THE
SATANIC IMPERATIVE
To
examine the possible motives and premises of the terrorists
has been, in and of itself, denounced as something close to
treason. We are supposed to believe that whomever is behind
this heinous act is, like Satan, an irreducible primary, simply
Evil Incarnate. Evil doesn't require motives, or at least
motives that need to be explained: Evil simply is,
and so what else do we need to know? Ipso facto, any further
inquiry into the motivations of our tormentors is considered
little more than collaboration with the enemy. Myles Kantor
made an argument very similar to this in a
Frontpage article denouncing me as little short
of Osama bin Raimondo: this in response to a piece in which
I sought to examine the WTC attack as an example of what foreign
policy analyst Chalmers
Johnson calls "blowback,"
i.e. the often violent reaction to America's domineering foreign
policy. By explaining irrational and violent behavior, we
come dangerously close to excusing and even valorizing it
– or so the argument goes.
FRY
'EM?
I
have some sympathy for this idea when it comes to domestic
criminal behavior: after all, who cares why some murderer
went on a killing spree and disemboweled dozens of people?
The point is that the guy doesn't need therapy, he needs to
be caught and fried, asap. But to transfer the same
methodology to the realm of foreign policy, i.e. dealing with
our overseas enemies, is utter madness, because in this case
the primary goal, after defense, must be prevention
– and we cannot prevent what we cannot or will not understand.
WHY
DO THEY HATE US?
Alright,
then, so let's get back to the subject of this column: why
oh why do they hate us? Of course, the cultural ethos
of the Islamists who have declared war on us is utterly antithetical
to the spirit of Western modernity. Phenomena that are everyday
features of life in our society – an all-consuming materialism,
brazen hedonism, militant secularism – are considered monstrous
by the mullahs of the Middle East. But as long as these cultural
effusions are confined to the West, from whence they sprang,
Osama
bin Laden and his fundamentalist flock are unlikely to
be so offended that they spend years planning a terrorist
attack that is sure to result in massive retaliation. Of course,
the globalization of Western cultural as the dominant ethos
is indeed a factor, but there is no reason why the Islamists
couldn't deal with that at the local level, just as the Taliban
has in Afghanistan. The demolition of ancient Buddhist statues
is not exactly something to be cheered (although the smashing
of all Afghan television sets does, I must admit, have a certain
appeal). But as long as they keep it within the confines of
their own country, whether it be Iran, Saudi Arabia, or wherever,
this is not a legitimate American concern. The problem, however,
is that in the era of US hegemony, America concerns itself
with everything and everyone.
SACRILEGE
The
biggest beef of the Islamists is that US troops are stationed
in that holy of holies, the land of Mecca and Medina, in the
kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This, to them, is a religious issue,
a sacrilege that cries out for retaliation. To a devout Muslim,
the presence of "infidels" on such holy soil is
intolerable, and must be fought: and this, indeed, was the
original complaint of Osama bin Laden and his followers.
HOLY
WAR
Bin
Laden, a wealthy Saudi, was a friend of the US during the
Afghan war against the Soviets: we subsidized him and his
followers and essentially created
the infrastructure of the terror network that now besets
us. Just as soon as the Soviets were laid low, bin Laden turned
his sights on the defilers of his home country – his former
ally, the US. As it is, US soldiers stationed in the Saudi
realm are forbidden to wear crucifixes, and foreigners are
closely watched lest they violate any of the religious edicts
against alcohol or, say, celebrating Christmas. But that is
not good enough for the fundamentalists, who see the presence
of the Americans as a desecration, and so the holy war against
"the great Satan" was on.
GULF
WAR BLOWBACK
As
a corollary to this problem, the Gulf War was undoubtedly
a pivot point in decisively turning the Arab "street"
against the US. Here was the US and its allies using Saudi
Arabia as a base, demonstrating its hegemony over the Middle
East; and not only that, but doing it in a particularly bloody
and cruel manner. If we take seriously Seymour
Hersh's famous expose of the enormous casualties inflicted
by the US during that war – in which tens of thousands of
Iraqi soldiers, mostly old men and boys, were essentially
massacred – then this puts the casualties inflicted by the
WTC terrorists in perspective. There is an important difference,
however, in that the people in the World Trade Center were
civilians. Ah yes, answers the radical Islamist, but plenty
of civilians (far more than the 5000 or so who perished
in the WTC) were killed by the US during that war, and they
are still being killed in bombing raids that continue
to this day. From the viewpoint of the perpetrators of the
WTC atrocity, the operative principle here is simple, and
can be translated so that even ordinary Americans can understand
it: what goes around comes around.
ISRAEL'S
CAT'S-PAW
There
is another big factor in the "why do they hate us?"
question, and that is US political, military and financial
support for the state of Israel. I have dealt with that question
at length, in this column, but there is something else to
be said here. It seems clear enough that, with George W. Bush
in the White House, US support for Israel has gone from strong
to virtually unconditional. While secretary of state Colin
Powell has done his best to rein in the Israelis, there are
other elements in this administration – now in the ascendant
– who would dearly love to unleash Ariel Sharon on the Palestinians.
From an ostensibly evenhanded broker of Middle East peace,
the US has become Israel's cat's-paw. US policy in the region
seems made not in Washington, but in Tel Aviv, and this couldn't
be clearer to the Arabs, who see the fate of Palestine as
a test of American intentions. Whatever principles animate
the US in this matter, America's national self-interest is
surely not among them: this is painfully obvious not only
to Islamists in every country, but also to various Middle
Eastern rulers, including our Arab allies. Why does the US
pursue what amounts to a self-sacrificial policy in the Middle
East? This is what the Arabs, even the moderate ones, want
to know.
ACTIONS
HAVE CONSEQUENCES
The
war of retribution that has been promised by the Bush administration
will run up against several problems, not the least of which
is the lack of a stationary enemy: there is no country to
bomb, really, except for Afghanistan – a nation that has
already been bombed several times over, and which has no real
infrastructure to be damaged. But there are two other major
problems with what I will call George's Jihad, two forms of
"blowback" that could have dire consequences for
the US both abroad and right here at home. One is the destabilization
of the entire region, and the spread of the conflict not only
to Pakistan
but also to every country in the Middle East. Such allies
as we have in the region are quite shaky, and it wouldn't
take much for the rule of Jordan's pro-American king to be
rudely interrupted. The Saudi monarchy, too, could go the
way of the Persian Shahs, and even Turkey – which fancies
itself part of Europe – could be swept up in an Islamist
wave.
LET
THE MARKET DECIDE
Closely
connected to this is the reaction of world markets – and
that is what is really going to hit home as far as Americans
are concerned. An economy already teetering on the edge of
instability could conceivably be pushed into free-fall by
the sort of long drawn-out military
struggle our leaders seem bent on. While defense stocks
are going up, everything else is plunging faster than even
Alan "Easy Money" Greenspan can keep up with, and
it won't be long now before ordinary Americans begin to feel
the pinch. The idea that Americans are willing to sacrifice
their 501-3K plans on the altar of George Bush's war on terrorism
is a dubious proposition that I'm sure Karl
Rove is not eager to test.
LOONYTUNES
On
the other hand, the war propaganda is now reaching a crescendo
of hysterical vulgarity, and it is hard to imagine that Bush
will not follow through on his pledge. If he doesn't, there
will be a political price to pay: if he does, the price in
economic and geopolitical terms will perhaps be more than
anyone can now imagine. In the end, however, the cartoonish
and completely unrealistic view of the Terrorist Threat taken
by most Americans will be strengthened, not dissipated –
just as the equally cartoonish view of America, seen from
the Arab perspective, is bound to be reinforced. The consequences,
for this country and for the rest of the world, are not going
to be pretty. Who will break the cycle of misinformation and
caricature? That is what leaders are for, and, as far as I
can see, there are none on the horizon.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
A
contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald
Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives,
Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics
of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
contributions are now tax-deductible
|
