From: twod@umich.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:15:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom O'Donnell
To: ...
Subject: Re: Aijaz Ahmad-- On his (& Chomsky's) "solutions" to the crisis

Friends,

The article below is an interesting, highly literate, historical tour de force by Aijaz Ahmad (almost at the level of Chomsky's considerable abilities). BUT, (once again!) the question of the day is: What does he think the US government/bourgeoisie CAN and SHOULD do? Answer: apparently nothing whatsoever. If, indeed, as he says:

>> America can never defeat "terrorism with a global
> reach"

then (as with Chomsky and his anarcho-Z-Net colleagues), there is no possible justifiable action for the US and/or the US-dominated international community to take. But, if the US does NOT act effectively to capture or severely thwart terrorist groupings such as ObL's, then they will be guilty of not protecting their populations from further mass killings -- and this, IN ITSELF, is a human rights offense.

The demand for the extant US government (et al internationally) to arrest, detain and punish the perpetrators, AND to work effectively to eliminate the conditions which facilitate such reactionary nationalist-religio-cultural forces to organize terror networks, is a perfectly justified and necessary, popular demand (and here I do not invoke "popular" as a pejorative).

Nota Bene: the *organizers* of these terrorist and previous attacks elsewhere, are not necessarily 'poor' or 'wretched' 'victims of imperialism' -- though they occasionally are -- but quite often disaffected, rich, indigenous bourgeois and financial elements (to wit: O. bin Laden himself!), decrepid royalists or dictatorial, semi-fascist secular (Iraq, Lybia), or non-secular (Iran) ruling cliques.

It is quite easy to write "left" articles detailing US crimes -- mostly because they are so habitually criminal in their foreign policy. But this fact is precisely what makes it hard to clearly delineate a correct basis for (nay, more, the DEMAND that) the US big bourgeoisie intelligently address this problem of terror.

Before and during major crises of this sort in the past, the essentially identical question has rent the US Left:

-To be *simply* exquisite critics and simply (and pristinely) call for the eventual demise of the system (as this is "obviously" the "ONLY" "real answer"),

-Or, to recognize that the big bourgeoisie, and, especially the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, has certain responsibilities which it should be FORCED to meet (precisely because it IS the extant apparatus-of-state).

To follow the second policy is not, a priori, to simultaneously promote any illusions as to the basic character of the bourgeois/imperialist state. In fact, it opens up a FURTHER basis for criticism of the state as being unwilling to properly and intelligently carry out its responsibilities to insure the life and safety of the population. Often times it is precisely such 'mundane' criticisms of the bourgeoisie's inability or unwillingness to act in a national crisis -- especially to act against reaction (e.g. internally during the civil rights movement when local reactionaries rampaged in the South; or internationally, before WWII, while anti-fascist war raged in Europe and the US bourgeoisie stood aside) which are most immediately understood by the masses -- whose interests are REALLY being hurt.

However, if the left is ITSELF unwilling or unable (or afraid) to engage in advocating/demanding/endorsing ANY possible actions which the state SHOULD take, then it is reduced to simply criticizing EVERY action taken by the state. Soon the people realize that this criticism is simply a moralizing charicature of politics, an intellectualist abstention from practical politics, and the left's criticisms make progressively less and less of an impression.

More directly put: there are things that need to be achieved short of (before) revolutionary social transformation takes place. Aijaz Ahmad (in the article below), and, effectively, the Chomsky-Z-Net-anarcho-critics of every-possible-state-action, refuse to engage this issue.

Whether to advocate governmental ACTIONS or not, has been a crucial dividing line in the left. This goes all the way back to:

- The Civil War: Can the North -- with its long history of support of and/or acquiesence to slavery REALLY prosecute a war against the slaveocracy's rebellion?. Can Lincoln? After all, he began by refusing to prosecute the war as a war against slavery-as-such!)

- WWII: Can the US big bourgeoisie -- much of which had its hands dirty through dealings with fascists in Europe before the war, and which had relentlessly persecuted the workers' and communist/socialist movements at home -- ever prosecute a war against fascism? Should their (our?!) Army now be cheered on?!!

- Should the left DEMAND that the US and NATO act to halt rabid national and tribal chauvinistic forces in Yugoslavia and Rwanda? Or, is the US/NATO fatally 'disqualified from acting morally' due to their well-known 'past crimes' (as the anrcho-Z-Net people, the 'militant' trotskiests and left pacifists so loudly insisted just a few years ago)?

But, I ask you, in any of these cases (and several others of less historic magnitude) who else COULD act? In Spain, during the anti-fascist war, YES, there was one example where "WE" (the people, and the left), WE sent volunteers and attacked the fascists DIRECTLY. But, how can this be done in this and many of the above mentioned cases?

To its shame, in the case of Yugoslovia, the overwhelming majority of the US left did not demand that the US/NATO/UN forcibly crush the Serbian reactionary nationalist, fascist forces. In fact, even after a decade of Slav-chauvinist terror, most of the left had no orientation on the character of this conflict save that of the bourgeois media ('an ancient religious-ethnic war, nasty on both sides' where 'all the big powers have gotten bogged down' in the past). Yet, in the end (and completely for their OWN, narrow, class reasons -- something about which some of us never fostered any illusions), the US and NATO DID act, and DID, finally(!!), put an end to Milosevich et al. [Yes, but they acted "Too late!" say the former leaders of the "No war in Yugoslovia!" movement. But, how can they NOW say it was "too late"-- as they didn't allow the possibility of US/NATO EVER acting in some 'positive' manner in the first place?! ... But I digress.]

Let us make concrete analysis of CURRENT concrete conditions:

The manner in which the US has carried out this 'war on terrorism' up to now (26Sep01) -- it must be frankly admitted -- is QUITE different than anyone would or could have ever imagined. There were no immediate air strikes, and no state- or media-supported anti-Arab or anti-muslim hysteria. Not only the US Secretary of State, but even the "Mr. missile defense" financial oligarch who heads the Department of Defense, has repeatedly said there simply are no targets to mass bomb in Afghanistan, that that would be counter-productive to the alliance as well as to fighting ObL et al, and, yesterday, he remarked he was rather at a loss to define what they will do militarily -- in GENERAL! This is quite something different (at least for now) from any past US expedition abroad. (Though it is interesting to recall the campaign of Pres. Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary Pirates [See, esp. "The Birth of the Modern"])

After 6000+ people of some 60 nations have been killed by reactionary nationalist, religio-cultural chauvinists, and while the real possibility of further attacks on this scale remains QUITE possible, it is impermissible for the "left" to retreat, to abstain from the practical political question of the day; to itself fall back into the pristine dogma of "only socialism" or "only a revitalized left" or "nothng the US can do", or some such thing can "solve" this problem. No! ACTION by the powers-that-be -- unfortunately -- IS REQUIRED. The states of the big bourgeoisie of the US and W. Europe, in coalition with many of the generally reactionary bourgeois nation states of the middle east, MUST act. However, we should DEMAND that it be intelligent, effective and justified action. When Aijaz Ahmad says, in closing, that:

>> America can never defeat "terrorism with a global
> reach" because for all its barbarity and
> irrationality, that religiously motivated "terrorism"
> is also a "sigh of the opressed," and if some
> Palestinians cheered it that too was owed to the fact
> that even an "opiate of the people" is sometimes
> mistaken for the medicine itself. The only way to end
> this "terrorism" is to re-build that revolutionary
> movement of the left whose place it occupies and with
> whose mantle it masquerades.

he is, at best, throwing up his hands and awaiting his own version of a future time of purity and righteousness (albeit socialist) as being the "only way to end this terrorism." If nothing else, he should remember that the bourgeoisie has a knack for making sweeping social/economic/political changes across the globe when it puts its collective mind to it.

Changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy and secularism, bourgeois national liberation and liberties are certainly on the present agenda of 'history' in the middle east (and in So. Asia, and East Asia, and Africa, and L. America, ...). These are the 'spin offs' of globalization -- whether the financial oligarchies do or do not want it (most sometimes do, some sometimes don't).

The bourgeois realizes that it cannot any longer make sufficient profits in the 'old way' via its post-colonial, 'post-modern' imperialist relations which flourished for several decades after WWII. It is now fighting in a new way (though it has still many many of its old habits). Hence, the left has to move beyond the old third-worldist and post-modernist brand of anti-imperialist conceptions.

Abstentionism and retreat to mere criticism is not effective -- it leaves the people alone and adrift. We need to say what IS justified and to DEMAND that the bourgeoise MUST fight this terrorism (including with determined military and police actions when possible). We must also DEMAND that they stop generating the well-known conditions which facilitate the reactionary religio-nationalist forces to mobilize a very small section of the people (both oppressed AND oppressors) of the Middle East and South Asia to engage in or support terror. We must continue to fight for a free and equal Palestine, and the demise of all local dictatorships -- secular and religious and royal -- as part and parcel of the ongoing, continuing process which began with the American revolution, and really got rolling when heads began to roll in France. Only the fullest, most complete realization of bourgeois democracy and liberties EVERYWHERE, without exception, can pave the way for the eventual socialist transformation of our world. Hence, socialists must support the new democracy movements sweeping especially the former colonial and oppressed countries. These 'fundamentalist' reactionaries are not ONLY fighting the international big bourgeoisie and its cosmopolitanism, they are also, and often especially, fighting against the pressing and really revolutionary bourgeois democratic transformation of their own countries.

When the 'first-world' globalist financeers' policies support and facilitate the struggle against these local reactionaries (for their own reasons, of course) we should not object to their interventions, but, should demand it proceed in so far as it is helpful. Otherwise, and far-and-away in the main, liberation will always be primarily the act of the oppressed themselves, and the big bourgeois of the older bourgeois nations will be on the wrong side often enough.

Take care
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom O'Donnell, Ph.D. The University of Michigan
email: twod@umich.edu
url: www-personal.umich.edu/~twod
--------------------------------------------------------------


On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, N... wrote:
> From: ...
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:49:55 -0400 (EDT)
> To: ...
> Subject: Aijaz Ahmad--please distribute to that list of yours, jan
>
> From the Indian Journal Frontline
>
> Aijaz Ahmad, author of *In Theory: Classes, Nations,
> and Literature*, Verso Press.
>
> "A Task That Never Ends"
>> Bush Proposes Perpetual War
>
> The date of 11 September has a powerful resonance in > the annals of modern history. Twenty-eight years ago > on this date, the CIA-sponsored coup of General > Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected > socialist government of President Allende and > established a regime of > terror which killed an estimated thirty-five thousand > people in the first few weeks and continued to > brutalise Chilean society for some two decades. 11 > September was also the date of the Camp David Accords > which signalled Egypt's final surrender to American > imperialism and Israeli zionism, leaving the > Palestinians at the mercy of the latter. And, 11 > September was the day when George Bush, father of the > current President of the United States, made his > fateful speech to the U.S. Congress announcing the war > against Iraq-that supreme act of terror which killed > an estimated 200,000 people in the course of that > brief assault and which has led to the death of at > least half a million Iraqi children over the next > decade, thanks to the U.S.-dictated sanctions against > their country. >>

>> Betrayal of the Palestinians, the destruction of > Iraq! One can reasonably assume that these two great > devastations of the Arabo-Muslim world were > vivid in the memory of those 19 hijackers on this > year's 11 September, when they cammandeered four > civilian aircraft owned by two major U.S. airlines, > and smashed three of them into the World Trade Centre > (WTC) and the Pentagon- famous nerve centres of U.S. > financial and military power- while committing a > collective suicide in the process. The White > House-the seat of America's political power-was > probably to be struck by the fourth aircraft but > something in the hijackers' plan went awry. Over > 6,000 innocent civilians from 60 couuntries-some five > hundred of them from South Asia alone, including the > son of a close friend of the present writer- died > within a couple of hours in an act of calculated, > hideous act of terrorism >> carried out with stunning technical precision. >>

>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with their 220,000 dead, are > of course the most famous of the numerous cities that > the United States has destroyed around the world in > the course of this century with the deliberate, > terroristic intent of targetting innnocent civilians, > just as civilians were targetted in their towns and > hamlets alike throughout Indochina during the Vietnam > War. The spectacular terror which destroyed the World > Trade Centre and killed so many so callously pales by > comparison; as one journalist has calculated, the > death of 6,000 civilain means that this same level of > violence would have to be carried out every day for a > whole year for the resulting death toll to match the > death toll in Iraq over the past decade. >>

>> Even so, this was the first time that Americans came > to experience what it means for cities to be at the > receiving end of such destructive force. This > hijacking operation carried out by less than two dozen > individuals was the largest attack on mainland United > States in its history, larger than Pearl Harbour, > while American armies, assassins and covert operators > of all kinds have been active around the globe for > well over a century. >>

>> And, because being at the receiving end of violence > on their own soil was such a novel experience for the > U.S. centres of power, this attack on a couple of > buildings at the heart of the imperial centre produced > effects that no amount of terror and destruction in > the outposts-or even the secondary and tertiary > centres- of the empire could have produced. An economy > that was already slowing down went into a full-fledged > downturn, and the week following the hijackers' attack > proved to be the worst in the history of U.S. finance > since July 1933, with Dow Jones and Nasdeq posting > 2-digit losses virtually every day and liquid assets > losing $1.4 trillion of their value over the week. The > 30-year Treasury bonds continued to decline day by > day, amid speculation that further issues of long-term > federal debt shall be required to fund the > war-without-end that is now envisaged, not to speak of > the reconstruction costs and coping with the expected > recession. >>

>> Not just fresh investment but also consumer spending > dried up and the working people paid the price. > 116,000 jobs were lost in the airline industry alone > during that week, and the twin fears of war and > economic recession led to plummeting of sales across > North America. An emergency $15 billion assistance > package was quickly put together for the airlines > while Boeing, the lynchpin of American aerospace > industry, threatened to fire 31,000 of its employees > unless federal aid and subsidy came in. >>

>> Insurance companies were in similar turmoil, with > insurance claims arising from the World Trade Centre > tragedy alone expected to exceed $73 billion. >>

>> The companies hit back by notifying airports across > North America and Western Europe that wartime coverage > would be withdrawn as of 24 September, calculating > that governments would be forced to step in with > subsidies to renew that coverage while airports would > be forced to beef up their security systems, requiring > more outlays and more subsidies. >>

>> What happened was unspeakably hideous, cruel, >> senseless. The loss of thousands of precious lives, > many of them cut down in the flower of their youth, > has neither a moral nor a political justification. For > once, the speechwriter of President Bush was right: > those who carry out such acts in the name of Allah > blaspheme the name of Allah; they hijack Islam in the > name of Islam; in the larger, largely humane world of > Islam they are a dangerous, fringe element. And a > danger to their own people, I would add. >>

> In their fit of fundamentalist psychosis they might > have believed that they were serving the Palestininan > cause. Their actual act was a gift to the zionists, > however, and it was just as well that Yasser Arafat > was quick to denounce the act even though Saddam > Hussein, true to form, did not have the decency to do > so. (Interestingly enough, the Taliban denounced it > too, and begged the United States to act sensibly and > not use the tragedy as justification for further > destruction of Afghanistan.) Taking advantage of the > anger and human anguish arising from the tragedy, and > exploiting the fears and frustrations arising from the > prospect of massive economic recession, the U.S. > Administration moved quickly to plan a new, > globalised, permanent war; to expound what amounts to > a new doctrine of America's right to use its might as > it pleases; to expand the war-making powers of the > Presidency; to put in place a new regime of infininte > surveillace; and to demolish whatever restraints had > been introduced after the Vietnam War on America's > right to undertake assasinations and covert actions > across the globe. All this was accompanied with > hair-raising rhetoric which tended at > times to portray the coming war as a clash between > Judeo-Christian and Muslim civilizations. >>

>> Bush called his so-called `war on terrorism' a >> "crusade" early on, with no sense of the historical > meaning of that word. Only expressions of outrage > from a wide spectrum of opinion in the Muslim world > made him retract that stance and start saying that the > war was not against Islam as such but only against > certain Muslims. Not to be outdone, Pentagon named its > planned operation "Infinite justice", a phrase not > even from the Bible but from the lexicon of Christian > fundamentalism. Not only Muslims but even liberal > Christians were outraged, and Protestant pastors > themselves pointed out that "infinite justice" > referred to God's own divine justice, an attribute > that no human power ought to claim for itself, > America's vision of its own omnipotence > notwithstanding. Pentagon sheepishly promised to > reonsider the code name. The U.S. Congress swiftly > passed a resolution authorizing Bush to use wide > powers in pursuit of this war on terrorism, asserting > that "all necessary and appropriate force" could be > used against nations, organizations and individuals. > No nations were named, nor were any organizations, let > alone individuals; the President could determine which > one was to be attacked as he went along. Nor was > there a time limit; he was authorized to act against > present danger as well as in anticipation of "future > attacks." The powers were in some ways wide than a > mere declaration of war could have bestowed, since > such a declaration would name the country against whom > the war was to be waged. >>

>> Meanwhile, the Justice Department started putting > together a package of proposed legislation giving the > U.S. intelligence agencies much wider powers to > wiretap telephones, enter into people's > internet accounts, deport suspected immigrants, seize > evidence form suspects, including DNA samples, and > obtain information from educational > institutions, taxation records and a whole range of > public and private agencies without prior court order > or subsequent court review of the evidence. Attorney > General John Ashcroft is said to be actively > considering permanent video surveillance in public > places and issuing "smart cards" to all Americans > which the surveillance > devices can read electronically so as to distinguish > citizen from non-citizen, keep a record of the > movements of citizens themselves in public places and > to have quick access to personal data linked to each > of the "smart cards." It is also being contemplated > that certain immigrants, chosen by intelligence at > will, be required to report their activities > regularly, like ordinary criminals on bail, and that > airport security personnel be authorised to > interrogate particular passengers at will and do > on-the-spot check of their private baggage without > having to explain why and what they are being > suspected of. > > Bush was blunt. The war is against a network of > hundreds of thousands of people spread across some > sixty countries, he said,and this war was, in > his considered phrase, "a task that never ends;" > Echoing John Foster Dulless, the rabid Foreign > Secretary of the Eisenhower years who said that > non-alignment was "immoral," Bush too has put the > whole world on notice: if you do not explicitly join > us in this global crusade, we shall treat you as a > hostile country! Enemies are lurking in thousands of > little corners, in dozens of countries across the > globe, and America will choose its tragets as well as > its methods and timing for dealing with them as it > goes along, according to its own convenience; every > country must join up each time, or else it too becomes > an enemy and perhaps the next target. This war-"unlike > any we have ever seen," he said-- shall be perpetual > but largely secret. > > Some of it shall be seen on television, he said, but > much shall go unreaveled-even in success, he > emphasized. Congressional leaders in Washington are > now talking of putting the CIA "on a war footing" and > cite with admiration the Israeli example of an open > policy of assasinations without regard to legal > niceties. > > It is quite astonishing, though predictable, how > quickly one government after another has fallen in > line. India of course joined the crusade and > offered its airspace and naval facilities with > shameless alacrity, putting the lives of Indians at > risk of retaliation from those against whom India has > offered its facilities. Musharraf then cited India's > pre-emptive oath of allegience as his reason for > offering the same to the U.S.; India would otherwise > have a strategic edge, he reasoned. Competitive > servilities, one might say. Tony Blair, a veritable > lapdog of Washington who doubles as the British Prime > Minster, flew across the Atlantic to register his > presence at the moment of birth of this new era of > perpetual war. The European Commission has been > scurrying around formulating new policies of > cooperation over the question of terrorism, urging > individual members of the EU to allocate more funds > and build new systems of surveillance. The Russian > parliament has passed a bill to create an > international body to fight terrorism and, aping the > U.S. President, calls for elimination of > terrorists as well as the governments which are said > to finance them. >>

>> China has been somewhat more shrewd, somewhat more > independent; it urges apolicy that involves > presentation of concrete evidence, does not involve > sacrifice of innocent civilians and is within the > bounds of international law, but it also promises > cooperation if the U.S. were more receptive to its > interests in Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang-and on the > issue of NMD; the U.S. has in turn moved quickly to > put in place a new deal facilitating China's entry > into the WTO. >>

>> The less powerful, many of whom also happen to be > directly involved-even in some cases directly > tragetted-are of course treated differently. On 14 > September, William F. Burns, Assistant Secretary of > State for Near Eastern Affairs, called in ambassadors > of fifteen Arab countries, including Syria which is > otherwise one of the `target' states as well as the > PLO, and imperiously read out to them a list of > actions they were to undertake, including arrest and > prosecution of those on their soil whom the United > States desgnates as `terrorists'. Everyone seems to > have fallen in line, including Yasser Arafat who has > extended "full cooperation" (with the implicit promise > that the U.S. would press Israel for an immediate and > durable ceasefire). Even President Khatami of Iran > has made sympathetic noises and wishes to use the > ocassion for drawing closer to the United States which > he has been wanting to do for some > time. Iran has sealed its borders with Afghanistan, > as has Pakistan and Tajikistan. China has gone so far > as to seal its own borders with Pakistan itself, > blocking the Korrakuram highway in the process. > > Specially heavy burden has fallen on Pakistan, which > was given the blunt choice of either getting treated > in the same category as the Taliban or meet U.S. > demands: air space, naval facilities, stationing > facilities for troops and covert operatives, full > revelation of what the Pakistan intelligence services > know about Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and allied > elements. Pakistanies tried to plead that such > far-reaching cooperation with U.S. war designs in the > region would rip apart the fabric of Pakistani > society itself, but to no avail. Since then, a Gallup > poll has revealed that 62 per cent of Pakistanis > oppose any kind of cooperation with the U.S. against > another Muslim country; whether this opinion can be > mobilised for effective political opposition is yet to > be determined. In the midst of great fear of Taliban > retaliation on the one hand, uncontrollable civic > unrest on the other, foreign companies have pulled out > of Pakistan and the U.S. embassy itself is functioning > with a skeletal staff. In these conditions, it remains > unclear how all those foreign funds would pour in to > solve Pakistan's economic problem, as the Pakistan > Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz is promising. >>

>> Better sense might prevail later. As of now, > however, the only concession the U.S. has made to > Pakistan-aside from offering some economic benefits, > most notably the lifting of sanctions-is that it will > not call upon Pakistan to lend its own troops for > operations in Afghnaistan. Musharraf of course > yielded, but it is far from clear just where > substantial elements among the corps commanders stand > on this issue and where the violent protests that have > erupted already might lead. It will probably all > depend upon the nature, intensity and longevity of the > projected U.S. military operations in the region. Nor > is it yet clear just what Musharraf's offer of "full > cooperation" would imply for such U.S. demands as that > it immediately cut-off fuel supplies to Afghanistan, > but we do know that the Afghan clerics' invitation to > bin Laden to leave voluntarily was obtained on > Pakistan's insistence. >>

>> Soon after the hijacked civilian planes smashed into > the World Trade Centre, the dominant electronic media > set out to identify all sorts of people as the > culprits. PLO and the Popular Front for the Liberation > of Palestine were the early favourites. By noon, the > focus shifted to Osama bin Laden. By the afternoon the > channels were abuzz > with the idea that bin Laden could not have done it > without the diabolical expertise of Saddam Hussein. > The focus on Iraq soon became so alarming that > Secretary of State Colin Powell as well as Vice > President Dick Cheney and others were eventually > forced to say on record that Iraq had nothing to do > with it. >>

>> Indeed, Powel has been the cool head in Washington, > arguing that the U.S. ought not go around shooting > all over the Middle East and should judiciously > concentrate on one major target at a time, and that > Afghanistan should be the first. He is also the one > arguing that too much of an escalation against Iraq > at this time, when the U.S. > wants Arab governments to join it in a coalition > against the Taliban, would be counterproductive. >>

>> Niaz Naik, the senior Pakistani stateman, has > revealed on BBC a personal conversation with Colin > Powell well before the recent events in which Powel > had spelled out the set of U.S. demands which have now > been presented to the spellbound tv-watching world as > non-negotiable and a retaliation against the "attack > on America": hand over the Taliban and, in Bush's > words, "deliver to the United States authorties all > the leaders of al Qaeda . . . Give to the United > States full access to > terrorist training camps" and so on-demands which the > Taliban would find it impossible to accede to, even if > they so wanted. The emphasis is significant: it is the > United States, not some international tribunal or UN > forces, which shall take custody of these people and > places. The tactic too is obvious: present > non-negotiable and impossible demands, issue a short > notice, and invade. >>

>> That there shall be an invasion is clear, but there > is still a far-reaching debate within the US > government as to what kind of invasion it would be. A > decade of the most brutal military and economic > warfare without committing ground troops or trying to > occupy large chunks of Iraq has not succeeded in > toppling Saddam Hussein. Chances of success of that > sort of warfare in Afghanistan are even fewer; as one > of the Taliban put it, "we don't even have a factory > which could be a reasonable military target." Direct > landing in Kabul or Kanadhar would only turn the > Taliban into phantoms scurrying around in the > hinterlands, bleeding the U.S. militarily and > financially, and winning new allies in the face of a > foreign occupation force. Bin Laden's numerous camps > are perfectly well known to the Americans since he > initially built them with their money and assistance. > But he is a moving target, with a widespread > following, and with > numerous camps many of which are dug deep under the > mountains. >

> One of the likely scenarios is a round of massive > bombings and well orchestrated commando operations to > disorganise and soften up the targets, killing great > many and hoping that many of those killed would be the > Taliban and members of Al Qaida. This could then be > followed by actual landing and taking over ghost > cities from which the surviving civilians would have > fled, as a prelude to establishing aU.N-sponsored > Afghan administration drawn from among the enemies of > the Taliban, and settlingdown to a long-term scorched > earth policy, from some bases inside Afghanistan but > mainly from the outside. Hence two emphases in > American pronouncements thus far. Bush emphasised to > the U.S. public time and again that there shall be > casualties this time and that the campaign shall be > prolonged. And, there is an enormous pressure on > Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan to provide basing > facilities, and upon Russia to use its influence in > this regard. The information obtained from Pakistan's > Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) would be > crucial for even moderate success of the American > design. Pakistan's historic involvement in > Afghanistan on the side of the Americans and its > enduring geo-political location may yet come to haunt > Jaswant Singh's dream of turning India into > America's "most allied ally," as Pakistan was once > called. > > What does all this portend for Afghanistan? It is a > country devastated by some two decades of the most > brutal warfare and, since the fall of the PDPA > government, equally brutal forms of rule. For a > population of roughly 26 million, there are six > million land mines dug into its earth which kill or > maim 100 people per week. There are 3.6 million Afghan > refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and another one million > or so intern refugees, hungry and homeless, who roam > around the country hoping to survive another day. It > has suffered three consecutive years of drought, and > the combined effects of war, misrule and the drought > has meant that until only a few days ago the UN World > Food Program was feeding three million Afghans in the > countryside and some 300,000 in Kabul itself. > Virtually the whole of that institutional > infrastructure has now collapsed under the threat of > U.S. invasion, and those who are now deprived even of > that meagre ration are facing imminent death without > the U.S. firing even a shot-just like the Iraqi > children who die not of bullets but for lack of the > food and medicine which the U.S.-imposed embargo > denies them. Afghanistan is in this state in > consequence of the anti-communist, Islamised crusade > that the U.S. cynically waged there before abandoning > it to its own miseries. This is the country that the > mightiest empire in human history has now set out to > subjugate with all its technological and financial > might, but with little chance of success. >>

> America cannot win but it shall not suffer either. > The Afghans shall not be subjugated but they shall > suffer and perhaps even a majority of them might > perish or become homeless and get consiged to > subhuman existence. That is > the asymmetry of power in our time: those who rule > the universe shall no be victorious against the > poorest and the most wretched of this earth; those who > refuse subjugation shall be made to suffer miseries > that no previous period in human history inflicted on > the powerless. War shall be > permanent because the war cannot end without justice > and justice is what the U.S. has set out to deny, > permanently. The war shall be globalised because in > this period of globalization there is a singular power > whose task it is to guarantee regimes of injustice > throughout the world. And much of this war shall be > secret, like much of the movements of finance capital, > because finance capital is what this war serves and > therefore imitates. Bush is right: this is truly "a > task that has no end"-until someone rises to end it. >>

>> Will there be organised opposition to these imperial > designs? That's still hard to tell. Haaretz, the > Israeli newspaper, mentions a poll taken in 30 > countries in which only the U.S. and Israel are > shown to be the two countries where majorities are in > favour of war; 77 percent in Israel, an overwhelmingly > war-mongering society in any case, but only a bare > majority in the U.S., with 54 per cent. Will even this > majority hold once the immediate shock and grief have > been absorbed and put in some perspective? Will the > majority shrink or expand if Americans begin to die in > faraway places? It is too soon to tell. What is > already heartening is that there is great opposition > to the type of military operations which involve large > numbers of civilian deaths, and a student movement of > anti-war activists is beginning to emerge on many > campuses. According to the same poll, 80 percent in > Europe and 90 per cent in Latin America want the > action > restricted to application of law and judicial > process. The grand coalition of the governments does > not hold among the masses of people. >>

>> A brief word about this particular form of fighting > which is called "terrorism." Bush was careful enough > to say that America's enemy was that particular > "terrorism" which "has global reach." In other words, > he is not particular concerned with the great many > varieties of terrorism which > include the IRA in Ireland, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, > the RSS fraternity in India. Nor is "fundamentalism" > the issue: Taliban fundamentalism is bad but Saudi > fundamentalism is good, and Bush himself of course > speaks the language of that Christian fundamentalism > which defines the far right in contemporary United > States. "Terrorism with global > reach," the designated enemy, is the one that > challenges American power. > > This is a complex and important subject and we shall > return to this in another essay. Briefly put, the > "terrorism" that torments the U.S. is what comes when > the communist left and secular anti-colonial > nationalism have both been defeated while the issue > of imperialism remains unresolved and > more important than ever. Hatred takes the place of > revolutionary ideology. >>

>> Privatised, retail violence takes the place of > revolutionary warfare and national liberation > struggles. Millenarian and free-lance seekers of > religious martyrdom replace the defeated phalanx of > disciplined revolutionaries. Un-Reason arises where > Reason is appropriated by imperialism and is > eliminated in its revolutionary form. There were no > Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan before Americans > created them as a > counterweight against the secular left. Islamism > arose to fill that space in Iran which had been left > vacant with the elimination of secular > anti-imperialist nationalionalism and the > revolutionary left by the CIA-sponsored regime of the > Shah. Islamic secret societies arose in Egypt after > imperialism and zionism combined to defeat Nasser's > secular nationalist project. Hamas arose in Palestine > because the cosmopolitan Palestinian nationalism was > denied its dream of a secular state in the historic > land of Palestine where Jew and Arab could live as > co-equals. >>

> What gets called "terrorism with global reach" today > is a mirror of our own defeat but also the monster > that imperialism's faustian success made possible and > which now haunts its own creator. The loss of over > 6,000 lives in the blaze and collapse of the World > Trade Centre is the price the victims and their > families paid for our defeat and imperialism's > victory. >>

> America can never defeat "terrorism with a global > reach" because for all its barbarity and > irrationality, that religiously motivated "terrorism" > is > also a "sigh of the opressed," and if some > Palestinians cheered it that too was owed to the fact > that even an "opiate of the people" is sometimes > mistaken for the medicine itself. The only way to end > this "terrorism" is to re-build that revolutionary > movement of the left whose place it occupies and with > whose mantle it masquerades. > * >>

>> The author wishes to register that he has written >> this essay with the memory of Taimur in his heart, > a lovely boy who was last seen on the 94th > floor of the World Trade Centre. >

>
> > __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo!Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com