|
Facing the Enemy Within
Nov 4, 2001
It's been a busy week. Civilian casualties pile up in Afghanistan, a
refugee/starvation crisis looms, Pakistan (and its nuclear weapons)
destabilize as the coalition-partner government/media pronounce the air
strikes a major success. Massive antiwar protests take place
internationally (as many as 200 dead from this weekend's protest in
Nigeria) while leaders insist their citizens are united behind the war
cause, and pass oppressive legislation to keep them that way. Anthrax
letters make the rounds in the US as people stock up on staples and
worry if they're next to be laid off.
Is it just me or is this whole thing getting really crazy?
Voices of antagonism seem to rule the media. In what can only be
described as a bad case of "Noam Envy," conservative columnist David
Horowitz has been cranking out seething essays all but blaming MIT
professor and respected intellectual Noam Chomsky for the September 11
attacks. Calling Chomsky the "ayatollah of anti-American hate"
Horowitz condemns the young people "exposed to his propaganda - and the
equally vile teachings of his academic disciples." Horowitz is outraged
by "every one of the 150 shameful (anti-war) demonstrations that took
place on America's campuses" and took out ads in college newspapers
asking students to confront the anti-war "enemies within."
Brings to mind Bush Jr. threatening "you are
either with us or with the terrorists," which doesn't leave those
interested in peace with much option. So, probably much to Horowitz's
chagrin, this weekend huge antiwar
protests took place in over 100 cities internationally - 20,000
marchers in London alone. And thumbing its nose at the intransigent US
(which not only withholds crucial payments but also violates
international law and the United Nations Charter with the air strikes),
the Nobel Committee awarded the United Nations and its Secretary-General
Kofi Annan with this year's peace prize.
It's hard to make sense of it all, and a recent
Newsweek
poll shows that people are confused. While most Americans reportedly
saw US policies in the Middle East as a primary factor in the September
11 terrorist attacks, the respondents were divided regarding whether
those policies should actually be changed.
An international Gallup poll
showed much different results. A full 32 out of 35 countries (the US, Israel
and India in opposition) favored a criminal justice response, rather
than military action, in response to the terrorist attack on America.
The numbers were clear: 67%-88% in NATO/Western countries and 83%-94% in
Latin America favoring a non-military approach. Surprisingly, 30% of US
respondents also supported this option even though US corporate media
consistently ignores it.
Meanwhile, a US Commander-in-Chief with minimal international experience
and armed with foreign policy written by a major weapons manufacturer
representative (Bruce Jackson of Lockheed Martin) plans his "crusade."
As Bush Jr. send young soldiers off to the treacherous hills of
Afghanistan to fight a war with no exit - let alone entrance - strategy,
it's interesting to note that his own military service consisted solely
of a stint in the Texas Air National Guard.
As a North American, my heart goes out to the soldiers entering this war
because I fear many will be killed, for no good reason. My heart also
goes out to the Afghan civilians who will lose their lives, for no good
reason. Reports of Afghanis crossing the border into Pakistan only to
join the jihad against the US because they are incensed about the
bombing of their country, don't say much for the logic of our current
policy.
So what are sane options? No one can deny that the horrific WTC attack
must be punished, and the perpetrators brought to justice. It's just
doubtful whether blowing up random sites with unclear links to Sept. 11,
and thereby enraging and alienating the Muslim world is the way to do
it. A limited, specified military response perhaps; but that's different
from a diffuse, all-encompassing badly-defined crusade.
It's clear that US transportation infrastructure, such as airport and
Amtrak security, must be properly funded (significant that the fast food
industry lured a lot of airport security personnel away even before the
attacks - seems that flipping burgers offered better benefits than
screening for weapons). The vulnerability of our nuclear facilities, not
to mention the likelihood of nuclear weapons and scientific expertise
being smuggled out of Russia should be top priority for the US
Department of Energy; the necessity to decrease our dependence on fossil
fuels and decentralize our energy infrastructure is obvious. We must
also be wary of those in our midst who would capitalize on the current
crisis to ram through their own destructive agenda - US Trade
Representative Robert Zoellick, for one.
US foreign policy must be reviewed, not only regarding today's
counterinsurgent landscape, but also to prevent a new generation of
terrorists from being created. The Palestine/Israel question, Iraqi
sanctions, and support of corrupt and violent regimes must be addressed,
not because this is what the terrorists have demanded but because it
should have been done a long time ago. We need to look at the fact that
on the same day that 6,000 innocent souls lost their lives in the WTC
attack, another 24,000 starved to death - as happens every single day.
People with no hope embrace desperate measures. And why is it that the
State Department still supports the sale of weapons capable of bringing
down airplanes and helicopters to private individuals abroad? We must
put the safety of those willing to lay their lives on the line ahead of
corporate profit. We should avoid entering Faustian pacts with countries
engaging in their own terrorist activities - Putin's invasion of
Chechnya, for example.
We should acknowledge that the "international
community" and NATO are not the same thing. How ironic that many of
those accused of being "anti-global" before are the very ones calling
for a truly global, as opposed to unilateral, response to this tragedy.
And that means going through internationally recognized governing
bodies, such as the UN. The fate of Afghanistan, and indeed the whole
region, after this bombing campaign will define the safety of the
planet; as such it will require sustained and clearly-targeted support
on an international scale, and that might as well start now.
It's hard not to recall former Secretary of
State Madelaine Albright's infamous response years back when asked about
the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of the US sanctions:
"We think the price is worth it." Now in these crazy times, we need to
get past the name-calling and look at the actions of our governments ...
and question if the ultimate price to be paid really is worth it.
Heather Wokusch is a freelance writer. She can be contacted at
|
