No magic formula

"I watched Bush's speech with some people who thought it would be a good idea to take a sip of liquor every time he told a lie. Three days later my head is aching.”
David Swanson

Mr Bush’s long-awaited speech was supposed to signal a change of US strategy in Iraq.

We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.

[…]

‘Allies’ as in the UK? Well, you have the UK’s support, but don’t expect it to contribute more troops.

In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.

And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits.

They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.

Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.

Commitment and ‘deepening’ is not what the Iraqi Study Group led by James Baker advised. Even though Mr Bush took the “no magic formula” phrase directly from the report, he seemed to have disregarded the rest:

Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of
our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support.

Bipartisan approach… try convincing the Democrat-dominated Congress to give the rubber stamp to pour more funds and troops into Iraq.

Reason for failure:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighbourhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.

And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.

They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

The ‘cure’

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help.

So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad.

This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

[…]

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhoods that are home to those fuelling the sectarian violence.

This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighbourhoods - and [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

What’s to guarantee that the ‘terrorists and insurgents’ won’t return again? Are the Americans going to be stationed in these neighbourhoods on a permanent basis?

More strategy for success: throw money at the people

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations.

Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighbourhoods and communities.

So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.

To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

Not just Iraq

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.

Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.

We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.

And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.

Such an aggressive approach and tone toward Iran and Syria is totally contrary to the advice of the Iraqi Study Group:

The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an

international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own.

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available.

“Decisive ideological struggle of our time”

On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

A disguised way to say it’s a struggle between good and evil. What makes it so certain that it is ‘our’ way of life that the Iraqis and peoples of the Middle East want?

Don’t hope for victory

Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent.

Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.

The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.

There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.

But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.

‘Deck of a battleship’? This image looks strangely familiar…

‘Go big’ before going home’

If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

There are a few more strategies that Bush has forgotten.

‘Noble and necessary cause’

We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us.

These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.

Self-proclaimed messiah

It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom.

Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation.

And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed.

Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

‘Author of Liberty’? Sounds like another of Bush’s fundamentalist Christian thinking … The ‘Readers of Liberty’ are not impressed, especially with the high death toll every single day:

Underscoring the challenge, even as the United Nations released its figure — 34,452 deaths in all — at least 70 more Iraqis were killed on Tuesday when a series of bomb blasts struck a largely Shiite university in northeast Baghdad.

After almost four years of war, in which Americans have focused largely on fighting an elusive enemy — Sunni militants and, more recently, Shiite death squads — military commanders say that keeping Iraqis alive has now moved to the center of the new strategy proposed by President Bush.

For many Iraqis, the pledge comes too late. The numbers reported by the United Nations were more than tenfold the number of American deaths for the entire war. As previous attempts to secure Baghdad have failed, tens of thousands of middle-class Iraqis have given up and fled the country. Those who remain are becoming increasingly radicalized as the violence draws them into a cycle of revenge.

The United Nations report said an average of 94 Iraqis died every day in 2006, with about half the deaths occurring in the capital. The majority died from gunshot wounds, in execution-style killings that are a common method for death squads, both Sunni and Shiite. The report registered the most lethal month as October, with deaths declining slightly in November and December.

Iraqi death toll exceeded 34,000 in '06, UN Says

The ‘surge’ in the number of troops and money to be poured into Iraq has been called the ‘The Texas Strategy’:

The "surge" is just another stalling tactic, designed to buy more time.

Oh, and one of the favorite techniques used by the owners of savings and loan associations to generate phony profits - it involved making high-interest loans to crooked or flaky real estate developers - came to be known as the "Texas strategy."
[…]
The administration has spent the last three years pretending that its splendid little war isn't a big disaster. There have been the bromides (we're making "good progress"); the promises (we have a "strategy for victory"); and, as always, attacks on the media for not reporting the good news from Iraq.

Who you gonna believe, the president or your lying eyes?

Now Mr. Bush has grudgingly sort- of admitted that things aren't going well - but he says his "new way forward" will fix everything.

So it's still the Texas strategy: the war's architects are trying to keep their failed venture going as long as possible.
[…]

Mr. Bush calls his critics "irresponsible," saying that they don't have an alternative to his strategy. But they do: setting a timetable for withdrawal, so that we can cut our losses, and trying to save what can be saved. It isn't a strategy for victory because that's no longer an option. It's a strategy for acknowledging reality.

The lesson of the savings and loan scandal was that when a bank has failed, you shouldn't let the owner string you along with promises - you should shut the thing down. We should do the same with Mr. Bush's failed war.

What did Mr Bush forget to mention?

Earlier this evening we aired a speech by President George W. Bush that may have left you with some false impressions. We need to correct these matters of fact.

The president's speech did not mention WMDs or Saddam Hussein or attempt to explain why we are occupying the nation of Iraq or what it would mean for that occupation to "win" or "lose." This may have left you with the impression that no justification is required by law to forcibly occupy someone else's country and kill a significant portion of their population. That is not the case.

The president made no reference to the permanent military bases he is illegally constructing in Iraq. This may have left you with the impression that he plans to leave Iraq some day. This, combined with his references to democracy, may have given you a certain idea of his plans for Iraq that does not seem to be suggested by the president's actions.

Bush also expressed support for a number of Middle-Eastern nations allied with the United States, notably Saudi Arabia. This may have given you the idea that these nations are democracies. They are dictatorships.

Bush began his speech by connecting Iraq to 9/11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We apologize to the millions who have lost loved ones because of this lie. When Bush said that al Qaeda was "still" active in Iraq, he failed to add that it had only become active in Iraq as a result of his invasion and occupation of that nation.

Bush said that he would see that the people of Iraq profit from its oil. This statement bears no relationship to actual US policy, and Bush has no legal right to decide what happens to another nation's resources.

Bush suggested that most Iraqis want the occupation to continue. This is false.

Bush suggested that occupying Iraq was making Americans safer. His own intelligence analysts disagree.

Bush implied that he can escalate wars at his own discretion. In fact, Congress can prevent him from doing so if it chooses to.

Of course, Bush has escalated this war in the past. We have not reported on that as such because he did not make a big deal of it. The reason he is making a big deal of it this time was not addressed in his speech.

What was new in the speech was a threat to Iran and Syria. Bush claimed that Iran is providing material to Iraqi resisters. There is no evidence of this. Bush said he was sending ships and missile defense systems to the region. These steps have no clear connection to Iraq and may be seen as part of a threat to Iran.

Bush said not one word about all of the Iraqi blood he has spilled. Approximately 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq, thus far. And the death rate is increasing, not diminishing.

Why the surge? The reason maybe the hidden agenda to go to Iraq in the first place: "It's the oil, stupid." More evidence here:

As the [UK’s The Independent] notes, the [new Iraqi hydrocarbon] law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion - indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise "contingency plans" for divvying up Iraq's oil after the attack. Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American "advisory committee" overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.com has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq's oil: "Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and "The US Takeover of Iraqi Oil."

From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry - while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits - more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.

Of course, at the moment, the "security situation" - i.e., the living hell of death and suffering that Bush's "war of choice" has wrought in Iraq - prevents the Oil Barons from setting up shop in the looted fields. Hence Bush's overwhelming urge to "surge" despite the fierce opposition to his plans from Congress, the Pentagon and some members of his own party. Bush and his inner circle, including his chief adviser, old oilman Dick Cheney, believe that a bigger dose of blood and iron in Iraq will produce a sufficient level of stability to allow the oil majors to cash in the PSA chips that more than 3,000 American soldiers have purchased for them with their lives.
[…]
As the Independent wryly noted in its Sunday story, Dick Cheney himself revealed the true goal of the war back in 1999, in a speech he gave when he was still CEO of Halliburton. "Where is the oil going to come from" to slake the world's ever-growing thirst, asked Cheney, who then answered his own question: "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

Striking similarities with Nixon’s ‘Vietnamisation’ speech in 1969. Just substitute totalitarianism for terrorism.

And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.

I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.

If it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.

I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.

Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

It’s too easy to draw parallels:

• 
  

First there is the realisation in Washington that it is not winning. Mr Bush has admitted this himself

Second, there is a policy of trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it - this happened in Vietnam with the policy of Vietnamisation

Third, there is the belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer

Fourth, there is an opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought - US public doubt is a theme common to both conflicts

Fifth, in Vietnam too the president consulted an outside group - they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal

• 
  

This opinion piece to agrees too:

How similar this all is to the situation we face in Iraq now.

In Vietnam and Iraq, we tried to occupy a country that posed minimal threat to the US. We waged a counterinsurgency effort against adequately skilled, motivated and well-supplied fighters who did not want us occupying their land. We tried to prop up a weak and corrupt foreign government that we had helped to install.

The circle has come around again in frightening and depressing ways, complete with thousands of US troops and innocent civilians (including children) dead and horribly injured, war profiteers getting rich, and America's reputation in the world severely damaged.

We also have a US administration, like the Nixon administration, that has lost the trust of most of the people and the Congress, and which strikes many as being out of touch with reality and dangerous.

Now, as in the days when Nixon was leaving the presidency and Ford assumed office, Congress is trying to take responsibility to resolve a difficult and poorly thought-out war of choice, waged in an apparently incompetent way.

Some reactions to Bush’s new ‘strategy’:

What we will discover in the next few months, therefore, is simply whether the entire premise of this strategy is actually true. The president is asking us to find this out one more time. He seems to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence on the ground - that the dynamic has changed beyond recognition. His intellectual rubric - democracy versus terror - has not changed to deal with fast-changing events, or to take account of the sectarian dynamic that his appallingly managed occupation has spawned. […]

[…] The only leverage this president really has left is the looming regional war that withdrawal would bring. Yes, if we leave, the civil war will take off. And if we stay, with this level of troops, the civil war will also take off. One way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war in the region. One way, we get to face them another day, and perhaps benefit by setting them against each other, and destabilizing Iran. That's the awful choice this president has brought us to. Under these circumstances, I favor withdrawal, while of course, hoping that a miracle could take place. But make no mistake: a miracle is what this president needs. And a miracle is what we will now have to pray for.
Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish

"2007 is going to be a difficult year. There is going to be violence."
Senior Adviser to President Bush, Dan Bartlett

Aside: a fascinating account of Bush’s psyche:

Much of the world outside the US considers Bush a bully. "You're either with us or against us" is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a bully's doctrine.

For his intimates and those closer to home, Bush appears to be what is called an emotional bully. An emotional bully gains control using sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying, or angering the other and forcing him to back down. Bush administration insider accounts describe this sort of behavior from the president. He's well known for his dismissive remarks. His penchant for giving nicknames to everyone has its dark, bully's side. Naming people is a way to control them.

[…]

[On] famous Bushisms, such as:

There is no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world's worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons.

They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we.

To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They suggest ambivalence oscillating violently between poles. They suggest a desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," and a host of other issues.

[…]

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." [Bush in an interview]

As commander in chief, as a war president, he could assemble his other psychological defenses around him. He could split the world into good and evil and the country would follow. His internal oppositions could be projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries. He could be the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country. He could project own internal fears of being "discovered as a fraud" into a threat "out there" waiting to happen. He could surround himself with loyalists whom he could emotionally bully, creating a new family that would admire him and that he could control. Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that can always be rationalized offer a safe haven. Until history judges me (and that's a long way off, maybe never) I can't be definitively seen as incompetent.

"And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." (16 September 2001)

It’s a crusade, as Bush has repeatedly called the ‘war on terror’, but it’s an unfortunate metaphor which only serves to arouse historical animosity and pains:

When the crusaders first arrived amid their slaughter of Arabs (and of Jews), as the remarkable Lebanese novelist Amin Maalouf reminds us in his history, The Crusades through Arab Eyes, they were looked on with horror by local Arab populations. They were feared as barbarians, as mass murderers, quite literally as cannibals. The chronicler Usamah Ibn Munqidh, would, for instance, write: "All those who were well-informed about the [crusaders] saw them as beasts, superior in courage and fighting ardour but in nothing else, just as animals are superior in strength and aggression."

"This unkind assessment," adds Maalouf, "accurately reflects the impression made by the [crusaders] upon their arrival in Syria: they aroused a mixture of fear and contempt, quite understandable on the part of an Arab nation which, while far superior in culture, had lost all combative spirit."

Americans, despite heavy competition, now look like the new barbarians of the arc of instability - and things are going to get worse. Don't think the calling of air power into downtown Baghdad is likely to be forgotten. This is the behavior of barbarians, no less so than the use of suicide bombs in Baghdad's streets.

911: five year on

Five years ago a series of events changed the world. It started with the fateful day when terrorists struck mainland America for the first time since Pearl Harbour, and struck the very symbolic buildings of US economic (the WTC) and military (the Pentagon) prowess.

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of September 11, it is no surprise that the national broadsheets, international magazines, TV networks is full of ‘looking back’ coverage. Michael Moore’s award-winning Fahrenheit 911 is on at the moment, while the conspiracy-theorists will be able to rejoice at the very well-made and convincing low-budget documentary Loose Change.

How has the US, or more specifically, the rest of the world under the shadow of the US, changed in the past five years?

• The struggle of the current age is one based on faith, carried out by fundamentalists on either side who will do anything to assert and justify their actions with the (ab)use of religion
  
  
• Threat of terrorism will now and forever be with us and amongst us
  
  
• The War on Terror began under a wide ‘international coalition’, but will be an endless war, an endless terror campaign in itself as means of the ‘west’ to root out anything remotely at odds with its doctrine or interests

• 
  

“The Bush administration has specially defined the struggle vaguely, so that there can be no end to it. George W. Bush enjoys the privileges at his disposal as a war president. Therefore the government has expanded the objectives and goals of this war from one group or from one region to another. [After the Taliban and Iraq] even North Korea is now and then being included in this continually expanding campaign. It is no coherent war, it is a list of desires of a hawk. If the ‘War on Terror’ in reality does include this all, it can drag on for many decades more, but perhaps the American public would no longer accept such an expensive grab bag. ”[1]

• Democracy and freedoms have become the rallying call on both sides, each with different, and at times opposing, opinions on how those values should be established and defended
  
  
• A new era has begun in international relations, one earmarked by a black-and-white division between good and evil, one in which you’re either ‘against us or against us’.

“All that happened after 11 September 2001 must be seen as a struggle between good and evil—because one is bad, everything we do must be good. That is not only skewed rhetoric from powerholders who [are undermining] their moral position through a perverse hardening in their own wrong approach and geopolitical blunders, it is also a last means to seal the mouth of the critics. You see the same with the opponent, who continuously compares the Israelis with the Nazis. That is the problem: everyone [sees] himself as a fighter against fascism. [2]

The ‘us’ can be capitalised and read as ‘the US. And it is this very outlook on the world that the US today, as then, stands at odds with many countries, especially the European counter-balance across the Atlantic

“Europeans have had enough of war for good, and believe that their peace-through-talking is an enlightening example. Americans live in a Hobbesian world, in which goodness is not the normal [state of affairs] and peace is laid down with the hard hand if necessary.”[3]

• Threats can be taken out before they actually become one, under the new established doctrine of pre-emptivism. But this applies only for big powers.
  
  
• International law on war, peace and prisoners has been openly flouted undermined, because the world’s only superpower operates beyond the bounds of the law in a network of secret prison cells, concentration camps and torture chambers which are ‘not-in-my-backyard’.
  
  
• Fundamental freedoms of (free) expression, privacy, personal integrity can be downgraded each time the terror alert level is upgraded. Democratic governments can now justify random searches, eavesdropping, spying in the name of intelligence gathering and national security…or quite simply without the need to give a reason.
  
  
• International travel, especially with the plane, is increasingly becoming a hassle due to heightened security alerts, as passengers are increasingly wary and suspicious of who is sitting next to them (especially those with a dark(er) complexion). But the question is how far do you go?

“Everyone understands that hand luggage can not be banned in a metro or train, not even after the attacks in London, Madrid and Mumbai. Why [can they be banned] in planes then?”[4]

• Social integration and dialogue between different population, cultural and religious groups in our multi-culutral society have been seriously hindered, and at times burst into open confrontation and violence against one another as churches and mosques are set on fire. Thus the ‘them’ against ‘us’ feeling is not just an element of international relations.

Ivo Daalder[5] illustrates a number of winners and losers from the aftermaths of 911:

Winners:

• Islamic jihadism, once an obscure and fringe element has suddenly been thrust into the limelight and elevated to a new threat labeled “Islamic fascism”. More and more moderate (and young) Muslims are attracted to the hatred and twisted interpretations preached by extremist imams. Coupled with increasing Islam-bashing, the already disenfranchised positions of Muslims in the west in terms of their social and employments prospects, as well as the incursions in the Middle East, Israel’s actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, the blunders of Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay.
  
  
• A blind eye is turned to Pakistan for its nuclear ambitions in the exchange for support and intelligence in the ensuing War on Terror. The likes of North Korea and Iran have been able to develop real potentials for enriching plutonium, while the US sought for fictitious weapons of mass destruction and became bogged down in the mess in Iraq.
  
  
• China is another obvious winner, rising silently in the East economically and politically, while the US and the ‘west’ busy themselves starting and trying to end the ‘international’ struggle against Islamic extremism and the quagmire of the Middle East. With its newly found power, China has been able to expand its influence in the developing world, to scour poor(er) countries for much needed resources, and form a coalition of non-aligned, non-interested regimes which are characterised by oppression and tyranny.

Losers:

• Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, because it has lost much of its organisation and power after the Afghan campaign. Though, personally I think both bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were winners in losing, since they managed to champion a cause which much of the Muslim world has more or less accepted as legitimate against the (over)reaction of the West after 911. Whether or not Muslims actually endorse or would encourage it is another matter, but on the whole bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s legacies live on, and will continue to inspire aspiring terrorist cells, as well as attract disgruntled Muslims living in the democracies of the ‘west’.

“Embittered, fanatic and vengeful the people who [are in resistance] move into the world, in search of retribution, not only against the regimes that have misshaped them, but also against the West, which has supported the dictators of the region in the interest of ‘stability’.”[6]

• Neo-cons, arguing for a more aggressive and assertive American foreign policy resulted in an ill-founded and ill-prepared invasion (and later occupation) of Iraq. Saddam is toppled, but increasingly civil war between Shites and Sunnis are looming. Saddam’s tyranny was perhaps replaced by a foreign tyranny. And the recent (non)action in the war in Lebanon (not to mention possible war plans against a defiant Iran), as well as standing staunchly by Israel despite (again) disproportionate reaction to the kidnappings of two soldiers underline the neo-cons’ self-interested agenda.
  
  
• The US is a big (perhaps the biggest) loser, in terms of the way it saw its international support, standing, credibility and power rise immediately after the 911 attacks, and then dramatically fall in a series of blunders and mishaps. Sympathy directly after 911 was short lived, and increasingly people see the US as a colossus trying to stamp out ants with its disproportionate show of force, coercion and indiscriminate means, and in the process sowing my insecurity and instability than the (empty) promises of freedoms and democracy would have you believe

“Internationally the understanding that you cannot effective fight radical Islam by sending in the army has now seeped through. It is not the so-called appeasers who have been naïve in the last couple of years, but the self-proclaimed Churchills, who, blinded by their own rhetoric (“the values of freedom”) have unleashed a civil war, agonised countries like Iran and North Korea, and given terrorism worldwide a vital impulse.” [7]

---

[1] Juan Cole, ‘De oorlog tegen het terrorisme is onafzienbaar’ [The War on Terror is endless], Opinie & Debat, p21, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[2] Bas Heijne, ‘Is het nu weer gezellig?’ [Is it cosy again now?], Opinie & Debat, p23, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[3] Marc Chavannes, ‘Verrast door onze bondgenoot? Echt?’ [Surprised by our ally? Really?], Opinie & Debat, p18, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[4] Maarten Huygen, ‘Na 11 September is er te veel begrip voor hinderlijke passagierscontrole’ [After September 11 there is too much understanding for restrictive passenger checks], Opinie & Debat, p19, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[5] Ivo Daalder, ‘Winnars en verliezers van 11 September’ [Winners and losers of September 11], Opinie & Debat, p17, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[6] Mai Yamani, ‘We zijn niet meer allemaal Amerikanen’ [We are no longer all Americans], Opinie & Debat, p18, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[7] Bas Heijne, ‘Is het nu weer gezellig?’ [Is it cosy again now?], Opinie & Debat, p23, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

‘Nous sommes tous Americains’

Some five years ago front page of the French Le Monde ran with the headline ‘Nous sommes tous Americains’ [We are all Americans]. It was an expression of solidarity of the (rest) of the (western) world with the horrendous events which thrust the US into a period of state of shock and victimisation. But within weeks that wounded pride turned into fuel for aggression, revenge, and eventually a blank cheque for the US to do as it pleases, even it meant flagrantly flaunting the established norms of international law and politics. We’ve gone from the ‘with us or against us’ speech to the Axis of Evil address, each further entrenching the sense of division between regions, cultures and forces in this battle for hearts and minds.

The chief editor of Le Monde today argues that none of us could be American, not with the behaviour of the US after 911:

“The shock of 9/11 lured a reflex of unity and consensus. Now, five years later, we must establish that that capital has been wasted, thrown away, abused. Seldom has such a discrepancy presented itself between a certain historical event and the capacities of the man who as the first to be present have had to react to it: president Bush. As much as the former is so serious, the intellectual and strategic qualities of the American president is so weak.”

Weak, not because of the strength and aggressiveness of his reaction, but because of how the Bush administration tarnished the image of the US as a harbinger of peace and security and realigned the world order on their own terms:

“The free world after 1945 was rebuilt on two fundamentals: ‘containment’ and development. While the Soviet empire had to be [tamed], at the same time the development of democracies had to be promoted through free exchange.

But what has George Bush jr now decreed? Pre-emptive action, preventative war instead of containment. That has changed everything. And further, an increasingly protectinistic stance, which hinders every worldwide [attempt to solve problems]—for example through the resistance against the Kyoto protocol.

[…] We may not loose sight of who committed the attack (Al-Qaeda), and with which means (mass terrorism) and with which aim: calling a halt to every democratic development in the Islamic countries , and dragging these countries [into] the ‘holy war’.

Nothing would be more harmful than attaching ourselves to the idea of a clash of civilisations, exactly at the moment [when] the principal front is actually being formed in the struggle between regressive and progressive forces within the Islamic universe, this obliges us to a fundamental solidarity with the United States. But it forces us, Europeans, to also ensure that together we put more weights on the scale—far more than the influence that we have should be remain divided.”[1]

How else has the Bush regime squandered away the unprecedented sense of unity and solidarity shown by the rest of the world towards the US?

“For the American government every action in the drama of the War on Terror —Afgahnistan, Iraq, the Palestine and Hezbollah—[was an isolated event]. But the public that breathlessly followed Al-Jazira and other Arabic satellite broadcasters in front of the tube, the diverse battlefields of the War on Terror to gradually look like a chain of events in an all encompassing conspiracy against Islam.

Worse was that America wedged war under the banner of democracy. Every hope of the parties involved in democracy, be it secular or Islamic, has in the meantime been buried under the ruins or wiped away in the bloodbaths of Baghdad, Beirut and Kandahar.

[…] America, like so often, has left them out in the cold and continued to support regimes that oppressed them. American could simply not relaise its scenario for the promotion of democracy.”[2]

It is no surprise why American foreign policy seems to be increasingly isolationist and unilateral. Already back in 1997, the neo-cons in the current administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) pledged to “make the case and rally support for American global leadership.” Elsewhere, a more assertive (also read aggressive) American foreign policy is advocated to ensure ‘world mastery’, and to ensure that international politics is conducted and preserved that are friendly to “our security, our prosperity, and our principles”. ‘Our’ here of course refers to the US.

Clash of Civilisations?

While many Muslims may see the US (re)action to 911 as a direct attack, and at times insult, to their way of life and religion, the question to ask is whether Huntington’s doom-scenario of ‘clash of civilisations’ is being realised. Is the current conflict unleashed after 911 a new break from the past, or a continuity of US foreign policy, only with more assertiveness and aggression under the watch of neo-con hawks? University of Michigan Historian Juan Cole argues ‘no’:

[According to recent polls] a great deal of the Islamic world view democracy as the best form of government. […] The only area in which the Islamic [population] indicate that it maintains another yardstick than the United States and Europe is that of the norms for sexual behaviour, and [especially] the acceptance of homosexuality. In other words: the Muslims reject Holloywood-morality—just like the American conservative and evangelical circles. […] It is a clash of policy. […] [American] occupation of Iraq [has become] another point of irritation: the Islamic world does not believe that Iraq would be better off through American intervention. When Muslims speak of ‘democracy’, they seem to mean ‘autonomy’ and ‘national independence’, and they see western interference in Islamic affairs as betrayal of democratic ideas.

September 11 and the American reaction to it have deepened [this] policy gap, but they did not cause a clash of civilisations.[3]

The professor goes to argue that in fact 911 did not change the course of US policy, and if it did change anything, it was to harden and solidly provide the necessary fuel to pursue a ‘strike hard’ policy against unwanted regimes.

“without the attacks the [US] government had [tried to topple Saddam] with limited bombardments, a domestic operation or a coup attempt. Because of the attacks, the long-lasting war on the ground in the Middle East suddenly became acceptable. But that energy has evaporated now, and fundamental changes in American policy have hardly been brought back.

Despite all the stories about a ‘War on Terror’, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, the monarchies of the Persian Golf, Morocco and Pakistan are still good allies of the US. […] Washington already had Iran and Syria in the visor well before September 11. the plans of the American government to liberate the Middle East and to democratise have brought not much more than a failed state in Iraq, an unstable Lebanon which is being torn by Hezbollah and Israel, and experienced no promising sounds from allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.”[4]

Freedom vs Terrorism

As I wrote elsewhere, terrorism’s is not just in the number of times it succeeds, but in the fear that it galvonises, regardless of the scale or success of its operations. And it is this fear that can freeze the very basic principles of democratic societies that poses the greatest threat to civilian lives.

“For a successful terror attack with many victims requires careful planning, creativity, the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of the opponent and a sizeable portion of luck. To make a terror attack fail […] you also need careful planning, creativity, the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of the opponent and luck. Only, the terrorists have the advantage. They can fail dozens of times; but one big success more than makes up for the failures."[5]

How western democracies in the US and Europe respond to this threat, and try to prevent it without curtailing the very principles for which they stand for, will be testing of who triumphs.

“The debate that has gone on until now was greatly an unenlightening clash of ideological extremes, whereby one camp rejects every adaptation of the old model of deterrence and the maintenance of civil liberties, while the other party argues for the necessity of preventing terrorism […] as more important than traditional worries about civil liberties.”[6]

Terrorism’s strength is drawn from the roots of society, especially appealing to disgruntled youths who have been marginalised, or made to feel marginalised, by the rest because of their apparent differences in terms of religious belief, skin colour and cultural identity. And the fact that terrorists are perversely celebrated in life and in death gives them an advantage over democracies which must adhere to strict norms which cannot be compromised.

“[Terrorism] has an unlimited number of recruits at its disposable, because radical Islam has created an unique culture (or religion) of death, in which suicide is glorified, person who commits suicide posthumously becomes a rock star after whom places are named, and his (or her) family would be royally compensated [and celebrated]

[…] Democracies may profit from a strength in weapons; but terrorists compensate that difference through [the fact] that they have no moral limitations in performing their deed. While [contrarily] democracies do have to maintain high moral and juridical norms in the fight against terror.”[7]

Patriotism, manipulation and deceit

Immediately after 911 the whole of the US was wounded beyond belief. Because truly no single event in the past decades has shocked the country to a standstill. Newspapers, TV networks, radio broadcast talked about the need to unite together as one against terrorism and threats to the American way of life. Even today, five years on, people are moved to tears as they think back to the day when the heart of America was struck so unexpectedly and devastatingly.

“The feeling of permanent security on the American continent was shattered. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour sixty years ago which severed a feeling of unassailable security. Everything was different, nothing [could be talked about], the American soul was put on the electric fence. Almost all American media was dragged into the frenzy of national mourning, wounded pride and fear for an enemy without comprehensible values, and with a telephone number.”[8]

But it is a dangerous phenomenon. It seems there are few who dare to reflect on, let alone openly criticise why it is that America was under attack. 911 thrust the US and a lot of its people into a permanent state of self-pity and a newly found comfort of being a victim. Many American cannot understand why so many hate the US to the extent it is the target of terrorism. It comes from a combination of pure ignorance, wilful isolationism, media manipulation of news and reporting, and a selective memory when it comes to the effects US foreign policy has on the rest of the world.

“[Today] the criticism of America is more vicious than ever before—in the media and in the general public discourse. That criticism is not surprising: the combination of ignorance and arrogance was always a potentially deadly element in the way in which America interacted with the rest of the world. The certainty to take on the whole world militarily, has strengthened those factors to unpleasant proportions.

[…] Americans not only know even less about the rest of the world [today], but also believe that they need to know even less. Why should you be interested in the rest of the rest when, after all, they all want to be like you? And if groups of people in the rest of the world suddenly, even in a violent manner, show that they do not want to be like them [the Americans], America cannot see it other than a sinister handicap, of which those peoples should be healed from as quickly as possible. Whether they want that or not.”[9]

An afraid and unstable America is one in which voices of dissent and criticisms of its actions at home or abroad are quick to be dismissed as unpatriotic and disrespectful of an administration doing its utmost to secure America’s interests and security. At best those who criticise are loonies and leftists. At worst, critics can be labelled as terrorist sympathisers, or even terrorists themselves.

“The land of the free and the home of the brave, as the US defines itself in the last sentence of the national anthem, was after 9/11 not [able to receive] criticism on the nation and its leader. America under Attack, according to the banner of CNN on 9/11. Bush said so that day too, and that became the national analysis: fighting back was the only option.

Afterwards comformism determined the public debate […]”[10]

Watch works produced as a tribute to the events of 911 (such as United 93) and you’ll soon get the sense of how deep this emphasis on America’s courage and determination is embodied even in the lives and actions of ordinary and innocent civilians.

War to end all wars

Almost immediately after terrorists struck America, the country declared war, a war which would later evolve to an all encompassing War on Terror. But traditionally war can only be declared against another state, or at the very least an identifiable threat. According to Lawrence Wilkerson, the Chief of Staff of then Secretary of State Colin Powell, this choice of words was not a coincidence. One that would be a blank cheque for the president to do as he pleases.

“ ‘We said to each other: you cannot win a war against a method. Terrorism will always continue to exist […] So came the catastrophic decision into place to begin a war an end to which there would never be.’

Later he discovered […] important principles for the use of ‘war’. It gave the president as commander-in-chief unlimited competences—at least according to himself—to enact far reaching anti-terror measures without consultation with the Congress. ‘He could behave like a dictator’”[11]

MORE

· Visit this site for an excellent comic version of the events of 911 and immediate reactions thereafter

· Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

“Five years later, the questions surrounding what exactly happened on September 11, and why they were allowed to happen, remain unsettled. A recent national poll conducted by Scripps Howard/Ohio University states that more than one third of Americans believe that Bush's government either actively assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen so as to create a justification for war in the Middle East.

The New York Post, reporting on this poll, stated, "Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be."

"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall," continued the Post, "said it is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.' 'One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right,' said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His Congressionally-appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaeda five years ago. 'A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. 'Many say the government planned the whole thing.'"”

---

[1]Jean-Marie Colombani [Chief editor of Le Monde], ‘We zijn niet meer allemaal Amerikanen’ [We are no longer all Americans], Opinie & Debat, p18, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[2] Mai Yamani, ibid.

[3] Juan Cole, ‘9/11 was een botsing van beschavingen’ [9/11 was a clash of civilisations], Opinie & Debat, p18, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[4] Ibid.

[5] Alan M. Dershowitz, ‘Een zelfmoordterrorist kun je niet straffen—maar hoe ver gaan we in preventie?’ [You cannot punish a suicide terrorist—but how far do we go in prevention?], Opinie & Debat, p23, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[6] Alan M. Dershowitz, ‘Een zelfmoordterrorist kun je niet straffen—maar hoe ver gaan we in preventie?’ [You cannot punish a suicide terrorist—but how far do we go in prevention?], Opinie & Debat, p23, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad.

[7] Alan M. Dershowitz, ‘Een zelfmoordterrorist kun je niet straffen—maar hoe ver gaan we in preventie?’ [You cannot punish a suicide terrorist—but how far do we go in prevention?], Opinie & Debat, p23, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[8] Marc Chavannes, ‘Amerikaanse media slikte kritische vragen in na ‘911’’ [American media swallowed critical questions after ‘911’], Zaterdags Bijvoegsel, p44, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[9] Jan Donkers, ‘De Amerikaanse Droom is een illusie. Gelukkig maar.’ [The American Dream is an illusion. Fortunately.], p78-82, 8 July 2006, Vrij Nederland

[10] Tom-Jan Meeus, ‘Nog nooit zo alleen’ [Never before so alone], Zaterdags Bijvoegsel, p45, 10 September 2006, NRC Handelsblad

[11] Ibid.