'It Is Neither "New," Nor A "War Against Terrorism"'

A response that is too abstract may be misleading, so letus consider a current and quite typical illustration of what such plans mean inpractice. This morning (Sept. 21), the New York Times ran an opinion piece by arespected intellectual who is considered a moral leader (Michael Walzer). Hecalled for an "ideological campaign to engage all the arguments and excusesfor terrorism and reject them"; since as he knows, there are no sucharguments and excuses for terrorism of the kind he has in mind, at least on thepart of anyone amenable to reason, this translates as a call to reject effortsto explore the reasons that lie behind terrorist acts that are directed againststates he supports. He then proceeds, in conventional fashion, to enlist himselfamong those who provide "arguments and excuses for terrorism," tacitlyendorsing political assassination, namely, Israeli assassinations ofPalestinians who it claims support terrorism; no evidence is offered orconsidered necessary, and in many cases even the suspicions appear groundless.

US-supplied attack helicopters have been used for suchassassinations for 10 months. Walzer puts the word "assassination" inquotes, indicating that in his view, the term is part of the "fervid andhighly distorted accounts of the blockade of Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinianconflict." He is referring to criticism of US-backed Israeli atrocities inthe territories that have been under harsh and brutal military occupation foralmost 35 years, and of US policies that have devastated the civilian society ofIraq (while strengthening Saddam Hussein). Such criticisms are marginal in theUS, but too much for him, apparently. By "distorted accounts," perhapsWalzer has in mind occasional references to the statement of Secretary of StateMadeleine Albright over national TV when she was asked about the estimates of1/2 million deaths of Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions regime. Sherecognized that such consequences were a "hard choice" for heradministration, but "we think the price is worth it."

I mention this single example, easily multiplied, toillustrate the substantive meaning of the relaxation of constraints on stateaction. We may recall that violent and murderous states quite commonly justifytheir actions as "counter-terrorism": for example, the Nazis fightingpartisan resistance. And such actions are commonly justified by respectedintellectuals. 

To be sure, there are many factors to be considered inthinking about your question. But the historical record is of overwhelmingimportance. At a very general level, the question cannot be answered. It dependson specific circumstances and specific proposals. 

Bundestag in Germany already decided that Germansoldiers will join American forces, although 80% of the German people do notagree with this, according to a survey of the Forsa Institute. How do youcomment on this?

For the moment, European powers are hesitant about joiningWashington's crusade, fearing that by a massive assault against innocentcivilians the US will be falling into a "diabolical trap" set by binLaden (in the words of the French foreign minister), helping him to mobilizedesperate and angry people to his cause, with consequences that could be evenmore horrifying. 

What do you think about the nations acting as a globalcommunity at war time? It is not the first time that every country should beallied with USA, otherwise it is considered an enemy, but now Afghanistan isdeclaring the same thing.

The Bush administration at once gave the nations of theworld "a stark choice": join us "or face the certain prospect ofdeath and destruction" (NY Times, Sept.14). It might be interesting to seekhistorical precedents. 

The "global community" strongly opposes terror,including the massive terror of the powerful states, and also the terriblecrimes of Sept. 11. But the "global community" does not act. WhenWestern powers use the term "international community," they arereferring to themselves. For example, NATO bombing of Serbia was undertaken bythe "international community" according to consistent Westernrhetoric, although those who did not have their heads buried in the sand knewthat it was strongly opposed by most of the world, often quite vocally. Thosewho do not support the actions of wealth and power are not part of "theglobal community," just as "terrorism" conventionally means"terrorism directed against us and our friends."

It is hardly surprising that Afghanistan is attempting tomimic the US, calling on Muslims to support it. The scale, of course, is vastlysmaller. Even as remote as they are from the world outside, Taliban leaderspresumably know full well that the Islamic states are not their friends. Thesestates are prime targets of the radical Islamic forces organized and trained bythe CIA, Egypt, Pakistan and others to fight a Holy War against Russia. Thesestates have, in fact, been subjected to terrorist attack by the radicalIslamicist forces they helped to create ever since the assassination ofPresident Sadat of Egypt -- one of the most enthusiastic of the creators -- 20years ago.

According to you, an attack against Afganistan, is"a war against terrorism"?

 An attack against Afghanistan will probably kill agreat many innocent civilians, not Taliban but their victims, possibly enormousnumbers in a country where millions are already on the verge of death fromstarvation. It will also answer bin Laden's most fervent prayers, as Washingtonis hearing from foreign leaders, specialists on the region, and presumably itsown intelligence agencies. Such an attack will be a massive crime in itself, andwill very likely escalate the cycle of violence, including new acts of terrordirected against the West, possibly with consequences even more horrifying thanthose of September 11. The dynamics are, after all, very familiar.

Could you imagine how the situation would be if theterrorist's attack in the USA had happened during the night, when very fewpeople would be in the WTC? In other words, if there were very few victims,would the American government react in the same way? Up to what point is itinfluenced by the symbolism of this disaster, the fact that the Pentagon and theTwin Towers were hit?

I doubt that it would have made any difference. It wouldhave been a terrible crime even if the toll had been much smaller. The Pentagonis more than a "symbol," for reasons that need no comment. As for theWorld Trade Center, we scarcely know what the terrorists had in mind when theybombed it in 1993 and destroyed it last week, but we can be quite confident thatit had little to do with such matters as "globalization," or"economic imperialism," or "cultural values," matters thatare utterly unfamiliar to bin Laden and his associates and of no concern tothem, just as they are, evidently, not concerned by the fact that theiratrocities over the years have caused great harm to poor and oppressed people inthe Muslim world and elsewhere, again on September 11. Among the immediatevictims are Palestinians under military occupation, as they surely must haveknown. Their concerns are different, and bin Laden, at least, has been eloquentenough in expressing them in many interviews: to overthrow the corrupt andrepressive regimes of the Arab world and replace them with properly"Islamic" regimes, to support Muslims in their struggles against"infidels" in Saudi Arabia (which he regards as under US occupation),Chechnya, Bosnia, western China, North Africa, and Southeast Asia; maybeelsewhere.

It is convenient for Western intellectuals to speak of"deeper causes" such as hatred of Western values and progress. That isa useful way to avoid questions about the origin of the bin Laden networkitself, and about the practices that lead to anger, fear and desperationthroughout the region, and provide a reservoir from which radical Islamicistterrorist cells can sometimes draw. Since the answers to these questions arerather clear, and are inconsistent with preferred doctrine, it is better todismiss the questions as "superficial" and "insignificant,"and to turn to "deeper causes" that are in fact more superficial eveninsofar as they are relevant.

Are we assisting a war? Should we call it a war?

There is no precise definition of "war." Peoplespeak of the "war on poverty," the "drug war," etc. What istaking shape is not a conflict among states, though it could become one: the UShas warned, loud and clear, that the nations of the world face a "starkchoice": join us in our crusade or "face the certain prospect of deathand destruction" (RW Apple, NYTimes, Sept. 14). If the US literally followsthrough on that threat, or anything like it, there will be war on anextraordinary scale. I think that is highly unlikely, but not excluded.

Is it a conventional war? A new one, a crusade, as Mr.Bush said, or simply an act of terror?

It is neither "new," nor a "war againstterrorism." We should not forget that the Reagan administration came intooffice 20 years ago announcing that a primary focus of foreign policy would bethe threat of "international terrorism," and it reacted to this threatwith programs of international terrorism on a remarkable scale, even leading toa World Court condemnation of the US for "unlawful use of force"(i. e., international terrorism). 

What happened on Sept 11 was, unquestionably, a horrifyingcrime. There are proper ways to respond to crimes, great or small, in accordwith US domestic and international law, and there are precedents; for examplethe one I just mentioned. Nicaragua presumably could have reacted toWashington's terrorist war by setting off bombs in Washington. Instead, itapproached the World Court, which issued the judgment that I just cited. The USof course dismissed the Court with contempt. Its response was to escalate theterrorist attack, and to veto a Security Council resolution calling on allstates to observe international law, then voting against a similar GeneralAssembly resolution (alone with Israel and El Salvador; the following yearIsrael alone). The US could choose to adhere to its obligations underinternational law as well, and of course would face no barriers. That is by nomeans the only example.

When the US attacked Sudan in 1998, destroying thefacilities that produce half its pharmaceutical supplies (which it could notreplenish), causing the death of unknown numbers of people, Sudan approached theSecurity Council, but the US refused to permit even an inquiry. When IRA bombswere set off in London, there was no call to bomb the US, the source of most ofthe financial support for the IRA. Rather, efforts were made to deal with whatlay behind the resort to terror. When a federal building was blown up inOklahoma City, there were calls for bombing the Middle East, and it probablywould have happened if the source turned out to be there. When it was found tobe a militia-based bombing, there was no call to obliterate Montana and Idaho,where most of the ultra-right militias are based. Rather, there was a search forthe perpetrator, who was found, brought to court and sentenced, and there wereefforts to understand the grievances that lie behind such crimes and to addressthe problems. Just about every crime -- whether a robbery in the streets orcolossal atrocities -- has reasons, and commonly we find that some of them areserious and should be addressed.

These are the proper ways to respond to criminal acts,whether by individuals or by states.

Can we talk of the clash between two civilizations?

This is fashionable talk, but it makes little sense.Suppose we briefly review some familiar history.

The most populous Islamic state is Indonesia, a favorite ofthe US ever since Suharto took power in 1965, as army-led massacres slaughteredhundreds of thousands of people, mostly landless peasants, with the assistanceof the US and with an outburst of euphoria from the West that was unconstrained,and is so embarrassing in retrospect that it has been effectively wiped out ofmemory. Suharto remained "our kind of guy," as the Clintonadministration called him, as he compiled one of the most horrendous records ofslaughter, torture, and other abuses of the late 20th century. The most extremeIslamic fundamentalist state, apart from the Taliban, is Saudi Arabia, a USclient since its founding.

In the 1980s, the US along with Pakistani intelligence(helped by Saudi Arabia, Britain, and others), recruited, armed, and trained themost extreme Islamic fundamentalists they could find to cause maximal harm tothe Russians in Afghanistan. As Simon Jenkins observes in the _London Times_,those efforts "destroyed a moderate regime and created a fanatical one,from groups recklessly financed by the Americans." One of the beneficiarieswas Osama Bin Laden. Also in the 1980s, the US and UK gave strong support totheir friend and ally Saddam Hussein -- more secular, to be sure, but on theIslamic side of the "clash" -- right through the period of his worstatrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, and beyond. 

Also in the 1980s the US fought a major war in CentralAmerica, leaving some 200,000 tortured and mutilated corpses, millions oforphans and refugees, and four countries devastated. A prime target of the USattack was the Catholic Church, which had offended the self-described"civilized world" by adopting "the preferential option for thepoor." 

In the early 90s, primarily for cynical great powerreasons, the US selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients, to theirenormous harm. 

Without continuing, exactly where do we find the dividebetween "civilizations." Are we to conclude that there is a"clash of civilizations" with the Catholic Church on one side, and theUS and the most murderous and fanatic religious fundamentalists of the Islamicworld on the other side? I do not of course suggest any such absurdity. Butexactly what are we to conclude, on rational grounds?

Do you think we are using the word civilizationproperly? Would a really civilized world lead us to a global war like this?

It is said that Gandhi was once asked what he thought ofWestern civilization, and answered that he felt it might be a good idea. Nocivilized society would tolerate anything I have just mentioned, which is ofcourse only a tiny sample even of US history, and European history is evenworse. And surely no "civilized world" would plunge the world into amajor war instead of following the means prescribed by international law,following ample precedents. 

How do you see the imminent future? What do you expectto happen now?

The US might follow the course it has proclaimed, attackingAfghanistan and probably killing a great many innocent civilians, not Talibanbut their victims, possibly enormous numbers in a country where millions arealready on the verge of death from starvation. By doing so, it will also answerbin Laden's most fervent prayers, as Washington is hearing from foreign leaders,specialists on the region, and presumably its own intelligence agencies. Such anattack will be a massive crime in itself, and will very likely escalate thecycle of violence, including new acts of terror directed against the West,possibly with consequences even more horrifying than those of September 11. Thedynamics are, after all, very familiar. 

Or, the US might heed the warnings that it is receiving,for example, from the French foreign minister, who warned that the US would befalling into a "diabolical trap" set by bin Laden if it massacredinnocents in Afghanistan. 

I would not venture a prediction. But there clearly arechoices within the spectrum just indicated.

Which political consequences do you believe thisconflict will have in a long term? What kind of world will our sons anddaughters heritage from us?

That depends on which course is chosen. The consequences ofone or another choice are not certain, but we can make some rather plausibleestimates.

What do you think the terrorists tried to do or say withthe attacks?

I presume no one knows the answer better than the CIA, whohelped establish and train the terrorist networks, and has been well acquaintedwith them since the first time that they turned against their creators, in 1981,when they assassinated President Sadat of Egypt.