Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------------------------
Just who are we shooting at, Mr President? http://www.smh.com.au/news/0109/20/opinion/opinion3.html There is great danger in the US opening fire before identifying the enemy, writes Andrew Vincent. The hideous events in New York and Washington last week have focused international attention on the question of terrorism in a way inconceivable before September 11. We have been told repeatedly that the world will never be the same and that we have started the first war of the 21st century. Australia is part of that war, and Prime Minister John Howard has, quite correctly, expressed unwavering support for the United States in its plight. The Bush Administration is busily mobilising US allies for the struggle ahead, and there has, thankfully, been no knee-jerk reactions from Washington as was the case following the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. The difficulty with this scenario is the vexed question of exactly who we are at war with. Are we at war with just the Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, a "super-empowered individual" in the words of The New York Times, but an individual all the same? Or are we at war with Afghanistan, one of the poorest and certainly most poorly governed countries in the world today? If so, it is significant that there were no Afghan citizens among the hijackers who aimed their fuel-heavy flying bombs at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon last week. Or are we at war with Islam, giving voice to Samuel Huntington's doomsday scenarios of a Clash of Civilisations? The US needs to be at war with somebody because of last week's events, but we, and they, need to be very careful indeed in deciding exactly who the enemy is. There is an enormous domestic pressure on the US Government to put a face to the enemy. In recent days the face of the enemy has been that of bin Laden. But there are difficulties here. Bin Laden's denial of involvement can perhaps be discounted, but as the investigation proceeds, it is becoming increasingly apparent that although the attacks were carried out by groups inspired, trained and maybe even financed by the exiled Saudi, the decision to "go" was probably made by a terrorist in the US, not in Afghanistan or any other country. Already American spin doctors and lobbyists are trying to widen the conflict, for the absence of a proper country with which to wage war is a real problem and Afghanistan is hardly a worthy candidate. There have even been suggestions, probably originating from Israel, that the revolutionary groups Hezbollah and Fatah were involved in the attack along with bin Laden. Such a transparent attempt to channel the US response in favour of Israel's own interests can probably be discounted. That said there is no doubt that the US has plenty of enemies in the Middle East. After all it led a war against a still unrepentant Iraq a decade ago and US embassies in the region are now more like medieval fortresses than diplomatic missions. Until recently Washington had described its enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere as "rogue states", and according to the accepted canon one of the characteristics of the "states of concern", as they are now termed, is that they sponsor terrorism. With the exception of Iraq, all of these states have rather nervously denounced the attack on the US. The real danger of the coming weeks is that one or more of those countries, the rogue states of the Middle East, may be "found" by the spin doctors or by the on-going investigation itself to have been involved in the attack. If we suddenly start to read that Iraq, Iran, Syria or even Libya has had a hand in the catastrophe, alarm bells should begin to ring. We would need to examine the evidence proffered by the Americans very carefully indeed, as the present crisis presents a rare opportunity to the hawks in Washington to unleash their undoubted military power against countries which have been thorns in the side of the US for years. If, on the other hand, it is decided that we are at war with Islam, we should not be surprised to see Islam rallying in its defence, possibly with support from much of the developing world. In this unlikely scenario, we would truly be entering a "clash of civilisations" and one of the first casualties would be our own policies of multiculturalism and tolerance. The callers to talk-back radio would be justified and a new dark ages would descend upon us. Let us hope that this new war remains a war against terrorism, and let us hope that the US is successful in mopping up all of the terrorist cells. Let us also give the US every assistance in this task. If this is the extent of the first war of the 21st century, the world will not have changed very much and the attack on the US will not have been the seminal event that so many observers have been saying it is. But, paradoxically, if this is to be the case, George Bush may be seen as a deeply flawed president - or even, like his father before he fought a war against Iraq, as a wimp. Dr Andrew Vincent is director of the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University. ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
