War Without End? Responding to 911 (McReynolds) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - David McReynolds Responding to September 11: WAR WITHOUT END? By David McReynolds On September 11, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center dissolved into fire and dust, leaving behind almost no survivors and few intact corpses. More than 3,000 people died there and at the Pentagon. The act -- hijacking the jets and driving them into the buildings -- was evil. Courageous as the men were who did it, it was a crime, and crimes have many causes. As we look for causes we cannot minimize the evil itself. Some on the left have been slow to understand this, suggesting that since the targets -- the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- were symbols of U.S. financial and military might, the victims were themselves guilty, complicit in their own deaths. But pacifists, along with much of the left, have maintained since 1945 that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal action; Pearl Harbor did not excuse Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, too, this was a criminal action. The crimes of U.S. foreign policy did not excuse September 11. You needed to be in this city to grasp fully the impact of the attacks on the World Trade Center. New York City was truly in shock, with bridges, tunnels, and whole parts of Manhattan closed off. In Lower Manhattan the main avenues were empty, reserved for use by emergency vehicles. Over 300 firefighters -- the closest thing the United States has had to real heroes in a long time -- died that day, affecting neighborhoods throughout the city. During that first week all of us not only called friends to make sure they were all right (and reassured friends that we were), but also got together, feeling the need to see one another. On Friday night after the attack, a spontaneous peace vigil began at Union Square. People brought candles and flowers and began to put up small posters -- not only the wrenching xerox sheets with photographs that asked, "Have you seen ____?" -- but posters with words and messages. A few called for retribution, but most called for no wider war -- for peace. The statue of George Washington at the southern end of the park was draped in an American flag, a flag with the peace symbol, and a U.N. flag. No one felt the need to tear down one or the other. The vigil continued day after day, with a sea of candles lighting the night, a meadow of flowers by day. People sat in meditation. It would have been a remarkable sight at any time; in New York City, as a response to a violent attack on us, with heavy loss of life, it was unbelievable. The cry for war, in other words -- the pledges of total support for Bush -- didn't come from this city, which had thousands to mourn. It came from elsewhere in the country, from TV anchormen who said they only awaited orders from Bush. [See "Our Grief is Not a Cry for War," a NY Transfer site dedicated to preserving the spirit of the Union Square vigils, at: http://www.blythe.org/ Click on "Our Grief is Not a Cry for War at the bottom of NY Transfer's homepage. The site was rapidly dismantled by Rudy Guiliani to make way for Christmas consumer stands. --NY Transfer] Excuses, Excuses -- and Causes Many in this country barely follow international news. For one thing, there is little they can do about it. And who wants to be forced to think about how much damage the United States has done to other countries, how many innocent lives our policies have destroyed? But if you do think about U.S. actions, from Indonesia to Vietnam to Cambodia to Central America to Iraq to the Middle East, etc., it is almost a miracle it took this long for fury from abroad to strike us at home. In this case the proximate cause of the attack was the Gulf War, during which the United States put military bases in Saudi Arabia, the site of the most holy shrines of Islam. Osama bin Laden struck at us because of what we had done during the Gulf War, defiling holy land. However, if we dig a bit deeper, we discover that al Qaeda was an outgrowth of U.S. support of the guerrilla movement in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. We poured tens of millions of dollars into helping to create the very network to which bin Laden belonged, which found shelter under the Taliban, and which struck down our Twin Towers on September 11. And who were the Taliban? By now we have all had mini-history courses on Afghanistan and know there are several ethnic groups within its borders. The largest are the Pashtuns, who live on both sides of the border with Pakistan. The Taliban (meaning "religious students") were devout Islamic fundamentalists, largely Pashtuns, who led a revolt against the loose network that Americans know as the "Northern Alliance," which the United States backed in the war against the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was a mix of tribes that won out against the Soviets. But their administration was corrupt, the country oppressed by widespread rape and murder and the chaos of tribal conflict. The "Talibs" took power by their purity and zeal. The catalyst for their rise seems to have been an occasion when two local leaders were disputing over which one would get to sodomize a young boy. Taliban leaders rescued the boy and killed at least one of his assailants. Then they began a march to Kabul and eventual control of almost the entire country. In doing this they had strong backing from Pakistan, which saw a chance to extend its influence into Afghanistan. The Taliban outlawed music, dynamited the famous statues of Buddha and drove women in Kabul and Kandahar back behind the veil and forbade them to work. Many of those oppressive measures were welcomed by a substantial portion of the population, which agreed with them. The Taliban could not have won control without significant popular support -- and help from Pakistan. What Could Bush Have Done? Let's ask what our government could have done after the attack on the World Trade Center. (This is a look at what was politically possible, not a pacifist vision of what the world and U.S. policy would be like if the U.S. population were committed to a pacifist domestic and foreign policy.) Bush had a great advantage, in that being a Republican he would not so easily be attacked by the right had he taken a "go-slow" approach. Most people will support their nation when it's at war, but do not want a reckless course of action. Just as Eisenhower could close down the Korean War, Nixon open the door to China, and Ford preside over our retreat from Saigon, the Republicans are able to move in a reasonable direction with less fear of coming under attack from the right wing. Bush waited almost a month, until October 7, to make clear his course of action. During that time he could have taken the following actions, which would have won broad international consensus. First, he could have said the United States would seek the arrest and trial, through impartial international courts, of all those believed guilty of conspiring to commit the crimes of September 11. That course had support of world leaders ranging from Fidel Castro to Kofi Annan to the Pope. It would have put the United States on the side of world law. It was the course chosen after the Balkan conflict where a long time passed between the end of the war and the arrest of Milosevic and his current trial at the Hague. (I have strong reservations about the Hague trial -- there seems no interest in arresting either Bill Clinton or Tony Blair or any of the others who gave the orders for the criminal bombing of civilian targets in Serbia). Second, he could have made available to everyone -- to the Taliban government, to the American people, to the U.S. Congress -- the "overwhelming evidence" he claimed he had that proved Osama bin Laden was guilty. People have forgotten the government had promised the release of this material -- but it has never been released. There doesn't seem much question that Osama bin Laden rejoiced at the attacks, but I am not aware of any proof he masterminded the attacks or gave the orders. Third, at a more covert level he could have put pressure on Pakistan to force the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden to an international court. Given the strong evidence that the Pakistan secret police were deeply involved with the Taliban, it seems probable that those ties could have achieved the aim of retrieving bin Laden without a war. None of those courses are pacifist. All assume some violence might occur. What I?m trying to do is outline real political alternatives to the course Bush took. What He Did: The Hijacking of 9/11 Instead of building a multilateral and legal response to the attacks, Bush hijacked the tragedy of September 11 for his own purposes. He launched an air attack on Afghanistan on October 7. In the midst of the excitement, people did not realize how illogical this was. Afghanistan had not attacked the World Trade Center. At most (though still without proof), Osama bin Laden had given the orders. Osama bin Laden was not the government of Afghanistan. He was a Saudi living in Afghanistan (and yes, with the permission of the Taliban he was running training camps for the al Qaeda network). It might have made sense to attack Saudi Arabia, from which most of the men came who were on the September 11 suicide missions. But it made no sense to attack Afghanistan -- no Afghani was on those fatal flights. It was also illegal. Blatantly so. One hesitates to raise such a matter with a government that has so little regard for treaties, but under the Charter of the United Nations the United States was obligated to take the problem first to the Security Council. Dare I mention that under our own Constitution, the President does not have the right to declare war -- that right is reserved to Congress? The immediate result of the U.S. air attacks and of later ground attacks was three-fold. First, there was a massive flight of people to get out of the country. Hundreds of thousands have tried to get across the border into Pakistan. Second, the already desperate food shortage deepened as supplies were cut off. And third, an appalling number of civilians were killed by air attacks. At one point I heard Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on television chide a questioner who asked about civilian casualties with the chilling remark: "Don't talk to me about civilian casualties. Let's remember that 5,000 American civilians were killed. Talk to me when 5,000 Afghan civilians have been killed -- or 50,000 [emphasis added]." (Note: The total number of those killed at the World Trade Center has now been set at just under 3,000 -- which is bad enough). The New York Times and BBC News have provided abundant documentation of "wrong targets" -- including direct strikes twice on the same clearly marked Red Cross building -- which prompted very sharp words from the International Red Cross. There is no way such an "accident" can have occurred twice -- the United States was sending a message that it was going to wage the war its own way and that it was going to be rough. So much for U.S. precision bombing. Don't believe it. The International Red Cross doesn't. There have also been verified reports -- months after the original "victory" -- of U.S. bombings of civilians who seem to have been victim of internal Afghan conflicts. One side or the other would report that a convoy was made up of Taliban officials, when in fact they were simply members of an opposing tribe, and the U.S. military would obligingly bomb them. Poverty is now so great that in some areas families are forced to sell their children to raise enough money to live. The required burka for women is gone, but the practice of pederasty by older men is back. There is little government in Afghanistan outside of Kabul and Kandahar -- if there. Bush doesn't want to commit U.S. ground troops to maintain order, both because the high casualties would cause U.S. opposition to his policies, and also because he knows that to the ordinary Afghani the United States could quickly come to be seen as an occupying force, as the Soviets were. It is impossible to know, between the time I write this and you read it, what will have happened militarily, but the war that seemed won by the end of 2001 (a much swifter end than anyone had expected) has blossomed again with a new "regroupment" of Taliban forces. Because the U.S. military has kept reporters far from the front line, it is hard to know what is going on. It was clear, soon after the U.S. attacks began, that many of the Taliban simply disappeared back into tribal groupings, much to the dismay of the U.S. military. The Afghans were unwilling to mount heavy offensives, more inclined to let the "enemy" fade back to their homes. As a final irony, Osama bin Laden, the man Bush said would be gotten "dead or alive," has vanished. The United States has managed to inflict a high degree of damage on the al Qaeda forces. Training camps are gone. But Afghanistan as a whole is now less stable than when the Taliban were in charge (and it was not in good shape then!). The more we learn about Afghanistan, the more it is clear that wisdom would have advised that of all the solutions open to Bush, the military option was the most foolish. It is extremely doubtful Bush is prepared to ask Congress for the funds to build a new infrastructure for Afghanistan, a country that has been battered, bled, and bloodied by both the Soviets and the West. Funds for war yes, funds for humanitarian reconstruction -- not likely. The Benefits -- and Beneficiaries -- of the War In the current mood of war, it can be forgotten that Bush really was not elected President. As Hendrick Hertzberg pointed out in a lead editorial in the New Yorker some weeks ago, a fair reading of the media reconstruction of the vote in Florida showed that Al Gore won that state. (This is without even getting into the issue of the deliberate disenfranchisement of many of the Black voters there). Months after the election, Bush still seemed uneasy in his job, as if someone might take away what one vote of the Supreme Court had given him. Then, quite suddenly, there was the terrible attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. America had an enemy, and that enemy was al Qaeda. The enemy had a name, and that name was Osama bin Laden. Bush had found a purpose for his presidency: a worldwide attack on terrorism. During wartime, no one raises questions (except troublesome groups such as War Resisters League); with only one courageous dissenting vote, Congress leapt to grant Bush special powers. The key to what happens is not Bush but the cabal surrounding him. The irony is that the most moderate member of the President's cabinet is General Colin Powell. The others are not simply conservative, they are far-right -- and scary. Some are oil men, such as Dick Cheney and several cabinet members and other key advisors. Some are men such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, who seems to think the Bill of Rights is a subversive document. And some -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his Deputy Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle among them -- are Cold Warriors come back to haunt us, now shaping the direction of the administration. The whole group has its own regiment of writers to fill the op-ed pages: Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan at the Washington Post, Frank Gaffney Jr. at the Washington Times, and William Safire at the New York Times. Oil. Those men -- who are running this country -- were not interested in an international coalition to deal with problems of terrorism. After the initial shock of September 11 wore off, they realized they had a golden opportunity for what has developed -- a shocking American unilateralism that has dismissed any treaties we have signed that have proven uncomfortable (such as the ABM Treaty with Russia) and has ignored the European discomfort with the Afghan adventure (the only genuine support for this comes from Tony Blair in Great Britain). Their agenda begins with a thirst for oil. Iraq has it (it is the Middle East's Number 2 producer of oil, behind Saudi Arabia) and so, it turns out, do three countries around the Caspian Sea: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Those countries are landlocked; control of the oil requires control over the pipelines. The New York Times carried a big story on this on March 17, noting that one possible route for the oil would be across Afghanistan. (The oil men in the White House also have their eyes on the oil in Alaska -- they hope to get Congress to vote access to a vast wilderness area.) Military Spending. Immediately after September 11, when it should have been even more obvious the Star Wars program was harebrained, Bush demanded new funds for that program, as well as billions more for the Pentagon. Star Wars needs to be examined not for its defense value -- it has none -- but for the two things it can do. One is to provide enormous profits for the military-industrial complex. Money needed for medical care, transport, schools, etc., instead will go into the pockets of the large corporations that can lobby for the military contracts. The other -- the real objective of Star Wars and the U.S. Space Program -- is to give the U.S. military control of space. At first you might ask, "Who cares?" But control of space means the ability, through satellites, cameras, listening devices, etc., to follow events on the ground. In moving military forces on land it is extremely helpful to know, by looking down from space, exactly where the opposing forces are -- and even to monitor political groups and their discussions. The New Nuclear Strategy. In March the Pentagon released its Nuclear "Posture Review," in which it was argued the United States might need to use tactical nuclear weapons against targets in places such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, or North Korea. Reaction has been intense, with one Russian official asking if Americans "have somewhat lost touch with the reality in which they live." In the real world where most of us live, the danger of nuclear weapons and the need to control any spread of radioactive materials bears directly on the fact that the next terrorist attack can well be nuclear, in which case we won't be missing two tall buildings, but very possibly an entire city. For the United States to legitimize any use of nuclear weapons -- whatever the targets -- is evidence of just how scary the thinking within the Bush Administration is. Terrorism and Civil Liberties September 11 was so horrific it was if we had forgotten we had already had a major encounter with terrorism in Oklahoma City in 1995, with the loss of 168 lives. (That time it was a young white veteran of the Gulf War.) We seem finally to have realized what kind of world everyone else has been living in. The destruction of the World Trade Center was, as terrorist acts go, unusually destructive. But to almost every country in Western Europe, to both the Palestinians and the Israelis, the late 20th century had already been a time of terror. Key officials in Great Britain and in Italy were assassinated. Even in Japan, so orderly a society, there was a deadly poison gas attack in the Tokyo subways. One reason that Bush would have had multilateral support for a real effort to deal with terrorism is because the problem is widespread. But Western Europe has found it possible to deal with terrorism without creating the kind of police state that the Bush Administration is constructing: * Almost immediately after September 11 a roundup of civilians in this country began. Without warrants, more than a thousand people were detained by Attorney General Ashcroft. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they are. We don't know what charges they face. We would think this could happen only in a totalitarian country, but it is happening here. So far only one person out of all those detained has been charged with a crime linked to September 11. * Not long afterward, Bush announced there would be special military tribunals for any "terrorists" caught, run in ways unique in our history, and able to impose the death penalty with no possibility of appeal. (The tribunals aroused such universal fury, both abroad and here at home, that Bush modified his version of the tribunals, but only slightly. One of the sharpest attacks on Bush came from the conservative William Safire, in his column in the New York Times). At last report it seemed possible that even if such a tribunal found a suspect innocent, the suspect might not be released! * We have interned more than 300 people from 26 countries at the U.S. base in Guantanamo, under conditions that shocked the world and aroused protest from every human rights organization. Bush and the military are not certain whether these men are "prisoners of war," in which case they would normally be released at the end of the war, or whether they will be "prisoners for life." No one yet knows which of the men in Guantanamo, moved about in shackles and with hoods covering their heads, might be totally innocent of any involvement with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. * The "Patriot Act" opens the way for new monitoring of private phone discussions, e-mail communication, and peaceful political activities. Ashcroft has said we were attacked because our enemies are jealous of our freedom -- perhaps he hopes to prevent future attacks by canceling that freedom? * And last, but certainly not least, another sinister development under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was the "Office of Strategic Influence," exposed on February 19 by The New York Times. This was a project to provide false information to journalists both abroad and in the United States. In some ways this is nothing new -- all governments do this -- but under Rumsfeld it was to be a special disinformation project. (A February 27 Times article reported that classified briefings circulated in the Pentagon said the office should find ways to "coerce" foreign journalists and opinion makers and "punish" those who convey the wrong message.) The withering fire of critics caused the Administration to back off, and in theory the office has been closed. Here, There, Everywhere: U.S. Military Forces and the "Axis of Evil" Bush has declared that we face an "Axis of Evil" composed of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. But the only thing those three countries have in common is that, like the U.S. president, their national leaders didn't win a free election. Otherwise they have no common links. In Iran there is a major struggle between hard-line Islamic leaders and forces of democratization -- Bush's accusation put a weapon in the hands of the hard-liners. As to North Korea, the CIA and arms control experts agree that that country has abided by its agreements and doesn't present a current threat. Finally, there is no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has any plans to do anything beyond trying to survive. It is almost as if Bush Jr. has a grudge fight against Saddam Hussein for surviving Bush Sr.'s effort to oust him. (If any campaign reeks of oil and U.S. efforts to control it, it is the push for war with Iraq.) The open discussion about when the United States will attack Iraq is finally sparking a world-wide debate. Tony Blair's Labour Party is in open revolt over Britain's possible involvement. The old alliance that existed at the time of the Gulf War in 1991 is gone. The anger over U.S. unilateralism, on both the military and economic front, is much deeper than one might think from a look at the evening news. The United States is suggesting it might want to pursue remaining Taliban forces across the border into Pakistan. Bush has ordered the deployment of U.S. forces to the Philippines to hunt down a Muslim gang that isn't related to al Qaeda. (Even Time Magazine noted on March 18 that the Abu Sayyaf group is a gang of local kidnappers, not part of a global terrorist network). It is not the job of the United States to act as police in another country. The United States plans to send 100 military advisors to Yemen to train Yemeni troops to hunt down al-Qaeda cells. Most surprising is the deployment of over a hundred U.S. military advisers to Georgia, part of the former Soviet Union, to help hunt down Chechen rebels, and the United States now has a military base in Uzbekistan, another country formerly part of the Soviet Union. (Uzbekistan had been on the U.S. list of "bad states" because of its dreadful human rights record -- until after September 11 when the United States needed a military base there.) And there are reports of U.S. advisers on their way to Somalia. What began as a legitimate effort to cope with the problem of terrorism has become the excuse for naked, unilateral U.S. military domination of the world. Vice President Cheney has spoken about a "war without end." What could have been a serious international and multilateral effort has become the foundation of the Republican Party's efforts to win the next election. For many years the Democratic Party was known as the "war party," having led the United States into World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. But starting with Reagan and then with Bush, the GOP has taken on that role, with attacks on Panama, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan -- and now with a world -- wide military expansion that boggles the mind. Conclusion: Whose Reality? Pacifists are often considered dreamers who can't face reality. Yet what is the reality? The United States is the world's only superpower, with virtually unlimited military power -- yet a handful of men using relatively primitive technology destroyed the two tallest buildings in Manhattan. Who is refusing to face reality when the government tells us we will be safer if we wage wider wars and spend more on the military? They call us utopian, yet the hard political fact is that if the United States were less powerful militarily it would behave better. Only because of its great military power did it launch an illegal attack on Afghanistan. We believe in total disarmament -- not arms control under which the major powers can continue to control the world's resources and prevent needed social change. If the human race is to survive we must be able to envision a totally different future from the one toward which Bush now directs us. For those who believe terror can be eliminated by military power, the tragedy of Israel and the Palestinians shows otherwise. If Bush pursues that path, endless terror will be our fate, too. * [David McReynolds is Staff Emeritus of the War Resisters League and was Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980 and 2000. He may be contacted for speaking engagements through the WRL office.] This essay was reformatted in plain ascii text by NY Transfer. The web-published version is at: http://www.warresisters.org/war_without_end.htm W H A T W E C A N D O * Don't panic. Most presidents have a high popularity rating during wartime, but Enron is around Bush's neck. The Democrats are beginning to lift their heads out of the political foxholes. More of them will do so if they sense there is public backing for questions about the war. * Pressure Congress. Call, write, fax, email, set up meetings with representatives when they are home. * Keep up the vigils and demonstrations. Work with anti-war coalitions and add a pacifist analysis when it's not visible. Now, as during the gravest moments of the Cold War, the street must become an arena for discussion. Governments often hear peaceful demonstrations when they can grasp no other facts. * Quiet, persistent education is crucial. Letters to editors, op-eds, and regular leafleting in our own neighborhoods will broaden opposition to the war. Look for flyers that you can use on the WRL website: www.warresisters.org. * Stay visible! Keep supplied with earth and peace flags, buttons, stickers, and bumperstickers. A great source: Donnelly/Colt, Box 188, Hampton, CT 06247, 860-455-9621, www.donnellycolt.com. * Work for peace in the Middle East. * Make connections among issues and with the peace movement internationally. Contact War Resisters? International, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX, England, 44-20-7278 4040, www.wri-irg.org. Order a subscription to their quarterly magazine Peace News. * Keep educating ourselves. It's possible to find the news within major sources if you read carefully. These include The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or the news section of the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. Good sources from abroad include the Guardian Weekly from England, BBC and ITN TV, and BBC radio. Democracy Now! and other programming on the Pacifica radio network is now available on the web for those who do not live within radio reach. www.democracynow.org The January 7-14, 2002, issue of the Nation focused on "The Big Media," and included three pages of reader suggestions for alternative sources, including print, broadcast, and internet sources. The Progressive out of Madison, WI, keeps nonviolence and the nonviolent movement in its sights. There are too many websites to mention, but start with any of these and you're on your way: Bill Weinberg's e-mail journal at www.worldwar3report.com; www.indymedia.org; www.zmag.org; www.protest.org. * Protest the growing military budget! Congress votes on the President's proposed budget in the fall, so there's still time to demand funding for peace not war. Start resisting war taxes. See the War Resisters League website for information. * Be an active War Resisters League member! Check out the WRL website for actions, resources, and links. Read and contribute to the Nonviolent Activist. You can help write the news! War Resisters League 339 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10012 (212) 228-0450 fax (212) 228-6193 e-mail: wrl@warresisters.org web: http://www.warresisters.org "Believing war to be a crime against humanity, the War Resisters League, founded in 1923, advocates Gandhian nonviolence as the method for creating a democratic society free of war, racism, sexism, and human exploitation." * For a printed copiy of this 4-page essay send $1 to WRL, 339 Lafayette St., NYC 10012. (Local groups are free to reprint in whole or part). ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytnyc-05.04.02-20:47:41-24368