Subject: US Comes Up Against The Real World [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------------------------

US comes up against the real world
Waging war on Afghanistan or Iraq will not stamp out
terrorism

Seumas Milne
Thursday September 27, 2001
The Guardian

As US and British forces prepare to strike against the
humanitarian disaster that is Afghanistan, the
problems confronting George Bush's latter-day crusade
against terror are mounting. For all the firepower and
military muscle now being assembled, American options
have if anything narrowed since the carnage in New
York and Washington two weeks ago. Early expectations
of a huge televisual fireworks display over the Hindu
Kush and a shootout in Osama bin Laden's mountain lair
are being hurriedly played down - even by US
administration superhawks like Donald Rumsfeld and
Paul Wolfowitz. The more cautious Colin Powell seems,
for the moment, to have prevailed.

While grand declarations of anti-terrorist virtue
collide with the real world of stitching together an
international coalition, the dilemmas for the wounded
US giant are multiplying. The prospect of "surgical
strikes" against a disparate and well-hidden force is
now increasingly recognised as implausible. Bush has
dismissed the idea of "sending a $2m missile to hit a
$10 tent", and although raids on empty training camps
will presumably be staged for CNN, that is unlikely to
satisfy domestic demand for revenge. The embarrassing
failure to produce convincing evidence of Bin Laden's
responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade
Centre and the difficulties of tracking him down have
left the US administration falling back on a more
visible enemy in the form of the Taliban.

That has its own dangers. Overthrowing such a shaky
regime, at least in what is left of Afghanistan's
cities, should prove straightforward enough,
particularly with the help of the anti-Taliban
Northern Alliance. But the alliance is a ragbag army,
based on minority ethnic groups, with its own history
of massacres and large-scale human rights abuses when
it ruled the country in the early 90s. A government
based on it, the long-discredited king and more pliant
fragments of the Taliban - the lineup currently being
canvassed as the basis of a new order in Kabul - would
be a pretty grim legacy for such an avowedly
high-minded venture. No wonder Bush says he's "not
into nation-building".

Then there is the threat to the survival of the pro-
western military dictatorship and nuclear-armed
Taliban-sponsor in Pakistan, now offering logistical
backup to the western war effort. Even more incendiary
is the demand for a full-scale assault on Iraq, which
has triggered an open split in the Bush
administration. War on Saddam would at least provide
the US with a target serious enough to appear to match
the scale of the slaughter of the innocents in New
York. But, with no evidence linking Iraq to the
September 11 attacks, any such move would rupture the
coalition at its heart and destroy any hope of
maintaining Arab support.

The fragility of that support was highlighted by the
refusal of the Saudi regime, most dependent of all
American client states in the region, to allow US
forces to use their Saudi bases for operations against
Afghanistan out of fear of a domestic backlash. A
taste of the mood in Bin Laden's homeland was given
this week by Mai Yamani, anthropologist daughter of
the former Saudi oil minister, who was startled to
find young people "very pleased about Osama because
they think he is the only one who stands against the
hegemony of the US".

Failure to read these signs would be the grossest
irresponsibility. Those who insist that the attacks in
New York and Washington had nothing to do with the US
role in the Middle East - but were instead the product
of existential angst about western freedom and
identity - not only demonstrate their ignorance of the
area. They also weaken the pressure to address the
longstanding grievances fuelling this rage: not only
western indulgence of Israeli military occupation, but
decades of oil-lubricated support for despots from
Iran to Oman, Egypt to Saudi Arabia and routine
military interventions to maintain US control. Moral
relativism does not lie in acknowledging that link,
but in making excuses for this insupportable record.

Few can seriously hope that waging war on Afghanistan
or Iraq - or the death of Bin Laden, for that matter -
will stamp out terrorism any more effectively than the
alternative of legal, security and diplomatic action.
But an end to the siege of Iraq, the use of western
clout to accelerate the creation of a viable
Palestinian state and the withdrawal of US troops from
the Arabian peninsula would begin to relieve the
political pressure cooker by tackling the most
inflammatory sources of tension in the region.
Conservative politicians in the US are becoming
impatient for the sound of gunfire. The Bush
administration has a choice: it can go further in the
direction it has begun tentatively to explore while
assembling its coalition, for example over the
Israel-Palestinian conflict - or it can cave in to the
siren voices on its right and pour an ocean of petrol
on the flames. 


_________________________________________________
 
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
 
General class struggle news:
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Geopolitical news:
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________

Reply via email to