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 of 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. It's
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.
Note from MN: Reading Chomsky's comment on the
CIA-organized "Afghanis" in
Chechnya, it occurred to me to look back at the
campaign of terror bombings
in Russia attributed to the Chechen rebels in
1999. One such report follows.
I remember at the time that the widespread attitude
in the US seemed to be
something like "The Russians brought it on themselves,
or maybe did it to
themselves," since the Russian military was playing
a brutal role in
Chechnya (which was considered a part of Russia).
Those bombings in the
run-up to the Russian elections ushered in the
current Putin regime in a
hand-off of power from Yeltsin.--MN