Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that bin Ladenwas behind the events. If so, what reason might he have had? It certainly can'thelp poor and disempowered people anywhere, much less Palestinians, so what ishis aim, if he planned the action?
One has to be cautious about this. According to RobertFisk, who has interviewed him repeatedly and at length, bin Laden shares theanger felt throughout the region at US support for atrocities againstPalestinians, side by side with US devastation of Iraqi civilian society. Thatranges from rich to poor, across the political and other spectrums, and it wouldbe surprising if he didn't share the feelings.
Many who know the conditions well are also dubious aboutbin Laden's capacity to plan that incredibly sophisticated operation from a cavesomewhere in Afghanistan. But that his network was involved is highly plausible,and that he is an inspiration for them, also. These are decentralized,non-hierarchic structures, probably with quite limited communication links amongthem. It's entirely possible that bin Laden's telling the truth when he says hedidn't know about the operation, though he is outspoken in approving of it.
All that aside, bin Laden has been quite clear about whathe wants, not only to any Westerners who want to interview him, like Fisk, butmore importantly to an Arab audience: on cassettes in Arabic that arecirculating everywhere, and that are much like what he tells Westerners,according to those who have heard them. Adopting his framework for the sake ofdiscussion, the prime target is Saudi Arabia and other corrupt and repressiveregimes of the region, none of them truly "Islamic." And he and hisnetwork are intent on supporting Muslims defending themselves against"infidels" wherever it may be: Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, WesternChina, Southeast Asia, North Africa, maybe elsewhere.
They fought and won a holy war to drive the Russians(Europeans, in their view) out of Muslim Afghanistan, and they are even moreintent on driving the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, a far more importantcountry to them, as the site of the holiest places. His call for the overthrowof corrupt and brutal regimes of gangsters and torturers resonates quite widely,as does his indignation against the atrocities that he and others attribute tothe US, hardly without reason. It's entirely true that his crimes are extremelyharmful to the poorest and most oppressed people of the region. The latestattacks, for example, were a crushing blow against Palestinians.
But what looks like sharp inconsistency from outside may beperceived rather differently from within. By courageously fighting oppressors,who are quite real, he may appear to be a hero, however harmful his actions areto the poor majority. And if the US succeeds in killing him, he may become evenmore powerful as a martyr whose voice will continue to be heard on the cassettesthat are circulating and through other means. He is, after all, as much of asymbol as an objective force, both for the US and probably much of thepopulation.
There's every reason, I think, to take him at his word. Andhis crimes can hardly come as a surprise to the CIA. "Blowback" fromthe radical Islamic forces organized, armed, and trained by theUS-Egypt-France-Pakistan and others began almost at once, with the 1981assassination of President Sadat of Egypt, one of the most enthusiastic of thecreators of the forces assembled to fight a Holy War against the Russians. Andhas been continuing since without let-up.
Again, if bin Laden planned these actions, andespecially if popular fears of more such actions are credible, what is theproper approach to reducing or eliminating the danger? What steps should betaken by the U.S. or others, domestically or internationally? What would be theresults of those steps?
Every case is different, but let's take a few analogies.What was the right way for Britain to deal with IRA bombs in London? One choicewould have been to send the RAF to bomb the source of their finances, placeslike Boston. Putting aside feasibility, that would have been criminal idiocy.Another possibility was to consider realistically the background concerns andgrievances, and to try to remedy them, while at the same time following the ruleof law to punish criminals. Makes a lot more sense, one would think. Or take thebombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. There were immediate calls forbombing the Middle East, and it probably would have happened if even a remotehint of a link had been found. When it was found to be a militia-based bombing,there was no call to obliterate Montana and Idaho. Rather, there was a searchfor the perpetrator, who was found, brought to court and sentenced, and to theextent that the reaction was sensible, there were efforts to understand thegrievances that lie behind such crimes and to address the problems. Just aboutevery crime -- whether a robbery in the streets or colossal atrocities -- hasreasons, and commonly we find that some of them are serious and should beaddressed. At least, that is the course we follow if we have any concern forright and justice, and hope to reduce the likelihood of further atrocitiesrather than increase it. The same principles hold quite generally, with dueattention to variation of circumstances. Specifically, they hold in this case.
There are hysterical cries that we dare not look at thereasons that lie behind criminal acts carried out by our enemies (it's fine inother cases) because that amounts to condoning them. Aside from the transparentabsurdity, that stance is profoundly immoral, on the most elementary grounds: itincreases the likelihood of serious harm. And like other immoral acts, we shouldask what lies behind this disgraceful stance. The answers often are not pretty.
What steps, in contrast, is the U.S. government seekingto undertake? What will be the results, if they succeed in their plans?
What has been announced is a virtual declaration of waragainst all who do not join Washington in its resort to violence, however itchooses. The nations of the world face a "stark choice": join us inour crusade or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction" (RWApple, NYTimes, Sept. 14). Bush's rhetoric of Sept. 20 forcefully reiteratesthat stance.
Taken literally, it's virtually a declaration of waragainst much of the world. But I am sure we should not take it literally.Government planners do not want to undermine their own interests so grievously.What their actual plans are, we do not know. But I suppose they will take toheart the warnings they are receiving from foreign leaders, specialists in theregion, and presumably their own intelligence agencies that a massive militaryassault, which will kill many innocent civilians -- not Taliban, but theirvictims -- will be the answer to bin Laden's prayers. Even if he himself iskilled -- maybe even more so if he is killed -- a slaughter of innocents willonly intensify the feelings of anger, desperation and frustration that arerampant in the region, and mobilize others to his horrendous cause.
The US will fall into a "diabolical trap" thatbin Laden is setting, as the French Foreign minister put it. He may well haveused the words advisedly. He -- or at least his intelligence agencies -- surelyknow that they were instrumental in drawing the Russians into an "Afghantrap," as Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski proudlyinformed the French press, congratulating himself on having sprung the trapmonths before the Russians actually invaded by arranging for US support forMujahideen fighting the government. Brzezinski may have been bragging about hisown brilliance in creating the monster that has been spreading death anddestruction through much of the Middle East, Africa, and beyond, including NewYork City, but there's probably at least some truth to it.
What the Administration will do we don't know; it willdepend in part at least on the mood at home, which we can hope to influence.What the consequences of their actions will be we also cannot say with muchconfidence, any more than they can. But there are plausible estimates, andunless the course of reason, law, and treaty obligations is pursued, theprospects could be quite grim.
Many people say that the citizens of Arab nations shouldhave taken responsibility to remove terrorists from the planet, or governmentsthat support terrorists. How do you react?
It makes sense to call upon citizens to eliminateterrorists instead of electing them to high office, lauding and rewarding them.But I would not suggest that we should have "removed our elected officials,their advisers, their intellectual claque, and their clients from theplanet," or destroyed our own and other Western governments because oftheir terrorist crimes and their support for terrorists worldwide, includingmany who know fall into the category of "terrorists" because theydisobeyed orders: Saddam Hussein, and many others before him. However, it israther unfair to blame citizens of harsh and brutal regimes that we support fornot undertaking this responsibility, when we do not do so under vastly morepropitious circumstances.
Many people say that all through history when a nationis attacked, it attacks in kind. How do you react?
When countries are attacked they try to defend themselves,if they can. According to the doctrine proposed, Nicaragua, South Vietnam, andnumerous others should have been sending suicide bombers to destroy the US fromwithin, Palestinians should be applauded for suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, andon, and on. It is because this doctrine had brought Europe to virtualself-annihilation after hundreds of years of savagery that the nations of theworld forged a different compact after World War II, establishing -- at leastformally -- the principle that the resort to force is barred except in the caseof self-defense against armed attack until the Security Council acts to protectinternational peace and security. Specifically, retaliation is barred. Since theUS is not under armed attack, these considerations are irrelevant -- at least,if we agree that the fundamental principles of international law should apply toourselves, not only to those we dislike.
International law aside, we have centuries of experiencethat tell us exactly what this doctrine entails. And in a world with weapons ofmass destruction, what it entails is an imminent termination of the humanexperiment -- which is, after all, why Europeans decided half a century ago thatthe game of mutual slaughter in which they had been indulging for centuries hadbetter come to an end, or else.
Many people evince horrified anger at the expressions ofanger at the U.S. emanating from many parts of the world, including but notconfined to the MidEast. The images of people celebrating the collapse of theWorld Trade Center leave people wanting revenge. How do you react to that?
The US-backed army took control in Indonesia in 1965,organizing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly landlesspeasants, in a massacre that the CIA compared to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin,and Mao. That led to uncontrolled euphoria in the West, a display of exuberancethat could not be contained, in the national media and elsewhere. Indonesianpeasants had not harmed us in any way.
When Nicaragua finally succumbed to the US assault, themainstream press lauded the success of the methods adopted to "wreck theeconomy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted nativesoverthrow the unwanted government themselves," with a cost to us that is"minimal," leaving the victim "with wrecked bridges, sabotagedpower stations, and ruined farms," and thus providing the U.S. candidatewith "a winning issue": ending the "impoverishment of the peopleof Nicaragua." We are "united in joy" at this outcome, as the NewYork Times proclaimed. It's easy to continue.
Very few people around the world celebrated the crimes inNew York; overwhelmingly, they were deplored, even in places where people hadbeen ground underfoot by Washington's boots for a long, long time. But therewere undoubtedly feelings of anger at the US. However, I am aware of nothing asgrotesque as the two examples I just mentioned, or many more like them in theWest. Those who believe that reactions last week call for revenge should bededicating themselves to a campaign of mass destruction against their owninstitutions, and themselves, if the reactions are based on any moral principle.
Getting beyond these public reactions, in your view whatare the actual motivations operating in U.S. policy at this moment? What is thepurpose of the "war on terror," as proposed by Bush?
The "new war on terror" is neither"new" nor a "war on terror." We should recall that theReagan administration came to office 20 years ago proclaiming that"international terrorism" would be a prime focus of our foreignpolicy, and we must undertake a war to eliminate this "cancer," this"plague" that was destroying civilization. It acted on that commitmentby organizing campaigns of international terrorism that were extraordinary inscale and destruction, even leading to a World Court condemnation of the US,while lending their support to innumerable others, for example, in southernAfrica, where Western-backed South African depredations killed a million and ahalf people and caused $60 billion of damage during the Reagan years.
Hysteria over international terrorism peaked in themid-80s, while the US and its allies were well in the lead in spreading thecancer they were demanding must be extirpated. If we choose, we can live in aworld of comforting illusion. Or we can look at recent history, at theinstitutional structures that remain essentially unchanged, at the plans thatare being announced -- and answer the questions accordingly. I know of no reasonto suppose that there has been a sudden change in long-standing motivations orpolicy goals, apart from tactical adjustments to changing circumstances.
We should also remember than one exalted task ofintellectuals is to proclaim every few years that we have "changedcourse," the past is behind us and can be forgotten as we march on towardsa glorious future. That is a highly convenient stance, though hardly anadmirable or sensible one.
Do you believe that most Americans will, as conditionspermit more detailed evaluation of options, accept that the solution to terrorattacks on civilians is more terror attacks on civilians, and that that solutionto fanaticism is surveillance and curtailed civil liberties.
I hope not, but we should not underestimate the capacity ofwell-run propaganda systems to drive people to irrational, murderous, andsuicidal behavior. Take an example that is remote enough so that we should beable to look at it with some dispassion: World War I. It can't have been thatboth sides were engaged in a noble war for the highest objectives. But on bothsides, the soldiers marched off to mutual slaughter with enormous exuberance,fortified by the cheers of the intellectual classes and those who they helpedmobilize, across the political spectrum, from left to right, including the mostpowerful left political force in the world, in Germany.
Exceptions are so few that we can practically list them,and some of the most prominent among them ended up in jail for questioning thenobility of the enterprise: among them Rosa Luxemburg, Bertrand Russell, andEugene Debs. With the help of Wilson's propaganda agencies and the enthusiasticsupport of liberal intellectuals, a pacifist country was turned in a few monthsinto raving anti-German hysterics, ready to take revenge on those who hadperpetrated savage crimes, many of them invented by the British Ministry ofInformation. But that's by no means inevitable, and we should not underestimatethe civilizing effects of the popular struggles of recent years. We need notstride resolutely towards catastrophe, merely because those are the marchingorders.
(Published as Composite Interview #3, Sept 22, Byarrangement with Zmag)
