Why do you think these attacks happened?
To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the
crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin
is the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the
Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,
doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his
control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question
a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the
sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the
region.
About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden
has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable
Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the
region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who has intimate
knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over decades.
A Saudi
Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader
in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the
many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and
financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause
maximal harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their
withdrawal, many analysts suspect -- though whether he personally happened
to have direct contact with the CIA is unclear, and not
particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most
fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result was to
"destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups
recklessly financed by the Americans" (_London Times_ correspondent Simon
Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These "Afghanis" as they are
called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out
terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated these
after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they
despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against
Muslims.
The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined
Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not
object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons
that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for
the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis"
are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly,
are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in
Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the
US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from
his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of
Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special
status as the guardian of the holiest shrines.
Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes
of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including
the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime
in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its
origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like
others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US
support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year:
Washington's decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention
in support of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many
years, the daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the
expanding settlements designed to break the occupied territories into
Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross
violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized
as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which
has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts
Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long
US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has
devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of
the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including
the gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even
if Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are
very widely shared.
The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a
survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region
(bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They
expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of
supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a
diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi
civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes
throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic
development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority
of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar
sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair
that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those
who are interested in the facts.
The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote
the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the
perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as
freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal
suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be
mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the
general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is
close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with
everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and
uncritical support for power.
It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause
"fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is
familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed
by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident
enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of
many cases.
What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American
self reception?
US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being
offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect
of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force
against any individuals or countries the President determines to be
involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as
ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same
people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the
U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its
"unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security
Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law.
And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than
this atrocity.
As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One
should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual
elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to
this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision:
as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to
stimulate fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority
can be reversed. We all know that very well.
Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of the
world?
The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to
the fury and resentment that provides the background of
support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the
agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased
militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is
all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating
cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and
prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society.
But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.
After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to be.
Are you afraid, too?
Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one that
has already been announced, the one that probably answers
Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of
violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.
The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other
supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and
suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented,
unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to
terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has
demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are
themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with
revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The
significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing,
with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn
a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of
the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can
be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest
idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly
appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents.
If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come
under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If
Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the
government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in
this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout
the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we
are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human
society.
Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack
on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most
analysts expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support Bin
Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little
difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed
throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a
martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide
bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove the
world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The
opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very
hard to prevent.
"The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?
The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in
world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the
target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its
national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its
colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself. During
these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous
population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the
surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds
of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly,
extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number
of victims is colossal.
For the first time, the guns have been directed
the other way. The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe.
Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars,
meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not
been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in
England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should
rally to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence
have an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture.
It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but
because of the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of
supreme importance.
If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their
traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will
contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar
dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course,
that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more
free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more
humane and honorable course.
TOP