[sixties-l] Antiwar News...(# 18) (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Sat Oct 27 2001 - 16:46:47 EDT

  • Next message: Duke Marz: "[sixties-l] Vietnam War"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:35:48 -0700
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Antiwar News...(# 18)

    [multiple items]
    (Anti-war links/resources at the end.)


    October 18
    By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

    One of the marks of exceptional hegemonic power is the ability to
    define words and get issues framed in accord with your own political
    agenda. This is notorious at this moment in history as regards
    "terrorism" and "antiterrorism."

    Since the September 11 attacks, two truths have been indisputable
    and universally reported. One is that the hijacker bombings of the
    World Trade Center and Pentagon were atrocities of a monumental
    and spectacular scale (and media coverage of that day's events
    alone may have generated more words and graphic images than any
    other single event in recent history). A second truth is that the
    bombings were willful acts of terrorism, accepting the basic and
    widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism as "the use of force or the
    threat of force against civilian populations to achieve political
    objectives." And let us also recognize that "sponsorship of terrorism"
    means organizing, and/or underwriting and providing a "safe harbor"
    to state or nonstate agents who terrorize.

    But there is a third indisputable truth, although much less
    understood, let alone universally reported: namely, that from the
    1950s the United States itself has been heavily engaged in
    terrorism, and has sponsored, underwritten, and protected other
    terrorist states and individual terrorists. In fact, as the greatest and
    now sole superpower, the United States has also been the world's
    greatest terrorist and sponsor of terror. Right now this country is
    supporting a genocidal terrorist operation against Iraq via "sanctions
    of mass destruction" and regular bombing attacks to achieve its
    political objectives; it is underwriting the army and paramilitary
    forces in Colombia, who openly terrorize the civilian population; and
    it continues to give virtually unconditional support to an Israeli state
    that has been using force to achieve its political objectives for
    decades. The United States has terrorized or sponsored terror in
    Nicaragua, Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, Guatemala, Indonesia/East
    Timor, Zaire, Angola, South Africa, and elsewhere. And it stands
    alone in both using and brandishing the threat to use nuclear
    weapons. It has for many years provided a safe harbor to the Cuban
    refugee terror network, and it has done the same for a whole string
    of terrorists in flight from, among other places, El Salvador, Haiti,
    Vietnam, and even Nazi Germany (see Christopher Simpson's

    Even in its response to the September 11 terrorist events the United
    States resorted instantly to its own terrorism. Ignoring legal niceties--
    despite its supposed devotion to the "rule of law"- -the United States
    immediately began to threaten to "take out" states harboring
    terrorists, threatened the Afghans with bombing--itself an act of
    terrorism--and by such threats succeeded in blocking the flow of
    food supplies to a starving population, which is yet another act of
    terrorism, and a major one. (A spokesman for Oxfam International
    stationed in Islamabad recently stated that "Prior to this crisis, the
    World Food Program, with the help of Oxfam and other groups, was
    feeding 3.7 million [Afghan] people. But with the onset of the
    bombing campaign, this has stopped as the aid workers have been
    force to withdraw. The airdrops will--at their very best--feed 130,000
    people," or only 3.5 percent of those facing winter and starvation).
    On October 7 the United States then began to bomb this
    impoverished country--not just a further act of terrorism, but the
    crime of aggression.

    All serious observers recognize that the U.S. actions against
    Afghanistan have and will cause many, many more deaths than the
    6,000 killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But U.S.
    power and self-righteousness, broadcast and justified to the whole
    world by a subservient media machine, assure that what the United
    States does will neither be called terrorism, nor aggression, nor elicit
    indignation remotely comparable to that expressed over the events
    of September 11--however well its actions fit the definitions. The
    same bias extends to other Western countries, diminishing in scope
    and intensity from Britain to the others, and weakening further in the
    Third World. In the Middle East, for most of the population the bias
    disappears and U.S. terrorism is called by its right name, although
    the U.S.-dependent governments toe their master's line, if
    nervously. In these more remote areas the press speaks a different
    language, calling the United States a "rogue state par excellence
    repeatedly defying international rulings whether by the World Court
    or by U.N. resolutions when they have not suited its interests" and a
    "bandit sheriff" (The Hindu, India), and speaking of this as an "age of
    Euro-American tyranny" with tyrants who are merely "civilized and
    advanced terrorists" (Ausaf, Pakistan).

    But another sad fact is that in this country, and Britain as well, even
    the Left has trouble escaping the hegemonic definitions and frames.
    Leftists here regularly discuss the terrorism issue starting from the
    premise that the United States is against terrorism and that the issue
    is how the U.S. government can best deal with the problem. They
    are worried that the United States will go about solving the problem
    too aggressively, will seek vengeance, not justice. So they propose
    lawful routes, such as resort to the United Nations and International
    Court of Justice; and they urge seeking cooperation from the Arab
    states to crush terrorists within their own states. They discuss how
    bin Laden money routes can be cut off. Some of them even propose
    that the United States and its allies intervene not to bomb, but to
    build a new society in Afghanistan, engage in "nation-building", as
    the popular phrase puts it, in the spirit of the Kosovo "new
    humanitarian" intervention.

    While some of these proposals are meritorious, we haven't seen any
    that discuss how a "coalition of the willing" might be formed to bring
    the United States under control, to force it to stop using and
    threatening violence, to compel it and its British ally to cease
    terrorizing Iraq, and to make it stop supporting terrorist states like
    Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel. Or to make U.S. funding of
    its terrorist operations more difficult! The hegemon defines the main
    part of the agenda--who terrorizes--and the debate is over how he
    and his allies should deal with those he identifies as terrorist.

    A good illustration of this Left accommodationism is displayed in the
    "New Agenda to Combat Terrorism," recently issued by the Institute
    for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center in their
    Foreign Policy in Focus series. Nowhere in this document is it
    suggested that the United States is itself a terrorist state, sponsor of
    terrorism, or safe harbor of terrorists, although it is acknowledged
    that this country has supported "repressive regimes." "Repressive" is
    softer and less invidious than "terrorist." The report refers to the
    "destructive and counterproductive economic sanctions on Iraq," but
    doesn't suggest that this constitutes terrorism. In fact, "destructive"
    sounds like buildings knocked down and fails to capture the fact of a
    million or more human casualties. The recent publicity given the
    U.S.'s deliberate destruction of the Iraqi water supply also suggests
    something more than "destructive and counterproductive" is needed
    to properly describe U.S. policy toward that country (Thomas Nagy,
    "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally
    Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply," The Progressive, September 2001).
    Nowhere does the IPS/IRC document mention Colombia, Turkey or
    Indonesia, where the United States is currently supporting
    "repressive regimes."

    This practice of leaning over backwards to downplay the U.S.
    terrorist role merges into serious misreadings of ongoing events: for
    example, the New Agenda claims that one effect of September 11
    was that "defense policy was redefined as defending America and
    Americans rather than as force projection." This takes as gospel
    official propaganda claims, when in fact September 11 has given the
    proponents of force projection just the excuse they need to project
    force, which they are doing under the guise of antiterrorism. As John
    Pilger notes, "The ultimate goal is not the capture of a fanatic, which
    would be no more than a media circus, but the acceleration of
    western imperial power" (New Statesman, Oct. 15, 2001). And
    discussing the Bush administration's non-negotiable demands on the
    Taliban, Delhi University professor Nirmalangshu Mukherji points out
    that "it is hard to believe that thousands are going to be killed and
    maimed, entire nations devastated, regional conflicts allowed to take
    ugly turns, the rest of the world held in fear--all because the dead
    body of a single, essentially unworthy person is given such high
    value." On the contrary, she proposes, as does Pilger, that "in the
    name of fighting global terrorism, the US is basically interested in
    using the opportunity to establish [a] permanent military presence in
    the area" that is notable for its geo-political importance ("Offers of
    Peace," Oct. 16, 2001).

    Calling for "reorienting U.S. policy along the lines of respecting
    human rights," the New Agenda report states that "the unnecessary
    projection of U.S. military abroad, represented by the archipeligo of
    overseas military bases, often serves as a physical reminder of U.S.
    political and military support for repressive regimes." This claim that
    such bases are "unnecessary" completely ignores their ongoing
    important role in facilitating the global expansion of U.S. business,
    and, amazingly, ignores the fact that the United States is right now
    in the process of building new ones in "repressive" states like
    Uzbekistan, with 7,000 political prisoners and in the midst of a low-
    intensity war against Islamic insurgents ("U.S. Indicates New Military
    Partnership With Uzbekistan," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2001).
    Such bases are only "unnecessary" to analysts who are unable or
    unwilling to confront the reality of a powerful imperialism in fine
    working order and in a new phase of expansion. These analysts
    seem to believe that the United States can easily, perhaps with Left
    advice, be dissuaded from being an imperialist power!

    The reasons for this Left accommodation to what we must call the
    Superterrorist's antiterrorist agenda are mainly twofold. One is the
    power of hegemonic ideas, so that even leftists are swept along with
    the general understanding that the United States is fighting terrorism
    and is only a victim of terrorism. Some swallow the New Imperialist
    premise that the United States is the proper vehicle for
    reconstructing the world, which it should do in a gentler and kinder
    fashion. Thus Richard Falk takes this for granted in declaring the
    U.S. attack on Afghanistan "the first truly just war since World War
    II" (The Nation, Oct. 29, 2001), although claiming that its justice "is
    in danger of being negated by the injustice of improper means and
    excessive ends." Though writing in the liberal Nation magazine, it
    never occurs to Falk that the rightwing Republican regime of Bush
    and Cheney, so close to the oil industry and military-industrial
    complex, might have an agenda incompatible with a just war. Apart
    from this, as the attack was itself a violation of international law, and
    was from its start killing civilians by bombs directly and via its
    important contribution to the already endemic mass starvation, Falk
    makes the war "just" despite the fact that its justice was already
    negated at the time he made his claim. (By Falk's logic, an Iraqi
    attack on the United States would also be a highly just war, though
    its justice might be endangered by dubious means and excessive
    ends.) This is imperialist apologetics carried to the limit.

    The other reason for leftist accommodation is pragmatic. Thanks to
    the effectiveness of the U.S. propaganda system, U.S. citizens by
    and large are caught within the epistemic bind of NOT KNOWING
    THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW. Thus, leftists understand that people
    will have difficulty understanding what they are talking about if they
    start their discussions of controlling terrorism with an agenda on how
    to control Superterrorist's terrorism. If one wants to be listened to
    quickly and possibly influence the course of policy right now--and be
    far safer personally and professionally--it is better to take the
    conventional view of terrorism as a premise and discuss what the
    United States should do about it. Maybe this way one can help curb
    extremist responses.

    On the other hand, by taking it as the starting premise that the
    United States is only a victim of terrorism, one loses the opportunity
    to educate people to a fundamental truth about terrorism and even
    implicitly denies that truth in order to be practical. We find that we
    can't do that. After one of us (Herman) authored books entitled The
    Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (with Noam
    Chomsky) and The Real Terror Network, the latter featuring the
    gigantic U.S.-sponsored terror network that emerged in the years
    after 1950, and after following U.S. policy for years thereafter in
    which terrorism has been very prominent, he (and we) consider the
    notion of the United States as an antiterrorist state a sick joke.

    We believe it is of the utmost importance to contest the hegemonic
    agenda that makes the U.S. and its allies only the victims of terror,
    not terrorists and sponsors of terror. This is a matter of establishing
    basic truth, but also providing the long- run basis for systemic
    change that will help solve the problem of "terrorism," however
    defined. Others see things differently, and very good articles have
    been written in the pragmatic mode. But we want to call attention to
    the fact that there is a cost to using that mode, and those that work
    in it should do this understanding what they are taking for granted
    and its costs. Given the current trajectory of world events, we
    believe that we need a greater focus on ALL the terrorists and
    sponsors of terror, and less pragmatism.


    Msg to Troops and Youth Feedback, Request for Help

    From: "Jeff Paterson" <emailjp@post.com>
    Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001

    Dear Friends,

    Thanks for the overwhelming response to the "Message to Troops..." which
    I've been circulating. I've already received responses from a couple
    hundred people, ranging from enlisted military to worried parents of
    teenagers to "kill'em all Americans" (a few of these are excerpted below).
    If you are still waiting for a reply please remind me -- I'm sure there are
    a few messages that I have "misplaced".

    I need to ask your help in getting this message to even more people in the
    military and youth. Select "E-mail this story" (top-right corner) to easily
    forward to friends and family.
    A Message to Troops, Would-be Troops, and Other Youth

    Some activists are taking this statement to military bases and other places
    were GI's hang out. And some teachers are using it as a "discussion" piece
    for the classroom^
    Acrobat PDF version: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/pdf/jp_statement.pdf

    I am currently trying to do as much of the following as possible, but I
    need your help to put me in contact with local activists, students, and
    others who are trying to setup:
    * Classroom presentations, high school and college
    * Teach-ins on college campuses
    * Radio interviews, including call-in shows and college radio programs
    * Press and magazine interviews, including local and college press
    * Anti-war events in general where I might be able to contribute

    Some asked for more information regarding my refusal to fight in the Gulf
    Gulf War Resister Jeff Paterson: Up Against the War Machine (January 2001)

    And a very good current article, also from the Revolutionary Worker newspaper^
    U.S. Bombing of Afghanistan: Portrait of an Unjust War (October 21, 2001)

    Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist, well worth a bookmark^
     From VVAW-AI's StormWarning zine: Interview with Gulf War Vet Andrew McGuffin

    All around essential information for those in the military, or thinking
    about joining up^
    Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors
    http://www.objector.org (GI Rights Hotline: 1-800-394-9544)

    These are a few of the very interesting replies which I have received thus
    far from "the troops":

    "I cannot sit here in good conscience and not speak out in some way. I look
    at the events of 9/11 not as an attack against the United States, but an
    attack against humanity. As such, our bombing campaign and killing of
    innocent civilians is another attack on humanity^At this point, I really
    don't care about repercussions from my stance. If our Congress succeeds in
    passing this "anti-terrorism" legislation and money is cut off from groups,
    which have spoken out against the war, then my oath to defend the
    Constitution and the act of defending our government are completely at
    odds. I know without a doubt the decision I will make given that choice^I
    found encouragement in the fact that I encountered a substantial number of
    veterans at the Washington, DC peace march on Sept. 29. I also made a quick
    statement as an Army officer denouncing the "War on Terrorism" during the
    open mike time at the end of the rally, and I had a young soldier come up
    to me afterwards and say, "Thank you, !
    sir." I found that people overwhelmingly support my participation as a
    member of the Armed Forces, even if they do not support further violence
    against innocent civilians."

    "If I would have been your commander, I would have hung you from the
    nearest tree. You are a coward and a disgrace."

    "I am most interested in understanding the direct consequences of your
    action. I too am a member of the US Navy stationed at XXXX. I am more
    opposed to this "New War" than anybody^Right now I have a year and two
    months until my EAOS. Among the flags and "United we Stand" bumper stickers
    here in at XXXX naval facility, I display a sign that reads, 'War is NOT
    the Way'^"

    "I find your argumentation to be simplistic and opportunistic in your
    message to the troops^ Why the Marines didn't shoot you where you sat I
    will never know^ So traitor, I expect you will be delivering food to the
    enemy directly. One would have thought the Marines would have taught you

    "I also feel the way you do and have spent 26 year in service to my country
    in the USAF^I've live in all the countries that you've mentioned and a
    number of others and have seen firsthand what America has done in the name
    of freedom. Most of it has not left the peoples of that nation free or
    healthy for that matter."

    Thanks to the following for running the piece and helping me get the word out:
    Z Magazine Net - http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
    AlterNet.org - http://www.alternet.org/wiretapmag/
    Revolutionary Worker - http://www.rwor.org/wh-new.htm
    Antifa Info Bulletin - http://af.antifa.net/afib/
    Independent Media Center - http://indymedia.org/
    Black World Today - http://www.tbwt.com/
    Citizens Not Spectators - http://citizensnotspectators.org/
    Refuse and Resist! - http://www.refuseandresist.org/altindex.html
    KPFA 94.1fm, Berkeley CA - http://www.kpfa.org/
    Radtimes Anti-war News resist@best.com

    Photos of me refusing to board a military transport to the Middle East (Aug
    30, 1990):

    Support the Troops that Refuse to Fight!
    -Jeff Paterson, CPL USMC (ret.)


    Al-Qaida 'will drag US soldiers through the streets'


    Thursday October 18, 2001

    US soldiers' bodies will be dragged through the streets of Afghanistan if
    they are caught, Osama bin Laden's military chief is reported to have

    Al-Qaida military's commander, Mohammed Atef, is said to have passed the
    warning on to the Islamic Observation Centre in London.

    Mr Atef was quoted as saying "America will not realise its miscalculations
    until its soldiers are dragged in Afghanistan like they were in Somalia".

    In 1993, guerrillas shot down two US helicopters over Mogadishu. They killed
    18 soldiers and dragged some of their bodies through the streets.

    The Islamic Observation Centre also reported the first death among
    al-Qaida's top ranks. It reported that a bomb in Jalalabad killed an
    Egyptian militant, known by his nom de guerre, Abu Baseer al-Masri, on

    The latest round of attacks on Kabul has reportedly killed eight civilians,
    according to the Afghan Islamic Press.

    A foreigner, believed to be either British or American, has been arrested in
    Afghanistan. No details have been supplied yet.

    Medical centre looted
    Armed gangs have looted the humanitarian organisation Medecins sans
    Frontieres, taking vehicles, equipment and medicine.

    The raids took place in the aid group's compounds in Kandahar and the
    northern town of Mazar-e-Sharif, and have forced it to close down its
    medical programmes.

    The pillaging was carried out by Taliban militia and foreign groups linked
    to al-Qaida, according to Human Rights Watch.

    The two offices that were looted supported hospitals and child-nutrition
    programmes in six Afghan provinces.

    Human Rights Watch claimed that there have been several other attacks on
    offices of UN relief agencies, land-mine removal programmes and the Islamic
    Relief aid group.


    Bush: War May Last Over 2 Years


    By Mike Allen

    TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Oct. 17 -- President Bush, heading to China
    on his first overseas trip since Sept. 11, said today that he expects his
    war on terrorism to take more than two years and that he is ready to accept
    the political consequences if the nation tires of the fight.

    "We will not be terrorized. We will not be cowed," Bush told cheering,
    flag-waving troops here as the discovery of new anthrax cases sowed fear on
    Capitol Hill and in workplaces throughout the nation.

    Bush has called repeatedly for patience from Americans as he wages his war
    against terrorism on military, diplomatic and financial fronts. But he
    added specificity to that forecast during an interview with Asian editors
    that was conducted Tuesday and released by the White House today.

    "Look, I understand the political consequences of making tough decisions,"
    Bush said. "You mark my words: People are going to get tired of the war on
    terrorism. And by the way, it may take more than two years. There's a
    variety of theaters. So long as anybody's terrorizing established
    governments, there needs to be a war."

    Addressing the questioner directly, Bush said, "You said one or two years.
    I envision something taking longer than that."

    Bush had suggested a speedier timetable at his news conference last week
    when he said, "It may happen tomorrow; it may happen a month from now; it
    may take a year or two. But we will prevail."

    White House officials, asked to elaborate on Bush's estimate, left open the
    possibility of a military engagement that could stretch beyond two years
    and outside Afghanistan, in addition to the continuing effort to attack
    terrorists' assets and sources of finances.

    Speaking this afternoon to pilots in their flame-retardant flight suits and
    support troops in their camouflage battle dress, Bush foreshadowed a
    potentially protracted new phase of the military campaign in Afghanistan by
    declaring that this month's torrent of airstrikes is "paving the way for
    friendly ground troops."

    With an extra-long wave from the door of Air Force One, Bush then flew out
    for Shanghai, where he is keeping his commitment to meet with other Pacific
    Rim leaders at an economic summit that now provides a crucial opportunity
    for him to bolster and perhaps expand his coalition against terror.

    Bush plans to hold a news conference with Chinese President Jiang Zemin on
    Friday, meet with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and speak to
    chief executives on Saturday, then hold his third meeting and news
    conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday before returning
    to Washington on Monday. The trade and economic issues that are the
    backbone of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum will be
    overshadowed by Bush's efforts to build support for his coalition with
    Muslim countries and to burnish relations with Russia and China.

    "The main thing that will be on my mind is to continue to rally the world
    against terrorists," Bush said, adding that he wanted to remind other
    nations that "it could happen to them."

    Bush's inner circle debated whether he should go ahead with the six-day
    trip, which has been scaled back from a grand tour of Asia to a high-stakes
    series of meetings with world leaders at an economic summit. But officials
    said the importance of the meetings, and the signal that Bush would send to
    terrorists by going ahead with his plans, outweighed any concerns about
    whether he could be seen as out of position if a catastrophe struck back home.

    "Despite the press of the urgent business that we have in the war against
    terrorism, the president feels that this is an extremely important trip and
    an extremely important time to take this trip," national security adviser
    Condoleezza Rice said.

    "The president feels very strongly, as he said to the American people, that
    we have to go about the business of doing what makes America strong. And he
    believes that one of his most important tasks as president is to work on
    strengthening our alliances," she said.

    In the interview with Asian editors, Bush criticized North Korean leader
    Kim Jong Il for not reciprocating the visit of South Korean President Kim
    Dae Jung or scheduling meetings with U.S. representatives. "I must tell you
    that I've been disappointed in Kim Jong Il not rising to the occasion,
    being so suspicious, so secretive," Bush said.

    "North Korea should not in any way, shape or form think that because we
    happen to be engaged in Afghanistan we will not be prepared and ready to
    fulfill our end of our agreement with the South Korean government," Bush
    said. "They should not use this as an opportunity to threaten our close
    friend and ally South Korea."

    Asked about the outlook for reunification of the Korean Peninsula, the
    president said he believes anything is possible. "We'd be willing to help,"
    Bush said. "We want to help our friend. If this is what our friend and ally
    South Korea thinks is important, we will help."


    FBI To Require ISPs To Reconfigure E-mail Systems


    by Drew Clark
    National Journal's Technology Daily
    October 16, 2001

    PHOENIX -- The FBI is in the process of finalizing technical
    guidelines that would require all Internet service providers (ISPS) to
    reconfigure their e-mail systems so they could be more easily
    accessible to law enforcers. The move, to be completed over the next
    two months, would cause ISPs to act as phone companies do to comply
    with a 1994 digital-wiretapping law. "They are in the process of
    developing a very detailed set of standards for how to make packet
    data" available to the FBI, said Stewart Baker, an attorney at Steptoe
    & Johnson who was formerly the chief counsel to the National Security
    Agency (NSA).

    The proposal is not a part of the anti-terrorism legislation currently
    before Congress because the agency is expected to argue that the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) already
    grants it the authority to impose the requirement, Baker said. He
    added that some ISPs already meet the requirements.

    Baker, who frequently represents Internet companies being asked to
    conduct electronic surveillance for the FBI, made the revelation
    Tuesday in a panel discussion at the Agenda 2002 conference here on
    how the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are likely to affect the technology
    industry and civil liberties. He elaborated on the plan in an

    Such a stance could result in considerable cost to many ISPs, and it
    would constitute a reversal of previous government policy, which held
    that ISPs are not subject to CALEA's requirements. But Baker also said
    "it has been a long-term goal of the FBI and is not just a reaction to
    Sept. 11."

    Mitchell Kapor, chairman of the Open Source Application Foundation and
    a founder of Lotus Development, also spoke on the panel. Kapor also
    started the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and has been a vocal
    advocate of Internet privacy. EFF played a significant role in the
    CALEA debate, and divisions over whether to support that law led to a
    split of the organization.

    "Under the cover of people's outrage [over the terrorist attacks] and
    desire for revenge, lots of things that have been defeated before have
    been brought back in [to the anti-terrorism legislation] without a
    demonstration that the lack of appropriate law is a problem," Kapor
    said in an interview. But on the whole, Kapor and Baker shared more
    common ground on the acceptability of new electronic surveillance than
    they had in the past, with both expressing the view that now is a time
    for calm reconsideration of positions rather than butting horns over
    the details of how civil liberties would be curtailed by an
    anti-terrorism bill.

    "I find myself more in the middle than I used to because my identity
    in life is not as a civil liberties advocate," Kapor said. "Part is
    being an American and a world citizen." Baker said it was entirely
    appropriate for the FBI to conduct far more surveillance.

    "What has changed [since Sept. 11] is the view of the technology
    community," Baker said. "I used to get calls like, 'How can I beat the
    NSA?'" said Baker. "Now, people call and say, 'I have this great idea
    that would help NSA,' or, 'I want to go volunteer and do outreach on
    behalf of the FBI or NSA.' There is a real change of people's view
    about who the bad guys are."


    Why Terrorism?


    October 17, 2001
    by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

    At 10:15am on September 11, five other professors and I gathered around a
    small radio in our department chairman's office to try to figure out what
    was going on. Not only had the World Trade Center and the Pentagon been
    attacked, but we also heard (falsely, it turns out) that a car bomb had gone
    off outside the State Department and another outside the New York University
    Medical Center. As I drove home, I had no idea what was in store for us
    that day.

    A week later, I wonder what lay ahead. Although I live quite a distance
    from the World Trade Center (which I had never visited in my eight years as
    a New Yorker), I am writing this during an afternoon that became free when
    what authorities described as a "plausible bomb threat" led to the midday
    cancellation of classes at the college where I teach.

    That was the work of some deranged kid, no doubt, but authentic dangers to
    the United States are now very real.

    One of the more frustrating aspects of the crisis so far has been the
    maddeningly monolithic news "analysis" of the event. The liberals who
    ceaselessly urge us to consider the "root causes" of crime are mysteriously
    silent in the wake of these attacks. No "root causes" of terrorism,
    apparently. All they and their "conservative" clones can come up with is
    that the terrorists must hate "freedom" and "democracy." But as one observer
    put it, I don't see anyone flying planes into Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower.

    Pat Buchanan was the only person who warned that the barbarism of recent
    American foreign policy was bound to lead to a terrorist catastrophe on
    American soil. Consider Pat's remarks two and a half years ago:

    America is the only nation on Earth to claim a right to intervene militarily
    in every region of the world. But this foreign policy is not America's
    tradition; it is an aberration. During our first 150 years, we renounced
    interventionism and threatened war on any foreign power that dared to
    intervene in our hemisphere. Can we, of all people, not understand why
    foreigners bitterly resent our intrusions?

    With the Cold War over, why invite terrorist attacks on our citizens and
    country, ultimately with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons? No nation
    threatens us. But with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
    America will inevitably be targeted. And the cataclysmic terror weapon is
    more likely to come by Ryder truck or container ship than by ICBM. And no
    SDI will stop it^.

    Battling terrorism must go beyond discovering and disrupting it before it
    happens and deterring it with retaliation. We need to remove the motivation
    for it by extricating the United States from ethnic, religious and
    historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any

    This simple and obvious analysis seems utterly beyond either our rulers or
    what we laughingly refer to as our foreign-policy experts.

    Following the Persian Gulf War, which many in the Arab world saw as an
    outright massacre, a vastly disproportionate response to Iraq's invasion of
    Kuwait, Presidents Bush and Clinton enforced sanctions against the civilians
    of Iraq that no just-war criterion could possibly justify. Food and
    medicine could not enter the country. United Nations estimates have pegged
    the number of dead as a result of the sanctions at a mind-boggling 1.4
    million, 500,000 of whom were children. This one area where current Vatican
    policy on external relations with the world is exactly right; even the
    American bishops have got it right. Not coincidentally, it was again
    Buchanan practically alone among American political figures who
    repeatedly deplored the senseless loss of life, to say nothing of the
    increasing alienation of the Arab world, that the sanctions were causing.

    Indeed, killing half a million children sure seems like terrorism to much of
    the Arab world, and they smell hypocrisy when George W. Bush intimates that
    the deliberate targeting of innocents is the exclusive province of Muslim
    extremists. The sanctions against Iraq showed us the New World Order with
    the benign mask removed, in all its ugliness and cruelty. And you can be
    sure the Arab world was listening when Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine
    Albright casually remarked to 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl, when asked about the
    terrible human toll that the sanctions had taken, that "we think the price
    is worth it."

    Half a million children dead was "worth it." But of course we are to believe
    that it is hatred for "freedom" and "democracy" that motivates terror.

    Fast forward to 1998, when Bill Clinton was in the middle of the Lewinsky
    scandal. In that year, the U.S. military hit a pharmaceutical plant in
    Sudan that later turned out to be well, a pharmaceutical plant. No
    apology or compensation was forthcoming, of course: the empire of democracy
    apologizes to no one. This kind of humiliation breeds resentment, which in
    turn provokes retaliation.

    Think back to World War I, when the Allies continued their starvation
    blockade of Germany for four months after that country had surrendered.
    Estimates of the consequences of that policy range from 750,000 to one
    million German civilians dead from hunger. Within a generation, as you will
    recall, a rather distasteful political party emerged there, whose members,
    generally young, remembered having nearly been starved to death as children.
    People remember such things.

    Nothing could be easier than to distort what I am saying. I am obviously
    not suggesting that past U.S. actions somehow justified these unknown
    savages in their kamikaze attacks on innocent Americans. What I am saying
    is that if the American government has any purpose at all, it is to protect
    the American people and keep them out of harm's way. Now we know full well
    that there are conflicts around the world that involve bitter enmities. We
    must also realize by now that when we insist on involving ourselves in
    these, there will be real and possibly devastating consequences. Persistent
    meddling will without doubt continue to expose us to the kinds of attacks we
    have just witnessed.

    A foreign policy that possesses anything of the spirit of Catholicism will
    have rational and finite goals, mindful of the limits of what is possible in
    this world and well aware of the silliness and ignorance of utopian schemes.
    Officials free of the infection of liberalism would understand that the only
    rational foreign policy is one whose goal is not global democracy, or an
    attempt to "rid the world of evil" (to use the President's phrase
    apparently the United States can achieve a goal of which even the angels are
    incapable), but to protect our people. And if protecting our people means
    minding our own business which, after all, is what every other sane
    country does, and what wiser American statesmen have traditionally
    counseled then so be it.

    It is interesting to contrast the monolithic analysis of what we
    congratulate ourselves as our "free press" with that of newspaper
    editorialists around the world. Thus in Russia, Vremya had this to say:
    "The Americans should review their military doctrine. Now is the time for
    them to think about what makes anti-American sentiment so strong in the
    world, why the Great Satan is hated so much, and if the late Senator William
    Fulbright was right about the 'arrogance of power.'"

    Even America's friends are beginning to say the same thing. In South Korea,
    the pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun commented: "Given that the U.S. has
    been under fire from the international community for its power-based,
    arrogant attitude, the Americans need to take this incident as an
    opportunity to reflect on whether they have encouraged this desperate and
    hostile terrorism." Similar statements are evident even in some European
    editorials. (Readers interested in foreign reaction should consult this
    Chronicles article.)

    Jang, the leading Pakistani daily, hit the nail on the head: "Not a single
    media commentary from the United States has hinted at a critical
    appreciation of the country's foreign policy. Only one statement is being
    repeated, that the terrorism against America will be responded to and the
    terrorists will be crushed."

    I am all for a monument to the innocents who perished in this barbaric
    attack. At the same time, I'd also like to see a monument to the
    foreign-policy geniuses who put the American people in all this danger in
    the first place. I'm imagining something toilet-shaped.

    Still, one can hope that it is not too late for something of value to be
    learned in all this. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell
    seemed to be on the right track when he observed that U.S. sanctions policy
    had only served to alienate countless millions of Arabs and showed "a degree
    of American hubris and arrogance that may not, at the end of the day, serve
    our interests all that well." That was a pretty good start, and indicates at
    least an inkling of where the United States needs to go from here.

    A massive military campaign, it should go without saying, would 1) lose
    world support in relatively short order and 2) inevitably cause enough
    civilian deaths to inspire a whole new generation of worse indeed,
    catastrophically worse terrorism. They would escalate, then we would
    escalate, and the war would go on literally forever. No, a military
    campaign cannot be the ultimate answer, unless the Pentagon proposes to kill
    all these people. Civilian deaths caused directly or indirectly by U.S.
    action are what helped to inspire this wave of fanaticism in the first
    place. A prize-winning American historian recently posed the question: "Why
    do you suppose that the killing of an Arab mother, or sister, or daughter,
    either directly by the United States or through its Israeli proxy, is
    something that Arab men will take in stride and just let go, forget about,
    and go on to something else new restaurants, maybe, or the latest
    Hollywood movies? Do you think they have no sense of honor?"

    Again, and obviously, none of this in any way excuses the deliberate
    targeting of American civilians. Identifiable perpetrators should certainly
    be punished. But it is time for the U.S. to stop trying to build the Tower
    of Babel, to realize the price of empire before it is too late.

    If these lessons are not learned, I fear that we have discovered how the
    seemingly impregnable American empire will someday be toppled. God hates
    the proud. Our leaders have attempted the hubristic enterprise of running
    the world and not even on Christian principles, but on a combination of
    simple greed and Enlightenment philosophy.

    That cannot go on forever.
    A version of this essay originally appeared in The Remnant, highly
    recommended biweekly Catholic newspaper.
    Thomas E. Woods, Jr. teaches history in New York.


    An Alternative to the U.S. Employment of Military Force

    By Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights

    A number of organizations and people have asked us about alternatives to
    the use of military force, the legality of the United States employing
    military force and what can and should be done under international law.
    Set forth below are some principles that should guide the United States
    actions and steps the United States can and should take that are short of
    using force.

    We will not here describe in detail the policy reasons as to why the use
    of military force is inadvisable. Others have addressed this issue at
    length. Suffice it to say that military force

    1) kills civilians

    2) has the potential to destabilize countries such as Pakistan

    3) widens the divide between the United States and Islamic nations

    4) sews the seeds of future terrorism; and

    5) will not make us or anyone in the world safer.

    We also understand that the proposal set forth below does not address
    crimes committed by the United States government and some, therefore,
    might see it as one-sided. As lawyers who have spent our professional
    lives trying to make the U.S. accountable for its crimes, we will continue
    to do so. However, we believe that at this point it is crucial to prevent
    a unilateral and disproportionate response by the United States. Reliance
    upon the U.N. has the potential to do that; it will also provide a forum
    for the trials of those suspected of terrorism and crimes against
    humanity. We recognize that our suggestions are not long-term solutions.
    Those will only come when the government of the United States and others
    recognize that they must change their polices and make a more just world.

    Key International Law Principles and an Alternative To the Use of Military

    1. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force except in matters of
    self-defense. Article 2(4) and Article 51.

    A country is not permitted to use military force for purposes of
    retaliation, vengeance, and punishment. In other words, unless a future
    attack on the United States is imminent, it cannot use military force.
    This means that even if the United States furnishes evidence as to the
    authors of the September 11 attack it cannot use military force against
    them. To this extent the congressional resolution authorizing the
    President to use force against the perpetrators of the attack on September
    11 is a violation of international law. Instead, the U.S. must employ
    other means including extradition, and resolutions of the Security
    Council, which could eventually authorize the use of force to effectuate
    the arrest of suspects.

    The United States will argue that the attack on September 11 was an armed
    attack on the United States and that it has the right to use self-defense
    against that attack. Even though the attack is over, it presumably would
    claim that those who initiated the attack were responsible for prior
    attacks and are planning such attacks in the future. At the same time,
    President Bush has stated that the "war" on terrorism would be lengthy,
    implying that it would go on for years.

    In order to rely on this self-defense claim the U.S. would need to present
    evidence to the Security Council not only as to the perpetrators of the
    September 11 attack, but evidence that future attacks are planned and
    imminent. They have not yet done so. Even if the U.S. can put forth a
    legitimate self-defense claim, it is still to the U.N. Security Council
    where they ought to turn. Even in cases of self-defense, and particularly
    when there is sufficient time
    2. The U.N. Security Council has the authority and the responsibility at
    all times "to take any actions as it deems necessary in order to restore
    international peace and security." Article 51.

    The Security Council can establish an international tribunal to try those
    suspected of involvement in the September 11 attacks as it did with regard
    to Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia and request the extradition of
    suspects. It could apply sanctions to countries that refuse to comply as
    it did successfully against Libya
    As a policy matter all of these alternatives seem superior to that
    currently contemplated by the UN.

    In light of these principles these are the actions the
    U.S. should immediately undertake:

    1. Convene a meeting of the Security Council.
    2. Request the establishment of an international tribunal with authority
    to seek out, extradite or arrest and try those responsible for the
    September 11 attack and those who commit or are conspiring to commit
    future attacks

    3. Establish an international military or police force under the control
    of U.N. and which can effectuate the arrests of those responsible for the
    September 11 attacks and those who commit or are conspiring to commit
    future attacks. It is crucial that such force should be under control of
    the U.N. and not a mere fig leaf for the United States as was the case in
    the war against Iraq.

    We are hopeful that the U.N. alternative offers a way out of the violent
    course our nation is currently embarked upon. We see little risk in taking
    the steps we have outlined. We see great danger in ignoring the process
    that provides a path away from violence and toward peace.


    No Peace, No justice

    Via Workers World News Service
    Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
    issue of Workers World newspaper


    In the Vietnam War and again at the time of the Gulf War,
    different slogans have defined contending currents in the
    anti-war movement. That seems to be happening again today.
    While the differences are important and perhaps inevitable,
    they should not prevent the movement from mobilizing the
    broadest mass participation in united struggle against the

    For several years at the beginning of the Vietnam War, the
    issue was negotiations versus withdrawal. Peace groups that
    had until then been focused mainly on the issue of nuclear
    arms raised the slogan "Negotiations now," counterpoising it
    to a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. As large
    coalitions began to form against the war, some of these
    groups sought to exclude the demand for withdrawal from the
    coalition demonstrations.

    This struggle within the coalitions was ultimately resolved
    in the streets. The demand to "Bring the GIs home" became so
    immensely popular, and was so obviously the only way to end
    the war, that it became the dominant slogan. Especially as
    news began to filter out on how Henry Kissinger and others
    used the Paris peace talks to threaten the Vietnamese with
    nuclear weapons, the view that the movement here should
    support a role for the U.S. government in shaping Viet nam's
    future became discredited.

    At the time of the Gulf War, the programmatic divide came
    over the issue of sanctions. The first demonstrations, which
    were organized by the precursor to today's International
    Action Center, called for no war against Iraq. Period.

    A second coalition formed in December 1991, a month before
    the actual bombing started, that called for "Sanctions, not
    war." This slogan implied that Iraq had to be punished--by
    the U.S., but with UN cover, as it turned out. It also
    implied that sanctions are not a form of war.

    There are very few today who call themselves part of the
    peace movement who would defend the sanctions on Iraq. After
    a decade in which five times as many Iraqis have died of
    sanctions than died of bombs, that slogan has withered away
    as it became obvious to all that sanctions are a vicious and
    brutal form of warfare targeting the most vulnerable members
    of society--the old, the infants, the sick.

    The issue today seems to be whether or not to have
    confidence that "justice" for those killed in the Sept. 11
    attacks can be had within the context of the existing
    international framework.

    The demand for justice is usually coupled with an
    exhortation to hunt down and prosecute those responsible for
    the terror attacks. In the meantime, without waiting for the
    results of any investigation, the U.S. government is
    carrying out a monstrous war against Afghanistan that
    threatens literally millions of people with death by
    starvation and exposure this winter. This death sentence is
    being carried out on an innocent population long before the
    judicial niceties of evidence, a trial and a verdict.

    If the U.S. government were capable of bringing mass
    murderers to justice, wouldn't the heads of the tobacco
    companies be in jail right now? They knowingly condemned
    millions of people in this country to a miserable death from
    smoking-related diseases. And what about all the police who
    have shot down unarmed people in the oppressed communities
    and been set free after departmental review?

    Are socially conscious people supposed to suddenly have
    confidence that the authorities now investigating terrorism--
    organizations like the FBI, the CIA, and local police
    departments--can be trusted to dispense justice?

    When it comes to activities abroad, the record is even more
    dismal. If there is any organization independent enough of
    Washington's pressure to bring mass murderers to justice,
    then why isn't Chile's Pinochet behind bars? Why is Haiti's
    Toto Constant alive and well in Queens, N.Y.? Why is
    Indonesia's General Suharto enjoying retirement? Why are
    Henry Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War, and
    Zbigniew Brzezinski, mastermind of the Afghan counter-
    revolution, still powers behind the throne in Washington?

    The job of the anti-war movement is to stop the war. There
    will be no justice while bombs are raining down on
    Afghanistan. Justice for the victims of the terrible tragedy
    on Sept. 11 will come with a people's victory over the


    Terror Bombing of Afghanistan

    Via Workers World News Service
    Reprinted from the Oct. 25, 2001
    issue of Workers World newspaper

    Pentagon Targets Villages, Food Depots, UN & Red Cross
    Centers, Creating 1.5 Million Refugees

    By Fred Goldstein

    As the debate goes on within the inner circles in Washington
    over whether to widen the war, the U.S. government is
    showing why it is regarded as the primary terrorist power in
    the world with its relentless bombing of one of the poorest,
    most defenseless countries in the world.

    Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the Pentagon has sent
    over 2,000 bombs and missiles raining down upon Afghanistan,
    killing civilians, destroying the infrastructure of the
    cities so as to make them unlivable, and creating a million
    and a half refugees who have been forced to move away from
    shelter, the food supply and medical care. And it is
    planning to increase its attacks.

    The casualties--innocent civilians who will die, become
    malnourished or ill, lose all means of livelihood, and whose
    lives will be traumatized and dislocated--will far exceed
    the casualties of the horrendous Sept. 11 attacks in the
    United States that destroyed thousands of innocent people.

    The village of Karam, an hour from the Pakistan border in
    eastern Afghanistan, was destroyed by bombs on Oct. 12.
    There were reports of 200 people killed.

    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said such claims were
    lies. But CNN camera crews toured the area two days later
    and showed the rubble, the bodies, the bomb craters and an
    unexploded U.S. bomb in the midst of what remained of the

    An Associated Press report carried in the New York Times of
    Oct. 14 described the destruction in Karam and the horribly
    wounded victims, including many children, who had been taken
    to a hospital in Jalalabad. "One villager, Toray," wrote the
    Times, "stood by the ruins of his former home, its roof
    gone, and clutched a scrap of metal bearing the word 'fin
    guided missile' in English."

    The day before, the Navy dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a
    residential neighborhood in Kabul, killing four people and
    wounding eight. The bomb came from a Navy FA-18 in the
    Arabian Sea. Earlier in the week a cruise missile killed
    four civilian workers at a United Nations office.


    On Oct. 16 Navy F-18 jets dropped 1,000-pound bombs on a Red
    Cross storage complex in Kabul full of food and shelter
    materials. "The Red Cross," wrote the Times of Oct. 17,
    "said each of the five warehouses in its compound was marked
    on the roof with a large red cross. The raids occurred about
    1 p.m. in daylight, the agency said." The bombing destroyed
    about a third of the food supply.

    The bombing of the food supply only aggravated the war
    crisis in Kabul. A New York Times article on Oct. 16 quoted
    Shirjan, an unemployed former government worker: "Most of
    the people who live in Kabul now are selling their
    belongings to get food. There are no jobs for the people."

    This is a brazen repeat of the tactics used against Iraq and
    Yugoslavia of terrorizing the civilian population. The
    strikes are designed to force capitulation when the air war
    against military targets drags on, as it is doing in Afghan

    And, just as in the Gulf War, the Pentagon has established
    "kill boxes" or areas on the outskirts of Kabul and Kandahar
    where U.S. pilots and gunners are authorized to fire on
    anything that moves that they think is a military target.
    This is how many civilians, including an entire caravan of
    refugee farmers, were killed by U.S. pilots during the
    Yugoslav war.

    The escalation of U.S. military terror is proceeding
    rapidly. Washington had earlier said that the bombing would
    end after a few days. Instead, it has continued for 12 days,
    as of this writing. On the 12th day, 100 fighters and
    bombers flew missions attacking 12 areas of the country, the
    most intense bombing of any day so far.

    In addition, the Pentagon has brought in the AC-130
    turboprop slow-flying gunship, which can fire over 2,000
    rounds per minute of high-caliber shells and stay on target
    with computer-controlled aiming devices. This terror device
    can destroy buildings. It was used in Vietnam in a less
    developed form.


    This escalating campaign of massive destruction cannot be
    explained simply by a drive to get Osama bin Laden. The fact
    that the Taliban have offered to negotiate several times but
    have been flatly turned down by the Bush administration
    demonstrates that Washington's goals go far beyond that
    limited objective.

    Whatever else, the Pentagon wants to demonstrate its ability
    to destroy a state by military force. It wants to field test
    its new generations of destructive firepower on a living
    people and put on display for all the oppressed peoples and
    governments of the world its terror machine. It is an act of
    warning, an act of intimidation, and possibly a prelude to
    an expanded war.

    To be sure, the Taliban is one of the most reactionary
    political regimes in the world. Its brutal oppression of
    women is absolute. But the destruction of the Taliban by the
    Pentagon is the worst possible outcome of the present
    situation. Victory for the U.S. government, a government
    that only serves the rich multinational corporations and
    protects exploitation, will only strengthen imperialist
    domination of the region, to the vast detriment of all the
    peoples of Central Asia and the Middle East.

    Everything must be done to resist the Pentagon onslaught in

    Washington has so far been unable to achieve victory and is
    running into significant political complications. It is
    unable to cobble together a viable coalition of cutthroats
    to be installed by Washington should the Taliban collapse.

    It has also come up against the India-Pakistan conflict
    because of the abrupt change in diplomacy necessitated by
    Sept. 11. Prior to Sept. 11, U.S. diplomacy towards India
    was to warm relations in pursuit of economic penetration.
    Even more important was the pursuit of India to bring it
    into an anti-China political and military bloc. To this end,
    sanctions were set aside which had been imposed after
    India's nuclear tests and friendly diplomacy had begun to

    After Sept. 11, Pakistan was suddenly the key to the war
    effort in Central Asia. India was suddenly left out in the
    cold. And Secretary of State Colin Powell is trying to keep
    the situation from escalating out of control.

    All these complications notwithstanding, the overriding
    preoccupation in high government circles in Washington is
    which way to take the war, and when.


    The New York Times of Oct. 12 gave a slight glimpse into the
    debate. "A tight-knit group of Pentagon officials and
    defense experts outside government is working to mobilize
    support for a military operation to oust President Saddam
    Hussein of Iraq as the next phase of the war."

    "The group," continued the Times, "which some in the State
    Department and on Capitol Hill refer to as the 'Wolfowitz
    cabal,' after Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz,
    is laying the groundwork for a strategy that envisions the
    use of ground troops to install an Iraqi opposition group
    based in London at the helm of a new government, the
    officials and experts said."

    The Times continues: "The group has largely excluded the
    State Department. On Sept. 19 and 20, the Defense Policy
    Board, a prestigious bipartisan board of national security
    experts that advises the Pentagon, met for 19 hours to
    discuss the ramifications of the attacks of Sept. 11. The
    members of the group agreed on the need to turn to Iraq as
    soon as the initial phase of the war against Afghanistan and
    Mr. Bin Laden is over."

    Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz took
    part in the meetings.

    The 18-member board includes former Secretary of State Henry
    Kissinger; R. James Woolsey, director of the CIA under
    President Clinton; former vice president Dan Quayle; James
    Schlesinger, former defense secretary; Harold Brown,
    President Jimmy Carter's defense secretary; David Jeremiah,
    former deputy chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Richard
    Perle, former Reagan administration security adviser; and
    Newt Gingrich.

    "The State Department, including officials who work on Iraq
    policy, was not briefed on the two-day meeting," according
    to the Times.

    To show the extent of the struggle, the Times said that "the
    Knight Ridder newspaper group reported today that senior
    Pentagon officials authorized Mr. Woolsey to fly to London
    last month on a government plane, accompanied by Justice and
    Defense Department officials, on a mission to gather
    evidence linking Mr. Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks." The
    State Department was unaware of the trip.

    This current inside Washington, which is not limited to the
    Pentagon, is causing consternation in sections of the ruling
    class at home and in the imperialist capitals of Europe.

    The Oct. 16 Washington Post carried an article entitled
    "Allies Are Cautious on the 'Bush Doctrine.'"

    The "Bush Doctrine," as defined by President Bush, consists
    of "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists,"
    according to the Post. But a corollary to the "doctrine" is
    that "the United States will be the unilateral judge of
    whether a country is supporting terrorism and will determine
    the appropriate methods, including the use of military
    force," to impose its will.


    The current that promotes this so-called "doctrine" is the
    current that wants to widen the war. On the other hand, the
    current that is more fearful of becoming isolated in an
    adventure and being overcome by a mass uprising is promoting
    "coalition building"as a form of restraint upon the

    Thus the struggle over the course of the war is taking the
    form of coalition versus unilateralism. Since the European
    imperialists are weak compared to the U.S., and the
    reactionary client regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt,
    Jordan and so on are even weaker, the fearful wing is sure
    that any coalition will act as a restraint upon the more
    aggressive factions.

    Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Advisory Board,
    expresses the views of those who want to rapidly and
    drastically widen the war. "Perle has advocated using
    military force against one or two other countries," reports
    the Post, "including Iraq, to make a point beyond
    Afghanistan. 'Whether it is Saddam Hussein or Assad or the
    Lebanese or the Sudanese ... the regimes involved have to be
    persuaded that we will use whatever tool is necessary and
    that they are truly in jeopardy,' he said. 'The best way to
    give that the necessary reality is to do it in a couple of

    At the end of the day, concluded Perle, "no American
    president can concede that responsibility [to attack] to a
    coalition or anybody else."

    As against this right-wing view, 28 former U.S. ambassadors
    and envoys to the Middle East and South Asia sent a letter
    to Bush advocating working with the regimes in the region in
    a coalition.

    The coalition argument was summed up by Brent Scowcroft,
    former Bush national security adviser and one of the
    architects of the Gulf War. He wrote in a piece in the
    Washington Post of Oct. 16: "We already hear voices
    declaring that the United States is too focused on a
    multilateral approach. The United States knows what needs to
    be done, these voices say, and we should just go ahead and
    do it. Coalition partners just tie our hands, and they will
    exact a price for their support."

    After enumerating all the difficulties of the war now
    underway, Scowcroft declares that "success means a
    coalition, a broad coalition, a willing and enthusiastic
    coalition. That will take unbelievable effort and entails
    endless frustrations. But we did it in 1990 and we can do it
    again. ... It can help erase the reputation the United
    States has been developing of being unilateral and
    indifferent, if not arrogant, to others."

    In other words, this former general is fearful of the anti-
    imperialist explosion that could take place if Washington is
    not careful to shore up its support among its imperialist
    allies and clients in Central Asia and the Middle East.

    Where the Bush administration will come down in this
    struggle is an open question. What is important for the
    workers, the oppressed, and all the revolutionary and
    progressive forces at home and abroad who are fighting
    against the war is to escalate their efforts in the

    U.S. imperialism is an aggressive military power that had to
    exercise restraint during the entire period of the Cold War
    because of the existence of the Soviet Union. There are
    elements in the ruling class who still feel anger that the
    U.S. did not use more massive military force to try to
    vanquish the Vietnamese.

    There are other elements that are still frustrated that the
    U.S. military did not try to occupy Baghdad in 1991. Others
    are frustrated that they had to limit their war in
    Yugoslavia because of the necessity to come to agreement
    with the European imperialists on targeting and other
    military matters. Those tendencies and others have all
    surfaced since Sept. 11, and are promoting their agendas
    within the summits of the government.

    The anti-war movement, the workers and the oppressed, all
    progressives and revolutionaries must be keenly attuned to
    the inherent dangers of a wider war as they open up the
    struggle to stop the war in Afghanistan. The movement should
    try with all its might to make the most massive possible
    showing of anti-war opposition. This is the surest way it
    can make a contribution to forestalling a wider war.


    US deploys airborne killing machine

    Times of London

    THE debut of the American special operations AC130 gunship in Operation
    Enduring Freedom points the way to a new phase in the coalition strikes on
    Taleban forces. The gunship is one of the most formidable airborne killing
    machines available to the US forces operating in Afghanistan.

    Although it is slow and operates at a relatively low altitude, the gunship,
    based on the Lockheed Hercules transport aircraft, has a deadly array of
    weaponry which can devastate an area the size of a football pitch.

    First used in the Vietnam War, the turboprop gunship has been modified and
    now comes in two forms, the AC130H, known as the Spectre, and the AC130U
    Spooky. During the Vietnam War they destroyed more than 10,000 trucks, and
    were credited with numerous life-saving close-air support operations.

    Since then, they have seen action in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada in
    1983, Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989, Operation Desert Storm in
    Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1994. They
    also operated in the Balkans.

    At the heart of their arsenal is an M102 105mm cannon which, in the Spooky
    version, can fire six to ten rounds a minute. The AC130U Spooky also has a
    25mm Gatling gun which can fire 1,800 rounds a minute.

    Paul Jackson, the editor of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, said the
    gunship was able to direct a withering amount of fire on a single target by
    flying in a circle, its weapons firing as the aircraft banks, normally at
    an altitude of about 2,000ft or more.

    The Spectre version has two 20mm Vulcan cannons, one 40mm Bofors cannon and
    one 105mm cannon. The Spooky has a 25mm Gatling gun, one 40mm Bofors
    cannon, which can fire 200 shots a minute, and one 105mm cannon. Each has a
    crew of about 14.

    The Spectre cost about 30 million each and there are eight left in
    service. There are 13 of the newer Spooky, each costing about 48 million,
    assigned to the 16th Special Operations Squadron, based at Hurlburt Field,
    in Florida.

    These side-firing gunships have proved vulnerable to ground attack in the
    past. Eight AC130s have been lost in combat, six of them during operations
    over Vietnam and Laos in the 1970s. The two other AC130 gunships were lost
    in combat in Kuwait and Somalia, the latter in 1994 when the 105mm cannon
    exploded while the aircraft was airborne.

    The AC130U Spooky, which is commonly called the "U-Boat", is described as
    the most complex aircraft weapon system in the world, with more than
    609,000 lines of software code in its mission computers and avionics systems.

    The prototype made its first flight in December 1990. Based on Lockheed
    airframes and modified by Boeing, it has advanced sensors, a new
    fire-control radar system, global positioning system navigation, special
    electronic counter-measures and an infra-red warning receiver, enabling the
    crew to fly at night and in adverse weather. They also have the ability to
    loiter for long periods over targets.

    With its fire control system, developed by Hughes, the gunship can engage
    two separate targets simultaneously up to three quarters of a mile away,
    using two different guns. No other ground attack aircraft in the world has
    this capability.


    Thursday, October 18, 2001



    AID agencies last night warned food drops to Afghanistan were doing more
    harm than good.

    They said more than a million people faced starvation as refugees fleeing
    the Taliban were trapped between Allied bombs and the closed Pakistan border.

    Glasgow-born Zia Choudhury, 29, humanitarian programme director for Oxfam,
    is in Islamabad, desperate to deliver food to the Afghans but unable to
    reach them.

    He said: "It is extremely frustrating to be sitting here in the knowledge
    that things are getting worse every day and we are unable to do anything
    about it.

    "Now we're facing a race against time to get enough food into Afghanistan
    to see them through the winter.

    "If aid agencies are allowed to enter Afghanistan and the people trying to
    get into Pakistan are allowed over the border, we still have time to
    prevent a catastrophe. But I'm not hopeful we're going to be allowed to do

    The Americans claim they have been trying to deliver aid to the country.
    More than 130,000 food parcels were dropped in the last week.

    But Zia said: "Air drops have worked in other parts of the world but only
    as a last resort. In this situation, they are not effective and they are
    very expensive."

    Other aid workers agreed, claiming many of the packages, which are dropped
    from a great height, have been scattered across Afghanistan's many
    minefields. Organisation of Mine Clearance and Afghan Rehabilitation
    spokesman Alhaj Fazel said: "When the food lands, these desperately hungry
    people will simply rush towards it. Women and children are most vulnerable."

    A spokesman for French aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres added: "This is
    not a humanitarian effort, this is part of a military campaign designed to
    gather approval for the attacks. It is virtually useless and may even be
    doing harm."

    Aid agencies said the food itself was of little use because it is totally

    Most Afghans live on bread and rice and have never seen the kind of food in
    the parcels. They contain baked beans, beans in a tomato vinaigrette,
    peanut butter, strawberry jam, a biscuit, salt and pepper and a fruit bar.

    None of the food meets strict Islamic requirements for food preparation .

    And reports from the few aid workers left in the country say those who do
    eat it suffer digestive problems because their malnourished stomachs can't

    Zia Choudhury said: "Where air drops have been effective, they have been
    dropped on to a specific site where aid workers are in place to distribute
    it to those who most need it.

    "We have worked out that this food costs 10 to 15 times more than the wheat
    and grain we would like to distribute in Afghanistan.

    "The best thing would be to stop the air drops and open up two roads into
    Afghanistan so we can deliver food by truck. That way it will reach the
    people who need it most."

    Some supplies are getting through. A convoy of 40 World Food Programme
    trucks with 1000 tons of food supplies left Peshawar on Wednesday.

    Aid agencies believe they need to get 56,000 tons of food into Afghanistan
    in the next month if they are to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

    But the World Food Programme estimates that even if the borders were opened
    immediately, just 1800 tons could be moved in every day before the Afghan
    winter makes roads impassable.

    They have almost 300,000 tons of aid ready to be moved from Iran and Pakistan.

    Another problem for the aid agencies is the attitude of Afghans toward
    westerners. There are reports of aid workers being attacked by people who
    make no distinction between western charity workers and the people who are
    bombing their country.

    Zia said: "This is something we encountered in Kosovo, too. When we arrived
    in our white vehicles, they thought we were the military.

    "It takes a lot of hard work to convince people that we are there to help
    them. Some think we are missionaries.

    "We have to explain we are non-political and non- religious. All of that
    can hold up the aid operation."


    Fleeing refugees turn against US over gunships

    THE TIMES (London)

    THE bearded young man had barely made it over the
    border before he dropped his bag in the dust and stood
    in front of me. "This is a coward's war you people are
    fighting," he barked, wagging a grimy finger in my

    "You tell your soldiers to come down on the ground to
    fight us and then they will see what a real war is,"
    he added.

    Behind him, scores of other refugees struggled across
    the border, their expressions alternately dazed or
    angry, after fleeing three days of devastating attacks
    by US jets and helicopter gunships over the city of

    The campaign by low-flying AC130s mounted with
    machineguns and cannon, has sent a new wave of panic
    and anger through the city's remaining residents,
    sending thousands more fleeing to the countryside and
    across the border with Pakistan.

    "Before there were breaks in the bombing, but now it
    is all the time, it hardly stops," sobbed Hamida
    Ahmad, 26, as she pushed her two young sons past the
    border guards. After a night crouching in the dark,
    they had set off with other family members for the
    border. "When we left our house in the morning, the
    raids were still going on. The children started
    screaming as soon as we stepped out of the house and
    saw the planes over us in the sky."

    Hameed Ullah, 27, said his fears had been allayed when
    he saw the attack aircraft clearly homing in on the
    main Taleban base in the cantonment area of the city.
    "They circled above the base and fired, over and over
    again, before flying off," he said. But the sight of
    the low-flying aircraft firing machinegun and cannon
    had panicked many civilians into believing that the
    whole city was under fire, he said.

    That fear only intensified when most of the remaining
    Taleban fighters, mainly Arabs from the 55 Brigade,
    moved into civilian buildings around the city to avoid
    strikes on their quarters. Mr Ullah gave in to his
    wife's pleading to move the family to Pakistan. "The
    Americans have to be very careful if they want people
    to believe it is only the Taleban they are trying to
    destroy," Mr Ullah said.

    The warning may be apt. For every crowd of ragged
    children and burka-draped women streaming across the
    border came a huddle of scowling young men, furious at
    being hounded out of their city and vowing revenge
    when the time comes for battle.

    Several refugees claimed that there had been severe
    civilian casualties in the bombing; but their accounts
    of women and children being pulled out of rubble, and
    dozens killed in a single bomb blast, were
    uncorroborated and impossible to verify.

    Even the usually amiable Pakistani border guards
    looked stern. "Look at all these poor people made
    homeless by these bombings," said Commander Aftab,
    flashing me an accusatory glare. "This is a terrible

    Officially the border is closed to all those without
    Pakistani identity cards, but few of the hundreds
    crossing yesterday were able to produce them.

    How then did they get across? I asked one father
    carrying his screaming child towards a precariously
    loaded lorry.

    He rubbed his thumb against his fingers with a look of

    Commander Aftab looked at us both with barely
    concealed fury. "We are helping them," he exploded.
    "What are your people doing?"


    Call off bombing, plead aid agencies

    The Scotsman
    October 18, 2001
    by Karen McVeigh

    AID agencies have issued an urgent plea for the
    suspension of the air strikes in Afghanistan in order
    to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

    The UN has already warned that 100,000 children under
    five would die from disease and malnutrition in the
    harsh Afghan winter if aid did not reach them.

    Yesterday, a spokesman for Oxfam admitted: "Our backs
    are against the wall. Food is not getting through."

    The plea came a day after two US bombs hit a
    clearly-marked Red Cross warehouse in Kabul . Last
    week, an American missile killed four Afghan staff
    when it hit a UN building. Pentagon officials, who
    have admitted hitting civilians by mistake, have
    warned that there would inevitably be more errors.

    The nightly bombing of Afghanistan has severely
    curtailed the aid effort. Local labourers and
    truckers, on whom they rely, are becoming increasingly
    afraid to load or unload food, to drive deep into
    Afghanistan, or to stay overnight .

    Oxfam, ActionAid, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and
    other agencies called for all parties in the conflict
    - including the Taleban and the Northern Alliance -to
    suspend military action to allow crucial food supplies

    Christian Aid spokesman Dominic Nutt said that
    children in Afghanistan were already dying and some
    people were down to their last weeks worth of food.

    Mr Nutt, who toured Afghanistan before the US terror
    attacks, said: "I saw fresh graves dug every day,
    small graves for children. Now the food supplies have
    dried up."

    Speaking from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, he
    said: "We are beyond the stage where we can sit down
    and talk about this over tea. If they stop the bombing
    we can get the food aid in, its as simple as that.
    Tony Blair and George Bush have repeatedly said this
    is a three-stringed offensive - diplomatic, military
    and humanitarian. Well the diplomatic and military are
    there but where is the humanitarian? A few planes
    throwing lunchboxes around over the mountains is

    Oxfam said that it had no food left. "Weve run out of
    food, the borders are closed, we cant reach our staff
    and times almost run out," said Barbara Stocking of
    Oxfam International, "Weve reached the point where it
    is simply unrealistic for us to do what we need to do
    in Afghanistan."

    Two million Afghans need donated food to help them get
    through the winter and 500,000 of them will be cut off
    by snow if aid does not reach them by mid-November,
    the aid groups said.

    There are currently 9,000 tonnes of UN food stocks in
    warehouses in Afghanistan - which amounts to just two
    weeks supply. To avoid massive loss of life, the UN
    estimates over 50,000 tonnes of food per month must be
    got into Afghanistan, plus a stockpile of 70,000
    tonnes for the two mountainous areas of the country.

    Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary Mr Straw rejected aid
    agencies claims that they could not do their job
    while bombing continued.

    "The overwhelming number of people who are in dire
    poverty in Afghanistan were in dire poverty before 11
    September and they were in dire poverty because of the
    actions of the Taleban," he said.

    "This is military action for a purpose. It is to
    ensure the death and destruction which was wreaked on
    the world as well as on 6,000 human mortals on 11
    September cant happen again."

    He added: "Im afraid that has to be the overwhelming
    consideration. We are taking action so that we can
    provide a much better future for the people of

    Afghan staff said that at least 35 per cent of food,
    tents, blankets and other material in the
    International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) centre
    was destroyed on Tuesday.

    On Monday, a bomb landed a few hundred yards from a UN
    World Food Programme depot where 250 tons of food were
    being loaded for distribution. The food would have
    been the first relief to reach the central city of
    Hazarajat since 11 September, the aid groups said.

    It also emerged yesterday that the Taleban have seized
    more than half of the United Nations food aid in
    Afghanistan - further hindering efforts in the region.

    The UNs World Food Programme reported that on Tuesday
    Taleban soldiers took over two warehouses filled with
    wheat supplies in Kabul and Kandahar.


    Afghans the victims of US terrorism

    Irish Times
    Wednesday, October 17, 2001

    All the news bulletins and news channels nowadays have "anchormen" or
    "experts" parading in front of huge maps of Afghanistan, explaining the
    detail of the military assault on the country.

    We are told of the type of bomber used and from what base, the aircraft
    carriers from where the tomahawk missiles are fired. Sometimes we are told
    of the "payload delivered".

    And not a hint of the devastation these "payloads" deliver to the people of
    Afghanistan. The awful terror they bring, the devastation, the injury, the

    We have become morally desensitised to the abominations that are clinically
    conveyed to us night after night on our television screens.

    Nobody at any of the news conferences challenges George Bush or Tony Blair
    or Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell about the outrages they are perpetrating.
    We are all part of the consensus that it is OK to bomb a country to a pulp
    with the vastness of the military might the world has ever known.

    Nobody asks Tony Blair about the "human rights of the suffering women of
    Afghanistan" that he talked about in that speech at the Labour Party
    conference two weeks ago.

    How did the world get to believe that terror and slaughter delivered by a
    bomb in a car was an atrocity, while much more terror and much more
    slaughter delivered by airplane or missile is morally OK?

    Remember all the talk some years ago about the godfathers of violence who
    sat in their comfortable, middle-class homes in Dundalk or Buncrana, while
    their cowardly minions delivered mayhem to the streets of Belfast or Derry
    or Claudy or Omagh?

    What about the godfathers of violence sitting in their stately mansions in
    the White House or Downing Street or Chequers or Camp David, and their
    minions dropping far larger bombs from the security of thousands of feet
    beyond range of retaliation, causing far more mayhem in the homes and
    streets of Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad?

    And all for what?

    Is it believable that the attack on America of September 11th could have
    been planned, directed and co-ordinated from caves in Afghanistan? Or that
    the organisation that was responsible for that attack originates in
    Afghanistan? A great deal of the emerging evidence suggests otherwise.

    Last Wednesday the New York Times published a lengthy portrait of one of the
    organisers and perpetrators of the September 11th attack, Mohammed Atta.
    Atta came from a middle-class family in Cairo, where his father was a

    He went to Hamburg for several years to get a degree in urban planning and
    he later worked there. "Officials" were quoted as saying there was "strong
    evidence" Atta had trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the late
    1990s, but we are not told what that evidence is or what it is he could have
    been trained in that would have had any relevance to what happened on
    September 11th.

    It is clear, however, that his radicalism emerged while he was in Hamburg,
    where he associated with people from the Turkish, Arab and African
    communities. He went to Florida in 2000 and trained as an airline pilot.

    There is evidence that he received a large sum of money from someone in The
    United Arab Emirates, who "may" have had an association with Osama bin

    A report in Monday's Los Angeles Times quoted FBI sources as saying there
    were several people involved in plotting further attacks on the US and they
    were "at large in the United States and across Europe and the Middle East".

    The Los Angeles Times also reported that several people suspected of
    involvement either in the September 11th attack or in planning further
    attacks were from Saudi Arabia and were resident either there or in the US.

    CBS News on Monday evening quoted Prof Vali Nasr of the University of San
    Diego as saying the Saudi government had "appeased" Islamic extremists by
    funding and promoting a radical form of Islam that sees the US as the enemy.

    Other reports from the US suggest that the real source of terrorism is Iran,
    where there are several persons wanted by the US, and, of course, Iraq
    remains a major suspect as a terrorist sponsor.

    So what is the point of the assault on Afghanistan? Yes, Osama bin laden and
    some of his associates are there, but if the vast bulk of those suspected of
    terrorism by the US are either in the US itself or in Hamburg or Iran or
    Saudi Arabia or Iraq, what good will it do if everyone in Afghanistan is

    How will it reduce the terrorist threat to US if the vast majority of
    terrorists are in places other than Afghanistan?

    If the anthrax attacks are the work of terrorists, does anyone believe that
    the packages containing it were sent from Afghanistan?

    And just one other thing. If the point of the assault on Afghanistan is not
    to defeat terrorism but get Osama bin Laden and bring him to "justice", why
    has the latest offer by the Taliban to send him to an agreed third country
    been dismissed?

    What would it matter if he were taken to one of America's allies such as
    Egypt or even Pakistan or Turkey and "brought to justice" there?

    The reality is that Afghanistan is being devastated and hundreds are being
    slaughtered, on the net issue of bringing bin Laden and his associates to
    justice in the US rather than to some other third agreed country. That's
    what the slaughter is about. And that's putting it at its best.



    By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.*

    "Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we
    are the targets of
    terrorism. You said that we are the target because we stand for democracy,
    freedom, and human rights in the world.

    Baloney! We are the target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship,
    bondage, and human
    exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we are
    hated. And we are hated
    because our government has done hateful things."

    "We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights.
    We are hated
    because our government denies these things to people in third world
    countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations.
    And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of
    terrorism and in the future, nuclear terrorism."

    A FEW YEARS AGO, terrorists destroyed two U.S. embassies. President Clinton
    retaliated against suspected facilities of Osama bin Laden. In his
    television address, the President told the American people that we were the
    targets of terrorism because we stood for democracy, freedom, and human
    rights in the world.

    On that occasion, I wrote: "Tell people the truth, Mr. President ... About
    terrorism, not about poor Monica. If your lies about terrorism go
    unchallenged, then the terror war you have unleashed will likely continue
    until it destroys us.

    "The threat of nuclear terrorism is closing in upon us. Chemical terrorism
    is at hand, and biological terrorism is a future danger. None of our
    thousands of nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. These idols
    of plutonium, titanium, and steel are impotent. Our worship of
    them for over five decades has not brought us security, only greater
    danger. No 'Star Wars'
    system ... no matter how technically advanced, no matter how many trillions
    of dollars was poured into it ... can protect us from even a single
    terrorist bomb. Not one weapon in our vast arsenal can shield us from a
    nuclear weapon delivered in a sailboat or a Piper Cub or a suitcase or a
    Ryder rental truck.

    Not a penny of the 273 billion dollars a year we spend on so-called defense
    can actually defend us against a terrorist bomb. Nothing in our enormous
    military establishment can actually give us one whit of security. That is a
    military fact.

    "Mr. President, you did not tell the American people the truth about why we
    are the targets of terrorism. You said that we are the target because we
    stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world.

    Baloney! We are the target of terrorists because we stand for dictatorship,
    bondage, and
    human exploitation in the world. We are the target of terrorists because we
    are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things.

    "In how many countries have we deposed popularly elected leaders and
    replaced them with puppet military dictators who were willing to sell out
    their own people to American multinational corporations?

    "We did it in Iran when we deposed Mossadegh because he wanted to
    nationalize the oil industry. We replaced him with the Shah, and trained,
    armed, and paid his hated Savak national guard, which enslaved and
    brutalized the people of Iran. All to protect the financial interests of
    our oil companies. Is it any wonder there are people in Iran who hate us?

    "We did it in Chile when we deposed Allende, democratically elected by the
    people to introduce socialism. We replaced him with the brutal right-wing
    military dictator, General Pinochet. Chile has still not recovered.

    "We did it in Vietnam when we thwarted democratic elections in the South
    which would have united the country under Ho Chi Minh. We replaced him with
    a series of ineffectual puppet crooks who invited us to come in and
    slaughter their people and we did. (I flew 101 combat missions in that war
    which you properly opposed.)

    "We did it in Iraq, where we killed a quarter of a million civilians in a
    failed attempt to topple Saddam Hussein, and where we have killed a million
    since then with our sanctions. About half of these innocent victims have
    been children under the age of five.

    "And, of course, how many times have we done it in Nicaragua and all the
    other banana republics of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted
    popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the
    people who worked it. We replaced them with murderous tyrants who would
    sell out and control their own people so that the wealth of the land could
    be taken out by Domino Sugar, the United Fruit Company, Folgers, and
    Chiquita Banana.

    "In country after country, our government has thwarted democracy, stifled
    freedom, and trampled human rights. That's why we are hated around the
    world. And that's why we are the target of terrorists.

    "People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human
    rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of
    Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish
    embassies. No.

    "We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights.
    We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third
    world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational
    corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the
    form of terrorism and in the future, nuclear terrorism.

    "Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution
    becomes obvious. We must change our government's ways.

    "Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs
    so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, we must send them
    to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving

    "Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children every day with
    our sanctions, we must help them rebuild their electric power plants, their
    water treatment facilities, their hospitals, all the things we destroyed in
    our war against them and prevented them from rebuilding with our sanctions.

    "Instead of seeking to be king of the hill, we must become a responsible
    member of the family of nations. Instead of stationing hundreds of
    thousands of troops around the world to protect the financial interests of
    our multinational corporations, we must bring them home and expand the
    Peace Corps.

    "Instead of training terrorists and death squads in the techniques of
    torture and assassination, we must close the School of the Americas (no
    matter what name they use). Instead of supporting military dictatorships,
    we must support true democracy the right of the people to choose their own
    leaders. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization,
    assassination, and terror around the world, we must abolish the CIA and
    give the money to relief agencies.

    "In short, we do good instead of evil. We become the good guys, once again.
    The threat of terrorism would vanish. That is the truth, Mr. President.
    That is what the American people need to hear. We are good people. We only
    need to be told the truth and given the vision. You can do it, Mr.
    President. Stop the killing. Stop the justifying. Stop the retaliating. Put
    people first. Tell them the truth."

    Needless to say, he didn't ... and neither has George W. Bush. Well, the
    seeds our policies have planted have borne their bitter fruit. The World
    Trade Center is gone. The Pentagon is damaged. And thousands of Americans
    have died. Almost every TV pundit is crying for massive military
    retaliation against whoever might have done it (assumedly the same Osama
    bin Laden) and against whoever harbors or aids the terrorists (most notably
    the Taliban government of Afghanistan). Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post
    screams "Kill the bastards! Train assassins, hire mercenaries, put a couple
    of million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive,
    preferably dead. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb
    them into basketball courts." It's tempting to agree. I have no sympathy
    for the psychopaths that killed thousands of our people. There is no excuse
    for such acts. If I was recalled to active duty, I would go in a heartbeat.
    At the same time, all my military experience and knowledge tells me that
    retaliation hasn't rid us of the problem in the past, and won't this time.

    By far the world's best anti-terrorist apparatus is Israel's. Measured in
    military terms, it has been phenomenally successful. Yet Israel still
    suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. If retaliation
    worked, Israelis would be the world's most secure people.

    Only one thing has ever ended a terrorist campaign -- denying the terrorist
    organization the support of the larger community it represents. And the
    only way to do that is to listen to and alleviate the legitimate grievances
    of the people. If indeed Osama bin Laden was behind the four hijackings and
    subsequent carnage, that means addressing the concerns of the Arabs and
    Muslims in general and of the Palestinians in particular. It does NOT mean
    abandoning Israel. But it may very well mean withdrawing financial and
    military support until they abandon the settlements in occupied territory
    and return to 1967 borders. It may also mean allowing Arab countries to
    have leaders of their own choosing, not hand-picked, CIA-installed
    dictators willing to cooperate with Western oil companies.

    Chester Gillings has said it very well: "How do we fight back against bin
    Laden? The first thing we must ask ourselves is what is it we hope to
    achieve -- security or revenge? The two are mutually exclusive; seek
    revenge and we WILL reduce our security. If it is security we seek, then we
    must begin to answer the tough questions -- what are the grievances of the
    Palestinians and the Arab world against the United States, and what is our
    real culpability for those grievances? Where we find legitimate
    culpability, we must be prepared to cure the grievance wherever possible.
    Where we cannot find culpability or a cure, we must communicate honestly
    our positions directly to the Arab people. In short, our best course of
    action is to remove ourselves as a combatant in the disputes of the region."

    To kill bin Laden now would be to make him an eternal martyr. Thousands
    would rise up to take his place. In another year, we would face another
    round of terrorism, probably much worse even than this one. Yet there is
    another way.

    In the short term, we must protect ourselves from those who already hate
    us. This means increased security and better intelligence. I proposed to
    members of Congress in March that we should deny any funds for "Star Wars"
    until such time as the Executive Branch could show that they are doing all
    possible research on the detection and interception of weapons of mass
    destruction entering the country clandestinely (a far greater threat than
    ballistic missiles). There are lots of steps which can be taken to increase
    security without detracting from civil rights. But in the long term, we
    must change our policies to stop causing the fear and hatred which creates
    new terrorists. Becoming independent of foreign oil through conservation,
    energy efficiency, production of energy from renewable sources, and a
    transition to non-polluting transportation will allow us to adopt a more
    rational policy toward the Middle East.

    The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are good, peaceful people. But
    enough of them, in their desperation and anger and fear, have turned first
    to Arafat and now to bin Laden to relieve their misery. Remove the
    desperation, give them some hope, and support for terrorism will evaporate.
    At that point bin Laden will be forced to abandon terrorism (as has Arafat)
    or be treated like a common criminal. Either way, he and his money cease to
    be a threat. We CAN have security ... or we can have revenge. We cannot
    have both.
    *Dr. Robert M. Bowman directed all the "Star Wars" programs under
    presidents Ford and Carter and flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. His
    Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He is
    President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies and Presiding
    Archbishop of the United Catholic Church. Dr. Bowman can be reached at
    RobertBowman@MiddleEast.Org.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email

    Anti-war resources:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/studentsnowar/files (members only)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Oct 27 2001 - 17:10:41 EDT