Sunday, 23 September 2001
.....
After listening to Bush's big war speech on Thursday, I had a few immediate concerns and questions.
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
What group doesn't have global reach, especially in this day and age? Does Bush mean reach or intention?
Of course (as others have pointed out), declaring or waging war on a tactic doesn't quite make sense, especially a tactic, like terrorism, which is cheap, flexible, and (relatively) easy to adopt. Totalitarian states have trouble suppressing groups using such tactics. That should worry us.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan are antidemocratic monarchies, Egypt is hardly an ideal democracy, and Israel unquestionably has many problematic and violent policies (to say the least). What all these states have in common is that they (the states, the governments) are essentially U.S. client states and they are not generally committed to the benefit of (large chunks of) their populations.
There are deep and clear reasons to condemn all entities which engage in terrorist acts, whether or not they are States. That Israel seems committed to retaliation based on collective responsibility is one. That the U.S. seems likewise committed is another. That a group is seriously committed to driving Jewish Israelis out of the Middle East, or Christians and Jews out of "vast regions of Asia and Africa", is an excellent reason to condemn that group. But it's not at all clear which groups are committed to the latter two as serious goals, and of those who are so comitted, it's not clear how much power they have to enact their goals.
Even if bin Laden's group is seriously committed to such a wretched goal, and has the wherewithal to achieve it, what sense does it make to tar other groups with the same brush? If the U.S. has now declared a new war on every Israeli-opposition group, because bin Laden's group seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, doesn't that simply mean that the U.S. is taking over responsibility for crushing Israel's opposition for it? It further seems clear -- judging by what Al Qaeda does, not by what bin Laden has said in some fatwa or other -- that bin Laden's group opposes neither Jews nor Christians per se but, rather, Israel and the U.S. as States, the latter as an imperial State. Bush's conflation of these distinct things only serves propaganda ends.
That Israeli policies inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric and feeling is unquestionable. That many conflate opposition to Israeli policy and action with anti-Semitism (on both pro- and anti-Israeli policy sides), or use anti-Semitism to rouse people to (often violent) action, is unfortunate and deplorable. But opposing the terroristic actions of our client states, including Israeli, is not, itself, something the U.S. can comfortably condemn out of hand. After all, it's a bedrock principle of U.S. political society that violent opposition is not only permissible but commendable, indeed, something which the U.S. should encourage.
Has policy changed, then? Of course not. It's a similarly bedrock principle of U.S. political society that properly obedient client states of ours are to be supported against their opposition.
So the new kind of war on terrorism is, in fact, a rather old sort of war against the sorts of terrorism we do not like.
And, to be clear, I do not suggest that "the answer" is to start liking more terrorism, whether the U.S.'s own, that of U.S. client states, or that of the opponents of the U.S. or of U.S. client states.
Just before this passage, Bush said of the terrorist groups:
They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
This juxtaposition is not accidental. Bush suggests, but does not say, that their alleged hatred of our freedoms -- which we deny to our client states, which also include the freedom to bomb whom we please, whenever we please, as often as we please -- is a hatred of freedom itself. Putting this next to their desire to overthrow certain governments, Bush suggests, but does not say, that the reason people want to overthrow those governments is the (non-existent) free and democratic nature of those governments.
This is a rather stunning, if standard, bit of propaganda.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.
Secret even in success? Bush has already shrugged off congressional and popular oversight, not to mention any place for the U.N. or even a superficial concern for international law, with regard to authorization of international force. But now he plainly says that we can forget about post facto oversight as well.
He's declared himself top thug of the world. At his discretion and desire he can send teams to kill whomever he "determines" to have supported terrorism; and we, the people in whose name he acts, may never know.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
One might assume that this only applies if the terrorism is "of global reach", but who can know for sure?
In other words, the U.S. insists that there is no permitted neutrality or opposition anywhere in the world. You are either with whatever the U.S. wants or you are with the terrorists. Since that's nonsensical, since it's perfectly possible to be against terrorism and not be with the U.S., and perfectly possible to be against terrorism and against some U.S. policies, Bush can only mean that if one is not with all U.S. policies -- or rather, not with all his policies -- then one will be treated as if one were a terrorist.
Secret squads might break down your door and kill you, and no one will ever admit it.
And Bush, and Bush alone, gets to determine what being "with" him means.
Welcome to the Newest World Order.
See also Bush Speaks Out (a little) Against Anti-Arab Racism <http://monkeyfist.com/articles/778>
This is Those who do not obey shall be destroyed <http://monkeyfist.com/articles/785>