Don’t turn tragedy into war

AS PEOPLE around the world were still grappling with the enormity of the human losses in the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., George W. Bush and his government were beating the drum for even more death and destruction.

They’re trying to use a horrific tragedy to advance their own agenda–war abroad and a crackdown on civil liberties at home. The attacks were “an act of war,” Bush declared–and he was matched, word for word and threat for threat, by Republicans and Democrats alike. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a video message to U.S. armed forces around the world. “The task of vanquishing these terrible enemies…falls to you,” he announced.

Eliot Cohen, the director of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, told reporters, “We’ve got to stop talking as if this is a crime–this is war. We’re going to have to begin killing people. It’s not about bringing people to justice. It’s about going after them and killing them.”

Meanwhile, the NATO alliance invoked a treaty provision allowing a collective military response–essentially declaring that it would back any U.S. “war on terror.”

The corporate media fed the war fever. “Revenge. Hold on to that thought,” the Philadelphia Daily News shouted. “Go to bed thinking it. Wake up chanting it. Because nothing less than revenge is called for.” Even liberals like New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis called for a military assault.

Spirit of candlelight vigils

These calls for war and revenge stood in contrast to the spirit of candlelight vigils held across the U.S. and the sacrifice, heroism and solidarity of those involved in rescue efforts.

People who are outraged by this senseless loss of life will understandably want to find some way to bring those responsible to justice. But justice is the last thing that Bush and the U.S. military have in mind.

The media has fixed on Osama bin Laden, the millionaire Saudi businessman who has been accused of other attacks on U.S. targets. We may never know who or what organization carried out the attacks. But it’s worth remembering that the same “terrorism experts” who are pointing the finger at Arabs did the same after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. After stirring up a racist backlash that led to physical attacks on Arab Americans, these “experts” made no apologies when authorities apprehended white supremacist Timothy McVeigh. When bombs leveled U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in August 1998, Bill Clinton declared bin Laden the mastermind–and ordered a missile strike on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory that he claimed was connected to bin Laden. Ten months later, the U.S. admitted that it had no evidence linking the factory to bin Laden.

The talk about “protecting the Social Security surplus” has gone out the window. Instead, politicians of both parties will push through a tremendous hike in military spending–including the Bush gang1s Star Wars missile defense scheme. Money that should be spent on health care, education or any one of a number of areas that would help working people will now be robbed to pay for a military that is already the largest and most powerful in the world by far.

In their rush to assign blame and demand revenge, no politicians or journalists bothered to ask a simple question: Why would someone target the U.S.?

The answer is the devastation and misery wreaked around the world by the U.S. in its role as the world1s biggest superpower. In the last two decades alone, the U.S. has launched military attacks on Grenada, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia–and this is not even to count wars where the U.S. backed a proxy force.

In the Middle East, U.S. policy has left millions embittered and angry. America1s support for Israeli repression of Palestinians is one part of the picture. So is the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq.

The war killed as many as 200,000 Iraqis–most of them civilians–and left the country in a “pre-industrial state,” according to the United Nations (UN). Since then, UN sanctions against Iraq–backed most strongly by the U.S.–have killed more than 500,000 Iraqi children. In a chilling 1995 interview, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright justified these deaths, saying, “We think the price is worth it.” We should remember Albright1s words when we hear the drumbeat about “terrorists” who “have no regard for human life.”

If the attacks turn out to have connections to the opponents of U.S. policy in the Middle East–which is by no means proven–then this is disastrously misguided. Far from putting the U.S. on the defensive for its international crimes, it allows the U.S. establishment an opportunity to rally the country around this tragedy–and push through a right-wing agenda, both at home and internationally.

We must stand up for basic human and civil rights of all people–and not permit “guilt by association” because of racial or ethnic background. We must also oppose the effort by the U.S. to launch new wars and build up its military machines.

We do have an answer to the horror of September 11–but it begins with making a commitment to rid the world of poverty, hunger, militarism, oppression and inequality. Another world is possible, but only if we stand up for what we believe in.

THE MEDIA was full of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rants in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

“Kill the bastards,” wrote New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy. “No, I don1t mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them in a court of law. I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to.”

As Rania Masri told Socialist Worker, “I woke up this morning to news that Arab Ocells have been arrested throughout the country, and I am truly frightened for tomorrow. The local mosque has received two bomb threats and numerous Arab-looking people and women in Muslim dress have already been insulted and spat on. I fear the worst is yet to happen.” We can1t let them get by with this scapegoating. We have to oppose all attacks on Arabs and Muslims–and organize opposition to Bush1s drive for war. And we have to recognize that restrictions on civil liberties aimed at “fighting terrorism” will be used against anyone who opposes the government1s policies–whether Arab or not.

Thousands attend vigils to call for peace

WHILE POLITICIANS clamor for war, thousands of people turned out for vigils across the country to mourn the victims of the attacks in New York and Washington–and to show their opposition to more violence. In Berkeley, Calif., some 4,000 University of California students attended a “free speech candlelight vigil for peace” in the wake of the attacks.

More than 50 students and community members spoke at an open mic. Some talked about people they knew who died in the attacks, and a few supported President Bush1s calls for war. But the vast majority spoke against the U.S. responding with violence and the racist backlash against Arabs and Muslims.

After one student called the attacks a “new Pearl Harbor” and urged the crowd to prepare for war, the next speaker said, “Remember how Pearl Harbor ended? With the incineration of 100,000 men, women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.”

At the University of Iowa in Iowa City, nearly 1,000 sat silently holding candles and listening to brief statements at a vigil the same night. A handful of students clamoring for war against Arab nations shouted down other speakers. But one activist responded by reading out a nasty message posted on his group1s cubicle implying that activists would be happy with the attacks.

“We1re not happy, we1re horrified,” he said, to loud applause. “We1re against terrorism, and we1re against Bush using this tragedy to scapegoat minorities like Arabs.”

Hundreds gathered at vigils held in New York the day after the attacks. And in Chicago, a vigil called by the Rev. Jesse Jackson was attended by some 120 people.

The politicians and pundits will push patriotism. But these turnouts show that not everyone is ready to support Bush1s calls for war and the growing racist backlash.

NOAM CHOMSKY

“This will be exploited by the jingoist right”

NOAM CHOMSKY, one of the best-known opponents of U.S. militarism and imperialism, talked about the background to the attacks.

THE TERRORIST attacks were major atrocities. In scale, they may not reach the level of many others–for example, Clinton1s 1998 bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the U.S. blocked an inquiry at the UN, and no one cares to pursue it). And this is not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt.

The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of “missile defense.” But today1s events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. “Defense” is a thin cover for plans for the militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public. In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right–those who hope to use force to control their domains.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting.

“This is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days,” he writes. “It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and U.S. helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996, and American shells crashing into a village called Qana, and about a Lebanese militia–paid and uniformed by America1s Israeli ally–hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps.”

And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand–or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.

HOWARD ZINN

“They perpetuate a cycle of terrorism”

HOWARD ZINN, the author of A People1s History of the United States and a veteran antiwar activist, explained the political consequences of the attacks.

IT1S A delicate situation, in which we have to make clear that we understand the pain and anguish that people feel. We even understand the reflex cry for punishment and revenge. But we mustn1t let that immediate emotional reaction govern what we do, which should be based on a thoughtful assessment of how we can prevent further violence–whether by terrorists or governments.

The U.S. government is going to respond–and the media will sheepishly go along with calls for military action, increases in the military budget, which is exactly what makes terrorism inevitable. U.S. military aid and support of Israel create anger and resentment in the Arab world, leading a tiny portion of the angry and resentful to plan terrorist attacks in retaliation. The military response to terrorism just perpetuates the cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism. The continued expenditure of more than $300 billion for the military has absolutely no effect. If we want real security, we will have to change our posture in the world–to stop being an intervening military power and to stop dominating the economies of other countries.

A 1997 Defense Science Board report to the U.S. government showed “a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in world situations and an increase in terrorism.” We have huge military bases in 19 countries, and this inevitably leads to trouble.

What Bush is proposing now is just what other presidents have proposed before–Reagan, Clinton, both parties–since the Second World War: the pursuit of dominance over whole areas of the world. The horror we experienced today is something that people in other parts of the world–Southeast Asia, Iraq, Yugoslavia–have experienced as a result of our bombings.

This should have a sobering effect on any desire to continue with military solutions.

NORMAN SOLOMON

“A media that invents history”

GEORGE ORWELL’S maxim is chillingly appropriate. He wrote, “Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past.”

Truth is the first casualty of war

THE U.S. government has a long history of manipulating the truth–even outright lying–in order to win public approval for its military adventures.

– On February 15, 1898, an explosion ripped through the USS Maine anchored off the coast of Spanish-controlled Cuba, killing 268. Though an inquiry was unable to determine the cause of the explosion, the U.S. press conducted a hysterical campaign blaming Spain. The campaign propelled the U.S. into a war in which it seized control of Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Phillipines, murdering millions of Filipinos in the process.

– President Lyndon Johnson announced in August 1964 that the U.S. would conduct air strikes against North Vietnam–in response to two “unprovoked” attacks by North Vietnamese PT boats against U.S. destroyers on the high seas.

The truth was that the U.S. destroyer Maddox was engaged in intelligence-gathering maneuvers timed to coincide with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese Navy and the Laotian air force. The second claimed PT boat attack never happened. “For all I know,” remarked Johnson later, “our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

– While Ronald Reagan was railing against the scourge of drugs in the 1980s, he was directing the CIA and the National Security Agency to use drug revenues to secretly fund a dirty war against the Nicaraguan government. The U.S.1s client army in Nicaragua–the contras–killed more than 30,000 people in Nicaragua.

– After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. media carried reports–later proved false–that 300 premature babies had died after Iraqi soldiers had removed them from their incubators. The reports were part of an orchestrated effort to win public support for a war that killed 200,000 Iraqis.

The real truth about Pearl Harbor

“THIS IS Pearl Harbor for the age of terrorism,” wrote one Chicago columnist about the suicide plane attacks. But the story behind Japan1s December 1941 air assault reveals more than the media would like us to know. U.S. officials had intercepted Japanese messages and knew about the impending attack before it took place–but did nothing because they wanted Japan to fire the first shot. Then-Secretary of State Henry Stimson told Congress after the war that the U.S. government wanted to maneuver Japan to “fire the first shot…in order to have the full support of the American people” for U.S. entry into the war. After the attack–in which more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives–the U.S. government and media whipped up a hysterical campaign against Japanese Americans. President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was also used to justify the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945–costing the lives of more than 200,000 people.

President Truman justified the atomic bombing on the grounds that it saved lives by bringing a quicker end to the war. But Japan was already ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. As Major Gen. Curtis LeMay remarked in September 1945, “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The real reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to Russia and the rest of the world the awesome power of America1s new weapon of mass terror.

The parallels between Pearl Harbor and the recent terrorist attacks lead us to ask the same question posed by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. “Are we to believe,” they write, “that the $30 billion annual intelligence budget, immense electronic eavesdropping capacity, thousands of agents around the world, produce nothing in the way of a warning?”

How the U.S. backs violence against Palestine

WITHIN HOURS of the attack on the World Trade Center, the media had made up its mind about who the perpetrators must be. Arabs.

Osama bin Laden topped the list of suspects–even though he denied any connection to the attacks. But politicians were quick to pin the blame on Palestinians as well–again, despite the fact that Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat and every Palestinian organization condemned the attack.

Meanwhile, nearly every TV and radio station described Palestinians in the Occupied Territories celebrating the tragedy in the U.S. “I would like to stress that the Palestinian people identify with the victims of this horrifying terrorist act,” said Ghassan Al Khattib, director of the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center. “We Palestinians are ourselves victims, and we therefore feel the American people1s pain. Of course, there were minor insignificant exceptions where some people foolishly expressed joy as an immediate reaction. The majority, however, felt a great deal of sorrow.”

But the Israeli military didn1t wait to exploit the tragedy. The day after the attack, Israel stepped up its repression by raiding a West Bank town and two nearby villages, killing seven Palestinians, including an 11-year-old girl.

“Now the world will not be as patient as it was before to the terror conducted and supported by the Palestinian Authority,” proclaimed Israeli Defense Ministry spokesperson Yarden Vatikay. In reality, the Israeli military and fanatical right-wing settlers are the real source of terror in the Middle East–with the full backing of the U.S. government.

After all, it1s weaponry made in the USA that gives Israel the overwhelming force that has maimed and injured several thousand Palestinians–and killed more than 500–since the Intifada against Israel1s occupation began a year ago. Israel uses U.S. aircraft and military supplies to carry out its assassinations of Palestinians–under the name of “fighting terrorism.” And it1s U.S. political and diplomatic support for Israel that allows the government to seal off Palestinian towns and villages, actions that have plunged almost half of the population into dire poverty.

U.S. backing for Israel has created bitterness and desperation on a massive scale among the 2 million Palestinians living under apartheid-like conditions. Palestinians rightly blame the U.S. government for the misery and violence they face.

For others across the Middle East who have endured similar devastation at the hands of the U.S. and its allies, the shock at this tragedy is compounded by fears that the U.S. government may use it as an excuse for wreaking more destruction.

How the CIA trained Osama bin Laden

SAUDI MILLIONAIRE businessman Osama bin Laden and his “vast network” of international terrorists were quickly blamed for the air attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

This is nothing new. Bin Laden has been a favorite bogeyman for the Washington establishment for years. He1s been blamed for the suicide attack on a U.S. destroyer in Yeman last year, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and more.

But if bin Laden is involved in terrorism, he was taught by the bestÐthe U.S. government.

Both he and the Taliban in Afghanistan that protects him are products of the 10-year-long, U.S.-backed war against the ex-USSR occupation of Afghanistan. After Russian troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. trained bin Laden and thousands of other Arab men.

Back then, President Ronald Reagan liked to call bin Laden and his cohorts “freedom fighters.”

After the USSR was forced out of Afghanistan in 1989, the CIA-trained “freedom fighters” split into rival factions that fought a civil war during the 1990s. With help from the CIA and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, the small Taliban militia group emerged out of the chaos, taking over the government in 1996.

The U.S. backed the hard-line Islamists of the Taliban because they thought the group would be able to provide stability for big business. But then the Taliban began to shelter bin Laden and other Islamist movements that the U.S. opposes.

Like Iraq1s Saddam Hussein before them, bin Laden and the Taliban have moved from U.S. allies to enemies.

Related Articles:

• Greece: can you believe this/them?
• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.