. This is exemplified by the fact that mr. Aziz, former vice president of Iraq, is a
Christian, which is rather unique in the Arab world.
And yes, they probably were cheering when the WTC towers went down, but so were a countless
number of people in Saudi Arabia, among them prominent clerics. I my opinion waging war against another country, unless in self defence in reply to a direct attack by a country, is the prerogative of the UN or the UN security council. It should not be the prerogative of a superpower (of which there is only one left ... the USA). Does the USA government hold "the moral high ground"? No, it doesn't. What bothers me about the talk of "a battle against evil" by mr. G.W. Bush is the following: During the 80-ties the "contra's" were active in Nicaragua. They were called "freedom fighters" by Ronald Reagan. But what were they doing? Rape, murder, arson. So: They were terrorists, Sons of a Bitch. But they were (from the USA right wingers perspective) "our Sons of a Bitch". When Osama Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets he was "our Son of a Bitch" (high tolerance ...), now he is "their Son of Bitch" (zero tolerance ...). Next to that: The USA itself is a "safe haven for torturers". When one looks at the attitude of the USA government with respect to international treaties their record is abysmal. The following international treaties has been torn up by the USA government:
Where I stand with respect to religious extremism is made quite clear at the very start in my small note on the WTC assaults. I despise these fanatics. In the (unlikely, I don't move in these circles ...) event that I find out something about these people I will notify the authorities. However, this does not imply that I support the USA government policies. On the contrary, I am fiercely against this so called "war on terrorism" the USA way. Terrorism is fought most effectively by means of intelligence, not by means of "Daisy Cutters". Osama Bin Laden may still be walking around somewhere (in the Pakistan Tribal Areas with the help of people sympathetic towards him from the Pakistani secret service? Who knows ...). Al Qaida lost one of its mainstays. But they are beyond doubt still around in many places. Let me sketch a nightmare scenario: A network organisation like Al Qaida succeeds in recruiting a 747 cockpit crew. They do their work normally, up until a fateful day: They take off from O'hare airport, and instead of flying North East towards their destination they turn right and one minute later they fly their aircraft straight into the Sears Tower. Even 10 Awacs planes and 300 F-15 fighter planes, unless one is in the direct vicinity by sheer coincidence, are unable to prevent this.
Finally, in time, there is only one defence: Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence ...
Amsterdam, December 30th 2001, (some revisions, March 19th, April 9th and December 24th 2003)
Back to: Evert's homepage. Back to: Menu And: What about corruption? "In terms of raw power, in fact, terrorism can't hold a candle to corruption. The former operates suddenly, in a flash of agonized attention. The latter operates constantly, lurking in the shadows just below visibility. The former hits a few and frightens millions. The latter hits millions and provokes yawns. The former causes us to rise up in anger and vow to root out the perpetrators of evil. The latter elicits a shrug and some mumbled words about the inevitability of petty gangsterism." From a commentary by Rushworth M. Kidder in Ethics Newsline.
"The Axis of Evil", a load of rubbish. Recently mr. Bush is talking of an "Axis of Evil". This is in my opinion a load of rubbish. First some things from the recent past (before September 11th 2001):
Some Al Qaida fighters may well be hiding in Iran. However, just consider the nature of the terrain in Eastern Iran (rough mountain desert) and one must admit the sheer impossibility to keep such a border "water tight". And: I dare to bet that (far) more Al Qaida fighters are hiding in the Tribal Areas in Pakistan (e.g. in Peshawar). The notion of "an Axis of Evil" is also ridiculous against the background of the relations between Iraq and Iran in the past. Has mr. Bush forgotten the bitter war between these two countries in the 1980-ties? My hunch: This is not "a war on terror". It is a war to dominate (the oil fields in) the Middle East. The hostility of the USA is directed towards countries which are in principle able to challenge this domination. And Iran is able to do so, just due to its oil and natural gas resources.
Some more extreme thinking from the USA In the NRC issue of February 23th 2002 James Woolsey looked upon the attitude of the Europeans as "faint hearted and cowardly", because they don't accept the notion of an "axis of evil".
The reaction of Thomas van der Dunk (NRC, 28/2/2002), a culture historian, was as follows:
This isn't the agitprop squad of a communist organisation. It is a view expressed in a moderate right wing newspaper
in The Netherlands ... The abyss between Europe and the USA widens and deepens ...
Where the greatest danger comes from ...In a rather disturbing way the grossly erroneous setting of priorties was exposed, when thinking about warding off dangers for the population of the USA. In the process of the formation of the so called 'homeland security department' the attention for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) severely eroded. It was all about the so called 'war on terror'. Resources from FEMA were redirected towards 'counter terrorism' activities – and the war in Iraq. We see the ghastly consequences right now in New Orleans. I dare to say that a country like Bangla Desh is probably (much?) better prepared to cope with an emergency due to a major hurricane hitting a densely populated area than the USA. And don't say it was bad luck. In 1999 Florida enjoyed a happy escape when Floyd recurved at the last moment before making (a devastating) straight hit. Last year Florida's luck ran out (4 hits). We are now probably entering a period with an increased hurricane activity. And more over, due to global warming they will get a bit stronger and will be longer 'alive', thus increasing the chance of major damage and casualties. Furthermore: New Orleans showed that the days of mesoscale death are not over. An impressive list of places which are prime targets for annihilation can be written down: Atlantic City (Maryland), Charleston (South Carolina), Tampa, Pensacola, Panama City (Florida), Mobile (Alabama), Galveston, Corpus Christi (Texas), etc ... When a hurricane of the class 'Allen', 'Labor Day Storm' or 'Gilbert' makes a hit at these places they will be wiped out. Many big metropolitan areas are vulnerable as well: Houston, Miami, New York to name a few. One could probably say: 'You ain't seen nothing yet.' A major category 4-5 hurricane is much more deadly than a regiment of Al Qaida look-alike (or copy-cat) terrorists, and, more over, much more damaging! This is where the greatest danger comes from for the USA.
PostscriptIt seems that the PNAC is fading away. This is mainly due to the disastrous outcome of the Iraq war and subsequent occupation by US and UK forces. However: I don't want to speak too soon of its demise. Not all neo-conservatives have given up all hope in Iraq. The AEI, which has become the natural home for refugees from the American Project, is promoting an article entitled: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq". The article calls not for a withdrawal of US troops but for an increase. President Bush's decision is expected in early January 2007 ...
(back to top)
|