George W. Bush has defined his war on terrorism as a struggle of goodagainst evil; one that all decent people would want to support. As more ofits implications bubble to the surface, however, Dubyas War is lookingless and less like something worth going to the wall for.
In this war, the major event so far is the bombing of Afganistan. Thatinitiative is intended to bring about the collapse of the Taliban, aradical Islamic group that controls most of that land and that is providingrefuge to Osama bin Laden, the individual believed to have masterminded theatrocities of September 11.
After four weeks of bombing, however, theTaliban is still firmly in place, bin Laden remains at large and, despitea policy of bombing only military targets, civilian casualties aremounting.
Although the U.S. has the most sophisticated military machine the world hasever seen it has, so far, declined to use its full capabilities to captureor push aside the Taliban leadership and scour the country for bin Laden.
Rather than put American lives at risk on the ground, Dubyas strategymeans that innocent Afgans, who have already been terrorized for decades,must die. This aspect of the war doesnt feel much like moral high ground.
The Bush Doctrine says that terrorists will be rooted out wherever theyexist and governments who shelter them will be treated as enemies. In theview of many observers, this doctrine raises the spectre of continuingwars against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and perhaps Libya. On theother hand, even though it embraces and proselytizes a fanatical brand ofIslam called Wahabism, Saudi Arabia is not on the list.
According to Stephen Schwartz, author of several publications on theMiddle-East, Wahabism is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanaticalbeyond measure. Although, not all Muslims are suicide bombers ... allMuslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis except, perhaps, for some disciplesof atheist leftists posing as Muslims in the interests of personal power,such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein.
Most of those involved in theattack on the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, according to Schwartz,is a Wahabi and the Taliban is funded primarily by Wahabis. In short,Saudi Arabia not only harbours terrorists, it breeds them.
The U.S. has substantial oil interests in Saudi Arabia. So maybe a sub-themeof Dubyas War might be equal justice for all, except those who havesomething we want.
That approach may satisfy Bushs constituents but highmorality it aint.Instead of designating September 11 as the opening salvo of the firstwar of the twenty first century, another way to define the situationwould be to regard the attacks on Washington and New York as crimesagainst humanity. Whatever else they might have been no term moreaccurately describes them.
But to do that would limit Dubyas options. Ifthe attack was a crime instead of an act of war, how could he legitimatelyrefuse the Talibans offer to deliver bin Laden to a neutral country?
Theavailable evidence suggests that bin Laden probably was responsible forthe incidents of September 11. But if we are not to stoop to the levelof barbarity against which we are fighting, doesnt he deserve a fairtrial?
Along with others, award-winning foreign correspondent John Pilgerquestions American war motives. According to Pilger, Bushs concealedagenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, thegreatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and enough, according toone estimate, to meet Americas voracious energy needs for a generation.Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the Americans hope tocontrol it. That might help to explain why Bush refused, out of hand, theoffer of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden to some neutral authority.
Bush announced with a grin that he wanted bin Laden dead oralive an approach to justice that was the norm in the fabled AmericanWild West. Despite all of the feel-good movies made about it, the WildWest wasnt called wild for nothing. The real Wild West was a land oflawless savagery and Dubya seems to have no qualms about embracing itsvalues.
It is the rare war where one side has a lock on morality. This is not oneof them. We are committed to the first phase of this action but before weallow ourselves to be drawn into a vortex of American military adventurismwe ought to give some very careful thought to all aspects of thesituation.
Thank you for reading this story…
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.
rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.
So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.
And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.