
New York: Sixteen Months After By Eliot Weinberger 11 January 2003 For years they'll be debating the future of the empty pit where the World Trade Center once stood, with fantastic or hideous proposals of gardens in the sky or indoor lakes or threatening tic-tack-toe-shaped fortresses. But at the moment, the only thing certain is the fate of the actual towers themselves. The scrap steel will be shipped from the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island to the Grumman shipyard in Trent Lott's fiefdom of Pascagoula, Mississippi. There, it will be melted down and turned into the "New York," an $800 million "state of the art" amphibious assault ship. In Bush America, every ploughshare must be beaten into a sword. War and war and war. 150,000 troops are massed in the surrounds of Iraq, many of them reservists pulled from their normal lives, preparing for what the Pentagon is already declaring the "greatest precision-bombing aerial assault in history," to be followed by an invasion which the United Nations estimates will cause 500,000 casualties. There are troops or "advisers" in India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgzystan, Georgia, the Philippines, Colombia . . . and speculation that Iraq is merely a stop on the road to Iran. Military operations in Afghanistan are continuing at a cost of a billion dollars a month— compared to the $25 million a month the U.S. is spending there on humanitarian aid, most of it paying for the offices and maintenance of the aid workers, or vanishing into the crevices of local corruption. Helmeted and armored Special Forces troops still move like Robocop through the villages, past the hundreds of thousands of displaced peasants trying to survive the winter. This year, the Pentagon budget will increase by $38 billion to almost $400 billion. The increase alone is practically the entire budget of the second-biggest military spender, China. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs or have had their salaries greatly reduced. There are schools around the country that will be closing a month early this year because of budget cuts, further evidence of the theory that Republicans never allot any money for education in order to keep the electorate stupid so that they'll vote for Republicans. Everything is war and war, the talk of war, while the real, declared war—the War on Terrorism—is a complete failure. It could not be otherwise: One cannot, by definition, wage a military (and not metaphorical) war against terrorism, for the terrorists themselves are not waging a war. Wars are fought to coerce an enemy to accept one's policies or sovereignty. Even when they involve the mass slaughter of civilians—as has been increasingly the case since World War I—they are not terrorism. (A Palestinian suicide bombing, however repulsive, is the act of a civilian combatant in a war of independence.) Terrorism is committed by small, clandestine, independent groups—the evil twins of NGO's—in the attempt to persuade like-minded people to join their side, whether physically or intellectually. The massacre at the World Trade Center was, in terms of the United States, a means without an end: There were no grounds on which the U.S. could admit "defeat"; the only possible "victory" for al-Qaeda was a sympathetic response from within the Muslim world. In a revenge-seeking and deliberate confusion of host and guest, the U.S. military easily overthrew the essentially unarmed Taliban regime, leaving vast areas of the country in the hands of warlords, and partially restoring the freedoms (music and television, women without burqas and girls in school, clean-shaven men) which the Afghans had enjoyed under that oppressive Soviet occupation the U.S., through its fundamentalist surrogates, the Taliban, had fought so long. [Freedom, however, only goes so far: A few days ago, a political cartoonist was thrown in prison for mildly satirizing President Karzai.] The country is in ruins, but the pipeline from Kazakhstan has now become a reality, and its plans are drawn, the fulfillment of an old dream among the Bush crowd. As Dick Cheney said in 1998, when he was CEO of Halliburton: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is." The War on Terrorism has been good for business, but hasn't done anything bad against the terrorists. With one possible exception (an Egyptian strategic planner), not a single important al-Qaeda member has been killed or captured. George Bush has not mentioned the name "Osama bin Laden" in six or eight months, and no wonder: He may think he's Wyatt Earp, but those evil-doing Clanton Brothers aren't playing by the rules and they never showed up at the OK Corral. So all Bush can do is just shoot at anybody who looks mean. After all, al-Qaeda—once one strips away the propaganda—appears to be a group of, at most, a few hundred educated, middle-class fanatics, who masterminded terrorist actions, mainly in Africa, at the rate of one every eighteen months. They also ran camps in Afghanistan for thousands of young peasants attracted to local jihads, including 5,000 trained by Pakistani intelligence for incursions into Kashmir and 3,000 Uzbekis attempting to overthrow the dictatorship in Uzbekistan (which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid). It is these Afghan and foreign peasants, Taliban foot soldiers and jihadis, that the Bush Team has labeled "al-Qaeda terrorists" and left to rot in Guantanamo Bay (in cages, by the way, identical to the one in which Ezra Pound was placed in Pisa in 1945). Al-Qaeda, as the recent bombings in Kenya prove, continues as it did before. Forced out of Afghanistan, it is merely less visible. There is indeed a malevolent "sleeper cell" in the United States, but it is not the one in Attorney General John Ashcroft's apocalyptic imagination. It was formed in the 1970's, in the Ford Administration, by Donald Rumsfeld, then as now Secretary of Defense, and his young disciple, Dick Cheney, whom Rumsfeld got appointed as White House Chief of Staff. During the Reagan years they attracted brilliant young ideological extremists: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Eliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, among them. In 1992, the last year of the Bush Sr. administration, convinced, as everyone was, that Bush would be reelected, and hoping for a second-term purge of the multilateralists surrounding the President, they launched their first secret manifesto: "Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999," written by Wolfowitz and Khalilzad, under the direction of then Secretary of Defense Cheney. According to their "Guidance," with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "first objective" of the United States was now "to prevent the re-emergence [sic] of a new rival": "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role." We must "discourage" the "advanced industrial nations" from "challenging our leadership." "We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." "We will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing. . . those wrongs which threaten our interests. . . Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism. . ." The report, which never mentioned any allies in these global efforts, was an embarrassment to Bush Sr. and his consensus-building advisers, and was quickly suppressed after it was leaked to the New York Times. Then Bush was defeated by Clinton, and the cell went underground in the boardrooms of corporations and right-wing foundations and think tanks. In 1997, "appalled by the incoherent policies of the Clinton administration," they formed a group called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), "to make the case and rally support for American global leadership" and to restore "military strength and moral clarity." Their founding statement was signed by, among others, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, and Jeb Bush (at the time the Heir Apparent), along with such imams of conservatism as Francis Fukuyama, William Bennett, and Norman Podhoretz. In September 2000-- when the election of Gore seemed a certainty—PNAC produced what was to become the Hammurabic Code of the Bush Jr. Administration: Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. The document, which is endless, speaks openly of a "Pax Americana": expanding current U.S. military bases abroad, and building new ones in the Middle East, Southeast Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. It is contemptuous of the United Nations. It recommends "pre-emptive strikes" and particularly mentions Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It suggests that to fight these countries we need small nuclear warheads to target "very deep, underground bunkers." (Such weapons, called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, are now being developed.) It speaks of fighting and "decisively winning simultaneous major theater wars." (Thus Rumsfeld's current obsession with taking on Iraq and North Korea at the same time.) It is the origin of that bizarre, Teutonic phrase, "homeland security." It advocates, as has now been done, pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile and all other international defense treaties—in the Pax Americana we won't need them. It recommends increasing defense spending to 3.8% of the Gross Domestic Product (the amount of the 2003 budget, almost to the penny). It talks not only of controlling outer space with Star Wars weaponry, but also of controlling cyberspace, fighting "enemies" (foreign or domestic?) on the Internet. One of its many charts reads:
The U.S., in short, is "the essential
defender of today's global security order." Allies are unnecessary; world
opinion is irrelevant; potential competitors must be crushed early. And,
in the eeriest moment in the report, it imagines "some catastrophic
event," a "new Pearl Harbor," that will be the catalyst for the U.S. to
decisively launch its new Pax. (Small wonder that, on September 12, 2001,
Donald Rumsfeld insisted we immediately invade Iraq and, shortly after,
Condoleezza Rice convened senior members of the National Security Council
to ask them to "think about ‘How do you capitalize on these
opportunities?'" )
|
|