The War on Terror

Here’s a talk I gave back in 2003 soon after the “28-page gap” was current news. And yeah, this is a long post but I’ve been perusing various forums and threads and have found a lot of U.S.Americans to be a bit mistaken, promoting assumptions and misinformation regarding the current War on Terror.

===

Waging a Successful War on Terror
By Steve Huff

Before I get started, I do need to confess that the title of this talk, “Waging a Successful War on Terror” is a bit dubious unless it is taken as it is intended, which is facetiously. Now, when we talk about a “War on Terror”, we need to be careful to understand what that really means, if it means anything useful at all. That is, I’m wondering if we can even have a war on terror in the first place, let alone a successful one. Well, you’ll probably figure out my views as we proceed, but let’s stop for a moment to consider this. What is the goal of the United States’ war on terror? If it is to reduce the amount and degree of terror around the world, then it is important to scrutinize the ways in which the U.S. and its allies are attempting to do this. The purpose of this talk is to discuss and analyze these methods and the potential consequences of them. If our government is taking actions that effectively reduce terror in the world, perhaps we can agree with its actions and support our leaders in their fight for justice. However, if the government’s actions are not reducing terror, we can disagree and subsequently formulate some realistic and healthy alternatives. Either way, before we get started, it may help to offer my definition of a successful war on terror, which would be one that quantitatively reduces terror throughout the world.

Shortly after September 11th, 2001, George W. Bush re-declared the “War on Terror”. I say re-declared because the concept of a war against terror is not new. It was waged by the Regan administration in the eighties. In fact, much of the rhetoric we hear today is practically stolen straight from Regan era speeches. But, there is a significant difference between then and now, namely, that for the first time, we were the targets of terror and the attacks occurred on our own soil. The 9/11 attacks were an absolute tragedy. Thousands of people were killed, and, even today, I continue to grieve for the families and friends who have suffered losses.

That said, let me be very clear about this next statement: 9/11 was a horrible crime, and I wish more than anything we could locate and bring to trial and justice those who were responsible for the attacks. However, beyond that, 9/11 will make it into the annals of history as a major terror atrocity, not for its scale or dreadfulness, but because it was terror that was carried out against us. After 9/11, around the entire world, people of all nations offered support and sympathy for the survivors of the bombings. Countries that aren’t normally our allies offered their condolences. Even countries that understood what it meant to endure daily terror attacks and atrocities–countries such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Columbia–responded with compassion for the victims of 9/11. But for much of the world, there was a footnote to this expression of sympathy, which read, “Welcome to the club”. That is, for many countries around the world, the terror of 9/11 is all too familiar.

Take, for example, the events of October 4, 2000. That day, it was reported that Israel was bombing apartment buildings in the middle of Netzarim. Apart from the outrage one might feel from knowing the fact that the targets of these bombings were apartment buildings, it’s also important to understand how these attacks were carried out. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) used Apache helicopters freshly imported from the U.S. to carry out its operations. See, Israel doesn’t have the industry to manufacture its own helicopters; it must import them, and we’re the ones who make them available. Well, okay, we could plead stupidity and say that we didn’t know the IDF would use them against civilians. But, by following our commitment to waging a successful war on terror, one might assume that once we knew that Israel was using these helicopters directly against civilians, we would stop the shipment of them. In reality, the opposite happened. In the first few days of October of that same year, the Clinton administration approved a request from Israel to manufacture and ship out even more Apaches and more advanced equipment

(http://www.caat.org.uk/information/magazine/1001/chomsky.php)

(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/opera10_1.htm).

So, instead of reducing our shipment of arms and attack vehicles, we increased it. Furthermore, shortly after G. W. Bush took office, he also increased funding and military equipment to the IDF. Well, let’s return to our question: “How do we wage a successful war on terror?” And, using my definition that translates to: “How can we effectively reduce the amount of terror in the world?” Well, in this case, there seems to be a very clear way to do that: we simply have to stop participating in it. To this day, the U.S. continues to increase its economic and military support–and by economic support, I mean U.S. tax dollars from you and me–that directly fund Israeli terror against Palestinian civilians. Keep in mind that, now, after 9/11, the largest single portion of our tax money goes to defense and military spending.

(http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) (http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html) (http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir62_higgs2.html).

Compare that with the few measly dollars that go toward things like welfare, education, heath care, etc. Notice what topics get full media attention and what barely makes the news radar. Well, one might argue that this spending is necessary for the defense of our country. However, a quick glance at the percentage of military spending that actually goes to the defense of our national borders, including funds for international intelligence gathering, totally refutes this claim. Beyond this, we may discuss whether or not this offensive military spending is justified, but we cannot honestly call it “defense spending”.

After 9/11, the U.S. responded to the attacks by bombing Afghanistan because it was the base of operations for the al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Given what is known about the bin Laden terror groups and their probable involvement in the first WTC bombing and other U.S. targets around the world, it at least makes sense for our government to point fingers in that direction. However, to this day, there has yet to be any publicly released evidence supporting U.S. claims that bin Laden was actually involved. He may have been, and frankly, we really do not know, as the evidence remains to be seen. However, it is essential to note that the world perhaps had a chance to find out the truth shortly before the bombing began. It has been reported that the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the United States produced some sort of evidence of his guilt. Bush refused to even consider it. His response was that there will be no negotiating, and that the Taliban knew what they needed to do. As the bombs began to fall, the Taliban apparently tried once more to hand bin Laden over, this time without the requirement that the U.S. show its incriminating evidence. Now, many doubt the statements that I have just made to be true. Regardless, there are several sources for this story (I can list them, if you like).

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm)

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html)

Still, skeptics may presume that the Taliban’s offer was simply a ruse to avoid annihilation. Perhaps it was, and perhaps it was not. However, there was only one way to know for sure, which would have been to call their bluff. It would have been one thing if the Bush administration had said, “Okay, hand over bin Laden and we won’t bomb you, but if you fail to comply, you’ll be wiped out.” And if the Taliban didn’t produce bin Laden, then you launch an attack. That, at least, makes an attempt at diplomacy. Interesting questions arise if we consider this chain of events to be true. For example, one might ask how our the leaders of the “free world”, who are supposedly committed to democracy and justice and so on and so forth, would pass up a win-win opportunity to at least test the validity of the Taliban’s offers. After all, there is nothing to lose by just calling the bluff, if that’s what the Bush administration believed it to be. If they’re bluffing, we bomb them. If they’re not bluffing, we have bin Laden, which would be a boon for the new so-called “War on Terror”. However, Bush was inflexible, and disregarded the offers without even attempting to examine their sincerity. In other words, it’s our way or the highway, and serves as an important lesson to other states around the world.

Hopping to current events, we now have what’s called the “28 Page Gap,” classified portions of the 900-page congressional report on the investigation into 9/11. The report indicates that the majority of hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not Afghans. Yet beyond that, the ties between Saudi Arabia and 9/11 are carefully kept from the public. Moreover, we haven’t even shared our top-secret evidence (if it exists) with other countries. This is highly abnormal. According to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, governments usually pass around this type of information freely between respective intelligence agencies. But let’s put aside these incredibly important issues to talk about our response to 9/11 and then about its impact on the war on terror.

It was openly predicted by U.S. officials, Human Rights Watch, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Food Program, and others, that a violent response by the U.S., namely bombing the whole country of Afghanistan, would result in a massive exodus of refugees and the uprooting of NGOs who provided daily life support to hundreds of thousands of civilians. Several human rights organizations issued a joint statement that said:

*A humanitarian crises of stunning proportions is unfolding in Afghanistan;
* More than 5 million Afghans now require humanitarian assistance to survive, including 3.8 million who depend on United Nations-delivered food rations (a number that is expected to rise to 5.5 million in November 2001);
* Nearly 20 percent of those struggling to survive are children under the age of 5 years; and
* Lack of safe access has created a situation where the United Nations World Food Programme has been forced to suspend operations in Afghanistan;

The prediction made in this statement proved largely correct, and the bombing made it impossible for these organizations to do their jobs for several months. The approximate death toll of 3,600, which covers only those Afghan civilians killed directly by the U.S. bombing campaign has been extensively documented by Marc Herold, an economics professor at New Hampshire University. However taking into consideration the implications of this joint statement, one should realistically include all of those people who starved to death or died from curable diseases because they were denied access to the things they needed to survive. Of course, that would put the death toll into the tens of thousands, according to some studies, which would hopefully get the attention of a few people in this country (Jonathan Steele, “Forgotten Victims”, Guardian Unlimited, May 20, 2002). Now, I will give credit where credit is due. USAID did eventually provide enough food to the people of Afghanistan in December of 2001 so as to avoid large-scale famine–and this is a very, very good thing. I applaud the NGOs and the use of USAID funds to avoid this catastrophe. However, when thinking about it, I’m really not saying too much here. If I rephrase that, I’m basically saying, “Thank you, Bush and friends for offering a few bucks to not kill millions of people. How nice of you.” But again, many people did live who otherwise would have starved, so let’s give credit where it’s due. On the other hand, let’s remember those who perished during the months aid had come to a halt.

Moving on, I’ll note that to this day, we, the U.S. American people, have no assurances that the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks have been killed or brought to justice. However, thanks to our cavalier response, we also have no way of sleeping better at night. Another predictable reply to bombing the people of Afghanistan without a shred of credible evidence was that it would aggravate and increase terror rather than reduce or alleviate it. These predictions didn’t come from just anyone. You merely have to look to the director of the CIA or people in the Foreign Policy Institute… organizations that have long-standing investments in the security of the United States and the resources at their disposal to make a fairly educated assessment.

(The Guardian (London), June 17, 2002 — http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,738753,00.html)

Unfortunately, these predictions also proved largely correct. Recruitment into fanatical militant and terror-based groups has increased since the re-commencement of the war on terror.

And why? Well just ask yourself how you would feel if say, it was alleged that some radical group, perhaps the KKK, bombed a heavily populated facility in “Germany”. This hypothetical attack kills thousands of people, and in response, the “German” government bombs “Washington D.C., New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania”, and so on, all the way to “California”. But bombing these places is not enough vengeance. No, to make sure the message was heard loud and clear, the “German” military willingly breaks Geneva Convention regulations and commits massive war crimes by bombing water purification plants, extensive food stores, dams, bridges and chemical plants, in addition to directly targeting heavily populated areas. Well how would you feel if you were just an average person simply trying to survive? Chances are a number of us here tonight, if this horrible chain of events were to happen to us, we would be willing to join some radical group aimed at revenge. Now, I would not, but I could at least fathom why others might. To me, this outcome seems obvious. But let’s ask ourselves a simple question: Would we, meaning you and me, the innocent victims of “Germany’s” campaign of vengeance, not be completely outraged? After all, not only are thousands of our brothers and sisters and children dead, but our houses, our schools, our places of work, our parks, our streets, our water facilities, food stores and other basic means of survival have been totally wiped out. I believe we would be more than outraged! I mean, can we honestly believe that the millions of U.S. citizens are responsible for the alleged acts (note, alleged acts) of some small radical group? If we flip the script, as I’m trying to do here, we can see how dreadfully wrong we were in allowing our government to carry out its atrocities in Afghanistan.

So, let’s step away from this hypothetical and slip back into reality. It comes to no surprise at all that various intelligence agencies are reporting that our bombing of Afghanistan has fostered more recruitment into terrorist organizations–no surprise whatsoever. Well, let’s return to my definition of a successful war on terror. Did our actions reduce terror throughout the world? It only takes minimal observation of the daily presses to see that the pioneering venture launched by the current administration to stop terror–namely, bombing thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan–actually increased it dramatically.

For a moment, I want to break from the topic to talk more about Afghanistan. To this day, our soldiers are dying there because enough Afghan people have watched their loved ones and/or everything they held dear be blown to bits, and now many of them have nothing to lose. Basically, we are providing a clear answer to George W. Bush’s post-9/11 question, “Why do they hate us?” Well, the answers have nothing to do with “those” people hating “our freedom”. I mean, that’s just total nonsense. Rather, I imagine it’s a bit more self-focused, say, for example, the fact that our government systematically denies them their freedom.

To explain this, I’ll refer to one example, although countless others exist. After the Taliban had been removed from power, the Afghan people had an opportunity to create an interim government ruled by and for the people. I won’t go into detail unless someone wants me to, but U.S. American diplomats intentionally coerced the candidate, Mohammad Zahir Shah, who was slated to win the majority of the vote, to step down days before the “election”. Therefore the “election” in Afghanistan ended up being a race with only one candidate, Halid Karzai, the acclaimed “darling of the West” (http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=11072002-080458-5346r). So, consider this carefully: How would you feel if, after years of being under the brutal rule of the Taliban, followed by a vast bombing campaign by a foreign power that destroyed much of your country, and you were denied any voice in ruling your own country, after lofty promises of liberation? I think the conclusion for most people would be obvious.

There is a name for elections in which there is only one candidate on the ballot: We call it a total farce. In fact, former White House spokesperson Ari Fliescher spoke of such elections in those exact words, adding “nobody places any credibility on it” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm). And I believe Mr. Fliesher is correct. Of course, in this instance, he was talking about Saddam Hussein winning nearly 100% of the vote. However, as happened in Afghanistan, when that lone candidate happens to be our guy, we place all the credibility in the world on it. Our leaders even call the victor up personally and our media praises the great advancement for democracy.

I’ll now return to the topic. If bombing thousands of civilians was not enough of a giveaway as to why a certain group of people may “hate us” or may learn to hate us, it might also be useful to examine a bit of Afghanistan’s history. Before the Taliban ruled Afghanistan (quite brutally, I might add), warlords from the Northern Alliance had control. They were even more vicious than the Taliban… so much so that when the Taliban made it onto the scene, they were somewhat welcomed because they promised some form of order to the place. Since we know the Taliban are the bad guys, let’s take a step back and examine why and how they and the Northern Alliance types got on the scene in the first place.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Well, this was a problem for us, so we decided to “frustrate the Soviet invasion” and used the CIA to fund and train Afghani rebel groups–Afghanis are radical militants of the caliber of Osama bin Laden (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html). Operations began in 1979 and continued through 1988. The war in Afghanistan became too costly for Russia and they pulled out in 1989, leaving behind a pro-Russian government. Obviously, this government had to go, so the CIA aid continued until 1992. I’ll quote a synopsis written by John Prados writing about his findings from declassified documents from the National Security Archive:

In the final stages of that struggle the Taliban began to emerge as a major force in Afghan politics and it subsequently drove the Northern Alliance from Kabul, confining the remnants of the original rebel alliance to a small enclave in the north-eastern part of the country. The fundamentalist leader Osama bin Laden, though getting his start in the CIA-funded war of the 1970s and 80s, did not become a prominent fugitive in Afghanistan until he returned to the country as the Taliban’s guest in 1996. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html)

So Russia and the United States, through its training of radical militant groups and military conflicts, were directly responsible for turning Afghanistan into an incubator of instability and terror. Well, let’s ask the question, despite the obvious answer, “How might we have stopped terror in this situation?” One way might be to stop training radical militants and enhancing their methods of terror, torture and destruction.

And, have we learned this lesson? Apparently not, as we continue to train Contra forces terror, torture and coercion techniques at the School of the Americas, which is based in Georgia. Of course, in this case, the Contras are not fighting an occupying army, like the Afghanis were fighting a trained Soviet military force that had invaded their borders. Instead, these state-terror groups are carrying out their atrocities against civilian populations. With this perspective, one can see why some of our friends and colleagues at VA Tech went to Georgia to protest, and why they were willing to endure jail time for their actions.

Before I go on, I’ll note that it is very difficult to rally support and be heard on this subject, in particular, even though it is going on right next door to us. In fact, many people are totally unaware of our government’s long and sordid history with Latin and South American countries. However, I believe that understanding the last several years of our government’s foreign policy toward Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Panama and other countries is imperative because it offers a fairly sturdy framework for understanding some of the latest U.S. ventures in the Middle East. I will only cover Nicaragua here, for two reasons. One, I simply do not have time to cover the history of each of these countries in any useful detail in the time remaining. And two, Nicaragua is one of the most clear-cut, undeniable and thoroughly documented cases of U.S. terrorism currently known. Cuba is another clear and undeniable example, but in the case of Nicaragua, even the International Court of Justice agrees my assessment.

By the end of the First World War, the U.S. had built up a military presence in Nicaragua and was pruning Nicaragua to be a solid economic base for foreign investment. If I translate that into English and drop the propagandist twist, it means, Nicaragua’s resources were exploited for United States profit and practically nothing was given back to the people. Well, naturally, the Nicaraguan people got tired of being pushed around and began to revolt. At first, U.S. marines were used in order to maintain “order”. However, things started heating up because the indigenous peoples employed what has been labeled “Guerilla Warfare” tactics in order to survive, since they were up against the massively well-funded and technologically outfitted U.S. Marine Corps. An interesting side note is that “Guerilla” resistance tactics are exactly what allowed the U.S. colonists to defeat the British in our own war for independence. But, what was acceptable for us (independence, self-determination, and the right to fight for such things) is rarely acceptable for anyone else. Well anyway, feeling the heat, the U.S. pulled out its troops. However, before leaving, the U.S. created, organized, funded and trained the National Guard, and placed General Samoza Garcia at the head of it. Officially, the National Guard was under the supposed control of the President Juan Sacasa–who happened to be General Somoza’s uncle–but it is clear that this control was merely formal. So you have the citizens opposing their government and forming a guerilla revolution, and the state-funded military hell bent on staying in power. In 1934, Somoza engineered the assassination of Augusto Sandino, one of the leaders of the people’s movement. Ironically, Sandino was murdered as he was leaving the President’s house after discussing peace negotiations to end the civil unrest. Shortly after, Samoza forced his uncle to resign his Presidency, rigged the upcoming elections, and became president (dictator) in 1937. His rule lasted until he was killed in 1956, but his sons were able to continue his legacy of brutality quite well.

All throughout this era of death and brutality against the citizens of Nicaragua, the U.S. was funding the pockets of the Somoza dictatorships, knowing full well that the “aid” money was not going to the suffering people, but instead, was being used to kill, maim, and enforce terror against the population. The terror increased when the Regan administration advocated the destruction of “soft targets”–these included schools and their teachers, health care workers and their facilities, elected officials, etc. Despite the daily violence and oppression, the populace organized into various groups and continued their work to overthrow the tyrannical regime. Two of the more prominent revolutionary groups were the Sandinistas and the Democratic Liberation Union (UDEL). When the leader of the UDEL was assassinated in 1978, the two groups consolidated, and were able to generate an effective revolt against the Somoza regime. Before the revolution was over, however, Samoza ordered his air forces to bomb Managua, which consisted of poor residential neighborhoods. On July 17th, 1979, the surviving Samoza son fled to Miami, Florida, where our government happily provided refuge for the brutal dictator. Two days later, the Sandinistas took power and began the incredibly difficult task of reconstruction (http://users.rcn.com/mindfld/nicaragua.html). In the few years of democratic rule, the Sandinistas “nationalized the lands of the Somozas and established farming cooperatives. They waged a massive education campaign that reduced illiteracy from 50% to 13%, and introduced an immunization program that eliminated polio and reduced infant mortality to a third of the rate it had been before the revolution.” However, “it wasn’t long before the country encountered serious problems from its ‘good neighbor’ to the north” (Lonely Planet World Guide – http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central_america/nicaragua/history.htm).

It is important to understand that, despite all of its rhetoric, the U.S. does not favor democracies or social progress within the ranks of “the other”, especially since our government had been lining the pockets of the former dictatorships and carrying out various oppressive actions for decades. Therefore, the Regan administration made sure that the Sandinistan threat of democracy was short-lived. In 1981, just three months after assuming office, Regan allocated $10 million dollars toward the creation, organization and training of the counter-revolutionary groups that we now call the Contras. The increase in violence and military action by our clients naturally forced the Sandinista government to re-allocate an incredible amount of their economic resources to defend themselves and the people. As a result, they had to pull funding from their socially minded programs–things like education, food provisions and poverty prevention. This response was perfectly fine by our leaders in the U.S. In addition, the CIA was directly involved in placing mines in the Nicaraguan harbors in 1983.
In 1984, Nicaragua responded to this terrorism, not by bombing Texas or invading Florida or some other such nonsense. Instead, they followed the process of International law and protested the attacks in the U.N. Security Council. Nicaragua said that the U.S. was in violation of International law, as was specified by the U.N. Charter and the Treaty Organization of American States. Well, this problem of justice was solved easily enough: the United States simply used its veto power to make sure the U.N. couldn’t do anything. Undaunted, Nicaragua filed a suit against the U.S. before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case was accepted, despite the U.S.’s feeble attempts to quibble over jurisdiction issues (in other words, by U.S. logic, it should not be accountable to any international court, but everyone else should be). Not getting its way, the U.S. just boycotted the court proceedings–it didn’t even bother to show up. Well, the ICJ went through a very thorough hearing, even without the U.S. being there, and found the United States to be liable for their actions and accountable for all damages. In other words, we, and the leaders of our country, were found guilty in an international court of law. Okay, so we’re guilty… but we don’t care, because no other nation has the ability to enforce the legal responsibilities of this decision. So we just ignored the whole thing, and continue to do so today. Nicaragua attempted to file an appeal with the Security Council, but naturally, we vetoed it. So then in 1986—Nicaragua was still trying to reach some form of justice here—they brought the case before the General Assembly of the U.N. Of course, the United States did not have veto power in the General Assembly (nor did any other state). But the General Assembly lacks enforcement mechanisms, so the effort was futile. Basically, the U.S. got away with massive, systematic terrorism without a single hitch. All told, in this segment of U.S./Nicaraguan relations, the extremely conservative death toll estimates are around 30,000 (Lernoux, P. (1982). Cry of the People. pp. 81, 94 – http://www.newsmakingnews.com/death_squads.htm). Other estimates are a bit higher–I’ve seen anything between 50,000 to 60,000, but no one will probably ever know for sure.

Although it’s almost silly to pose the theme question at this point, I will just for the sake of it: “How can we effectively reduce terror in this situation?” Put simply, we can stop committing it. And note that I put the question and response in the present tense for a reason, because these atrocities are still going on, right now, as I speak. Furthermore, we can reduce terrorism by refusing to train and fund new terrorists, like we’re currently doing in Georgia. Amazingly, our history of terrorism against Nicaragua does not stop with the ICJ decision. In my view, it actually gets worse, as the years between then and now are mainly comprised of biological warfare in the form of economic sanctions, and election rigging. But, hopefully the information provided here can be an overview and perhaps act as a catalyst for further investigation. I can go on, if someone is interested.

Returning to tonight’s topic, the point I am attempting to make is that it is wholly impossible to wage a successful war on terror using the current plans and tactics endorsed by our government. Instead, the Bush administration’s actions, like many leaders before them, have merely exacerbated the call for vengeance and violence.

To truly reduce the amount of terror in the world, I believe we must make some hard, but realistic choices and then act upon them. There are several paths we can take, and I am in no position to tell you or any person what to do, so I won’t even try. However, as long as there are choices to be made, there will always be hope. And with hope comes courage, and with courage, one can find the will to continue the struggle for justice and social change.

To borrow words from Cornell West, “one must be a prisoner of hope…. [with] unconditional commitment to mustering the courage to think critically, speak freely; …the courage to try to keep track of the humanity of each and every person; the courage to love, serve, [and] sacrifice; and an unconditional commitment to fight for democracy in its substantive form (West’s closing remarks for a speech given in Santa Fe, 2003).