Some Observations on the Terrorist Attacks
in New York and
Washington
For the development of a consistent, progressive
political theory
against terrorism and its origins
Tom O'Donnell, Ph.D.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Email comments.
To
Homepage.
You are visitor:
To other political writings:
Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, Indian/Pakistani nukes, ...
______________________________________________________
---------------
1.a. The terrorist attacks in NYC and Washington are not an issue of
Palestine per se, it seems to be more generally one of retribution
against America and the West-in-general. It is more connected, it seems,
with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (US troops there) and, perhaps, the Gulf
War, etc.
1.b. As retribution, it is not necessary for the terrorists to raise specific demands. Rather, the goal is precisely to create a further rift and separation of the "Islamic world" and "the West." This separation is sought both in the Middle-East, AND within the West -- i.e., to force Arab and South-Asian Islamic peoples within the West to be separated from the process of their ongoing cultural, social and political inclusion in the mainstream of Western countries.
1.c. Beyond immediate issues of retribution against US and western policies, the terrorist attacks are against cosmopolitanization (and/or 'westernizing') of Islamic societies. In this sense the politics and social program of these terrorists are part of a reactionary, revaunchist, 'medieval' mentality - i.e. reactionary nationalists whose nationalism encompasses the most backward forms of cultural and social oppression inside their countries -- against women, against individual liberty, against religious tolerance and secularism, etc.
1.d. Such reactionry nationalist and religio-cultural elements should
never be supported as 'oppositional' to imperialism, colonialism or the
difficulties of capitalist modernity in general. Modern capitalist society
(the least exploitative as possible) is always preferable to these
reactionary nationalist/chauvinist elements. Within their countries these
religio-cultural nationalists are a throwback -- akin to the European
nazi's who invoked 'ancient' Roman and 'Aryan' culture as a reaction to
modern, cosmopolitan bourgeois society and its often severe
contradictions. As with that movement, so too with reactionary
religio-national movements in oppressed and developing countries: their
origins may be 'understood,' but they are never an 'alternative' worthy of
any support. As a matter of principle, national movements must achieve a
threshold of social, cultural and political progress and popular democracy
to be supported by progressive persons internationally.
To Index
---------------
2.a. A "war" or military/police actions to capture or undermine implicated
persons and groups which is badly executed, which polarizes and harms the
interests of the people of the Middle East, would further this
polarization. It is almost universally realized by the people and the
main government officials in the US and Europe, that this must be done
intelligently and with great care, from within the broadest alliance of
nation states, especially including nation states of the region.
2.b. There is no evidence that anyone currently intends to 'bomb' or
'punish' the civilians of Afghanistan. This would be
counter-productive both there, and within the US and Europe where, by all
accounts, much of public opinion would be revolted. A significant section
of Middle eastern peoples can be expected to support intelligent,
controlled, limited and justified military/police actions.
To Index
---------------
3.a. As for the terrorists' anti-people, genocidal character: How do
terrorists legitimize acts such as machine gunning people in airports,
suicide bombing civilians, the attack on the WTC, etc.? These attacks are
legitimized by identifying the people of the US with the government and
ruling circles. Bin Laden specifically declared attacks on the American
people as equivelant to attacks on the US military. Hence the cause of
terrorists such as these is fought not as a political and social struggle,
but as a war of a people against a people. In this sense it is nationally,
culturally and racially profoundly chauvinistic.
3.b. Bin Laden and other many other islamic fundamentalists, claim that 'all' the people of the US 'support' the government's policies, and that cosmopolitan, secular American society is degenerate and immoral. However, the scenes of people of diverse colors and nationalities assisting one another in the aftermath of the bombing of the WTC shows the profound diversity which has been accomplished in the US through long struggles against racial and national oppression. The attack is a foul attempt to negate this progressive reality of life in the United States for which the people have fought, and further points out the national, cultural and racial chauvinistic character of the terrorists. Even the Bush Administration, by their detailed statements in support and defense of Arab and islamic peoples in the US since the bombing, show themselves to be, objectively, infinitely more advanced on this particular point (in spite of Durbin, etc.) than the anti-people terrorists.
3.c. The terrorists' actions remind one of the aims of racist gangs in the
US (esp. in 60' and 70's) who used to have a goal of inciting a 'race war'
to 'separate the races' and thereby 'purify' the country. In this sense,
the attack is a grand 'provocation', aimed to further polarize Islamic and
Middle Eastern peoples from the West everywhere.
To Index
---------------
4.a. It has been very interesting to see how relatively sophisticated the
overwhelming majority of people have been in wanting to separate the
perpetrators from Muslims and Mid-East people in general, and how
concerned they were that US Arabs, etc. not be blamed for this. I think
some of the fears we have of how this will be read are an outgrowth of
painful memories of the Iran hostage and similar events. The 'official'
ideology has evolved and changed in the US since then, which, whatever the
reasons (e.g. sensibilities of US allies in the Gulf War, internal
demographic changes, etc.) is very good. It is striking how there are few
if any talk-show hosts or government officials mouthing the chauvinist
incitements they once would have. Across the country, public officials
and religious leaders of other denominations have made very public
visits to mosques and islamic communties to pledge their support and
to denounce anti-islamic predjudice.
4.b. While one should not minimize the possibilities of spontaneous
violence by backward elements, the 'official' ideology has been different
now for some time. In addition, the studious avoidance of any national TV
or radio announcer to attribute this to 'Arabs' or 'Muslims', etc. in
general -- even right during the earliest, most uncertain moments of the
attacks -- indicated that there are conscious, pre-set policies to not do
this.
To Index
---------------
5.a. The optimal situation would now be that the US government's actions
to find and punish the perpetrators should coincide as closely and as
realistically as possible with the progressive struggles of the people of
the Middle East to bring modern, democratic, humanistic, pluralistic and
secular regimes to the region. If dictatorial and repressive regimes are
attacked or overthrown, it should be in a way which maximally enables the
indigenous democratic forces to come to power and transform their
societies.
5.b. In addition, the US should commit itself to seeing that a just peace is established in Palestine/Israel, which recognizes the legitimate national aspirations of both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, treating both as equals. This will go a long way to eliminating the festering injustices which fuel resentment of the West in the area.
5.c. So too, the problem of Iraq should be solved. They should either
politically and militarily support indigenous forces to overthrow the
criminal Iraqi dictatorship in favor of a popular, democratic regime, or
they (the US and Britain, etc.) should simply leave the area, as their
present stalemate is not an answer, but rather causes untold chronic
suffering to the Iraqi people and cannot be justified.
To Index
---------------
6.a. Initially the US media was not willing to discuss the extent to which
oppressive and exploitative US policies abroad have contributed and
continue to contribute to spontaneous generation of people feeling so
hopeless as to be willing to commit such despicable acts (though, nothing
of this sort is 'spontaneous'; it takes place only insofar as it is
ORGANIZED by reactionary religious and class forces within the area).
Nevertheless, as time passes, the discussion of these facts is actually
now a prominent feature of the media and popular discussions.
6.b However, within this positive discussion, there is little or no
distinction drawn by the US government and media between legitimate
national, libratory struggles, (for example, by the Palestinian people
against Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands), and the
reactionary, anti-modernity, anti-people and religio-ethnic chauvinist
elements in the Middle East who ALSO oppose the US and Israel, but do so
with the aspiration to institute reactionary regimes such as those in Iran
or Afghanistan. The latter groups carry out terrorism such as in NYC or
Washington, the former do not and should not lest they betray their claims
to progressive nationalism and to be distinguishable from the people who
oppress them.
To Index
---------------
7.a. As to the responsibility of the US Administration to secure the life
and liberty of its citizens: Even _if_ one totally agrees with US policies
recently vis-a-vis Israel and against the Palestinians, for example, it
should still be clear that the Bush and Clinton Administrations have been
extremely cavalier in their lack of concern and preparations for the
possible consequences of their policies. They knew full well that there
are such people as these terrorists out there (this was not the first
attempt on the WTC, for example). These Administrations did not take the
local reactionary nationalists seriously. Bush Administration policies
were, in effect, adventurist vis-a-vis the protection of the population at
home, as well as vis-a-vis the preservation of peace in the Middle-East.
It's announced 'hands off policy' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict --
which evolved into a 'completely support Israel' policy -- facilitated
Sharon to tear up the agreements Israel had signed in Oslo. Considered
together with the festering problems of fundamentalist regimes such as in
Kabul, of reactionary military governments and the atmosphere in Pakistan,
etc., this Bush Administration policy was executed without properly
preparing for the possible consequences for the people in the US (or in
the Middle East).
7.b. Instead Secretary of Defense Rhumsfield and his wealthy cronies were
excited about the prospects of getting billions of dollars for their
high-tech missile defense boondoggle, and Bush traveled the world twisting
arms in Europe and Russia to get it accepted. Condi Rice had time to go to
Moscow to lobby Putin for the big boondoggle, but she and C. Powell had
almost no time for keeping Sharon civil. In retrospect it should be clear
how simply stupid, arrogant, cavalier and greedy this cabal has been. One
hopes they will, at least, be a bit more focused now on the actual
national interests -- that is, the interests of the people-in-general, and
not simply those of their wealthy cronies. Compared to missile 'defense'
there isn't a lot of money to be made on domestic anti-terrorist measures,
nor in making the politically hard choices needed to reign in Israel and
establish a just peace of progressive, democratic regimes in the Middle
East, but this is a more sane definition of national interests.
To Index
---------------
8.a. One other striking thing is that there really are no answers yet to
many of the new questions raised by this attack. Many issues remain open,
and one has to deal with that unsettling situation.