BY MALIK MIAH
SAN FRANCISCO — "America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbour terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends." — President George Bush speaking to soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, November 21.
To make crystal clear what the new Bush Doctrine of permanent war on "terrorists" is, the president emphasised to the receptive audience of the Screaming Eagles unit which has troops deployed in Pakistan: "Afghanistan is just the beginning on the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win."
September 11 marked a change in the US and world politics. The US rulers made a decision that the act of terrorism that destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon was a golden opportunity to advance their historic objective of world domination — the "American Century" they predicted at the close of World War II.
Bush and his top lieutenants have made clear over and over again that the "war on terrorism" is not a one-time operation. It is a long-term policy and will not be over for years, if ever.
Unfortunately, most liberals have capitulated to the New World Anti-Terrorism Order without a fight. They fear being tarred as soft on terrorism or unsympathetic or unpatriotic toward those who perished on September 11.
Confusion on the left
The confusion on the socialist left is represented by those who correctly argue that the bombing is wrong and should be stopped — which is why an anti-war movement is urgently needed — but who argue that the fall of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden is a step forward even if US carpet-bombing accomplished it. The right of the Afghan people to national sovereignty, it is argued, is secondary.
This position is indefensible. It lets the US ruling elite and their allies off the hook for being the greatest danger to humanity.
In a military conflict between a Third World country and an imperialist-led alliance, socialists must defend the right of political self-determination of the oppressed country regardless of its current leadership. Otherwise, the door is open for the imperialist powers to use their military might to overthrow the government of any country they declare is "harbouring terrorists".
Supporters of the freedom of Third World peoples from imperialist political domination must aggressively fight the imperialist war on terrorism and stand firmly on the side of its first target: the Afghan people's right to self-determination.
The brutal victory by the US is a blow to working people worldwide. And the repercussions will be far-reaching.
US policy in Central Asia
Central Asia represents a new source of oil and natural gas for US corporations. There are vast untapped reserves that world capitalism could not farm during the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened that door. The US wants to expand its power in the region, and Afghanistan sits in a strategic location.
Saudi Arabia (the key Arab US ally) and Pakistan backed the Taliban's rise to power in 1996. They were the main supporters of the mujaheddin forces that fought pro-Soviet Peoples Democratic Party government from 1978 to 1992. The warlords of the mujaheddin who took power in 1992 (now mostly in the Northern Alliance except the Pashtuns warlords in the south) were Islamic fundamentalists and terrorised the population.
The rise of the Taliban was in reaction to their terror, and the new regime was, at first, widely supported — including by women, who were raped and brutalised by the mujaheddin gangs. That changed when the Taliban began enforcing its interpretation of the reactionary Wahabi version of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia.
The US and the oil giant, Unocal, praised the stability the Taliban imposed in the country. The CIA were assured by their friends in the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, who for 30 years (until he was dismissed in August 2001) headed Saudi's intelligence services, that the Taliban clerics were safe, and could protect their interests.
The US government was opposed to any deals allowing pipelines running through Iran (the logical and cheapest route), which is still listed as a country supporting "terrorism". Washington, thus, was not overly concerned about the Taliban's fundamentalism or its ties to militant Islamic groups.
The bombings of the US embassies in 1998 by al Queda agents changed that attitude. President Bill Clinton had cruise missiles fired at al Queda bases in Afghanistan.
The aim even then was not to overthrow the Taliban. Clinton urged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to get the Taliban to arrest bin Laden or force him out of Afghanistan.
Up until September 11 the Bush administration continued the Clinton policy. The UN and US praised the Taliban for its efforts to reduce opium production and to bring stability to the country.
Before September 11 the US government never anticipated that bin Laden or other anti-US militants inspired by him would "dare" use four commercial aircraft to attack civilians in New York and Washington.
Program of al Queda
Bin Laden and al Queda don't hide their objectives. They aim to establish Islamic states and to destroy the enemies of Islam. Enemy number one is the "great infidel", the USA.
Bin Laden's call for a "world jihad" is an international program. The training camps in Afghanistan include supporters of an "Islamic revolution" from various regions of the world. Many of these individuals and groups have fought their own governments for years.
When bin Laden and Aiman al Zawahari, the leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad, united various Islamic groups under the single name, "The Global Islamic Front Against the Jews and the Crusaders", in February 1998, they made clear the political objectives in their fatwa (a decree of Islamic law). They proclaimed the US as enemy number one: "To kill Americans and their allies, civilian or military, is an obligation for every Muslim capable of doing so, wherever possible."
After the October 7 bombing began, bin Laden defended the right of Muslims to attack all Americans. He repeated this view again in a November 9 interview with Hamid Mir, the editor of the Pakistani English-language daily, Dawn. "America and its allies", he said, "are massacring us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal." He continued: "The September 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power."
The al Queda leaders' use of terrorism reflects this aim to establish religious dictatorships over the Muslim people they claim to defend. They have an elitist vision of the world, and expect the masses of Muslims to follow the new caliph.
Of course, US imperialism and its allies aren't concerned about democracy and freedom either. That's why they can support the pro-US dictatorship of the Saudi royal family, which holds an identical view of Islam to the Taliban.
Bin Laden and the al Queda leaders conflict with the Saudi royal family and other Arab rulers, like in Egypt, because the regimes are accommodating too much to the US and the Western powers. Bin Laden says their policies are weakening Islam.
They use terrorist methods in the hope that they will spark the masses into action; to terrorist the enemy so it represses the population who will then rise up in revolt.
The aim of September 11, whoever organised it (no group claimed responsibility), was to send a message to the Great Infidel that its property and civilians are fair game. What better military targets than Wall Street and the Pentagon! It's why bin Laden doesn't really care if he's blamed for the attack or not.
All terrorists — whether of the left or right, religious or atheistic — share this false belief that acts of terror will pave the way for fundamental change.
Instead of winning, the al Queda leaders will likely be exterminated. They may call themselves martyrs, but the direct result of their methods is a setback for the poor and oppressed in the Islamic world they claimed to speak for.
What next?
What happens next in Afghanistan is far from clear. The Taliban says it is in a strategic retreat from the cities because of the overwhelming forces against it. No government could take the massive bombing (even if it had broad popular support) that the US inflicted upon the country.
But the inevitable civil war between the "winning" Northern Alliance warlords could lead to new opportunities for secular and socialist forces. It could also lead to a re-emergence of the Taliban in some form if the left is too weak to provide a viable alternative.
The challenge for the democratic secular forces in Central Asia and the Middle East is to build popular political movements that are strong enough to isolate the fundamentalists and build genuine democracies. Islam and democracy are compatible so long as religious elements do not dominate democratic institutions.
That's why in the long run a pro-US regime in Kabul can't resolve the problems facing the Afghan people. The main US aim is political stability, not democracy. Women in particular will not be allowed freedoms without a democratic civil society. The warlords, including the Taliban factions, oppose it.
Socialists must educate on the new world situation that working people face. We must actively fight the "war on terrorism" by defending the national sovereignty of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea and any other country Bush decides is "harbouring" terrorists.
From Green Left Weekly, December 5, 2001.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.