In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide
attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, an American
newscaster said: "Good and Evil rarely manifest themselves
as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know,
massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous
glee." Then he broke down and wept.
Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't
know (because they don't appear much on TV). Before it has
properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of
its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and
embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "International
Coalition Against Terror", mobilised its army, its
airforce, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Box-cutters,
penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the
wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock
pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show
up in baggage checks. |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it
can't very well return without having fought one. If it
doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged
folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once
war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a
justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why
it's being fought in the first place. |
|
What we're witnessing
here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country,
reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a
new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself,
America's streamlined warships, its Cruise missiles and F-16
jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its
arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap.
Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with
which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the
lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show up
in baggage checks.
Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it
had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the
same day, President George W. Bush said: "We know exactly
who these people are and which governments are supporting
them." It sounds as though the President knows something
that the FBI and the American public don't.
In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush
called the enemies of America "Enemies of Freedom". |
"Americans are asking
why do they hate us?" he said. "They hate our
freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of
speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree
with each other." People are being asked to make
two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy
is who the US government says it is, even though it has
no substantial evidence to support that claim. And |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
It's
reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's
economic and military dominance—the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon—were chosen as the targets of the
attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
second, to assume that
The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are,
and there's nothing to support that either.
For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for
the US government to persuade the American public that America's
commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life
is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and
anger, it's an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were
true, it's reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's
economic and military dominance—the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon—were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not
the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that
led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and
democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and
support to exactly the opposite things—to military and
economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious
It must be hard
for ordinary Americans so recently bereaved to look up at
the world with their eyes full of tears and encounter what
might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't
indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise.
The tired wisdom of knowing that what goes around,
eventually comes around. American people ought to know
that it is not them, but their government's policies that
are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they
themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers,
their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their
cinema, are universally welcomed. |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
It's
just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired
wisdom of knowing that what goes around,
eventually comes around. American people ought to
know that it is not them, but their government's
policies that are so hated. |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
All of us have been
moved by the courage and grace shown by
firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary
office-goers in the days and weeks that followed
the attacks.
America's grief at what happened has been immense
and immensely public. It would be grotesque to
expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish.
However, it will be a pity if, instead of using
this as |
|
|
an opportunity
to try and understand why September 11 happened, Americans
use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow
to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls
to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the
harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we
will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced.
The world will probably never know what motivated those
particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular
American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no
suicide notes, no political messages, no organisation has
claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their
belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural
human instinct for survival or any desire to be
remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale
down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than
their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the
world as we know it. In the absence of information,
politicians, political commentators, writers (like myself)
will invest the act with their own politics, with their
own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of
the political climate in which the attacks took place, can
only be a good thing.
But war is
looming large. Whatever remains to be said, must be said
quickly.
Before America places itself at the helm of the
"international coalition against terror", before
it invites (and coerces) countries to actively participate
in its almost godlike mission—Operation Infinite
Justice—it would help if some small clarifications are
made. For example, Infinite Justice for whom? Is this
America's War against Terror in America or against Terror
in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the
tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of 5
million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the
destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of
several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of
some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock
Exchange? Or is it more than that?
In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State,
was asked on national television what she felt about the
fact that 5,00,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of
US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a
very hard choice", but that all things considered,
"we think the price is worth it." Madeleine
Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued
to travel the world representing the views and aspirations
of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions
against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die. |
bigotry and unimaginable
genocide (outside America)?
|
|