Contradictions in the Policies of the U.S. "War on Terrorism"

As'ad Abu Khalil has recently published this excellent article that highlights the many contradictions in America's so-called "War on Terror", and underscores the aims of what is in reality a war of terror aimed at subverting the globe under political and economical hegemony. In it, he outlines what he indicates as double standards on part of the American government regarding its foreign policy, and how in effect Bush spreads not democracy, but dictatorship and corruption.

Bush saw 9-11 as an excuse to sacrifice the liberty and rights of his people in the name of National Security and in "defense" in this "war on terror". This manifested itself in the so-called "Patriot" Act, which should be renamed to the Treason Act, for betraying someone's privacy and freedom in the name of "security" is not at all Patriotic or even (ugh) Nationalistic. However, to Bush's advantage, 9-11 drew out more support for the President at first as it occurred during the first few months of his pResidency (in case you were wondering, I meant to stress on the "R" and downplay the "p"). The article itself continues to explain how Arab regimes are involved, and how this War of Terror is supplanting more terrorism, not "getting rid of it".

For the sake of time, I will outline the main points that As'ad has discussed. These main points involve goals of this farcical war that Bush himself has not mentioned, but which are in fact in effect as we speak. One of the goals involves:

الإصرار على وحدانية السيطرة الأميركية العالمية (سياسيا واقتصاديا وثقافيا) ومحاربة (بكل الوسائل) معارضيها.

Translated, this means strengthening the American political, cultural, and economical hegemony, and crushing down all opposition by any means possible. This was quite evident in the past 50 years, during the "Cold War", when America ousted many democratically-elected leaders of dozens of states for the sole purpose that those leaders resisted American interests in the region because they harm the interests of the local populace. Such states include Greece, Iran, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba, among many others. Sadly, it seems that most Nationalist American rightwing politicians are still stuck in a Cold-War era mentality: there's "us" and "them", even though "them" involves people largely disassociated with the "Clash of Civilizations" that America is continuously promoting as a chief propaganda buzzphrase for the so-called "War on Terror" (but I think they're getting smarter: a neocon on this forum once called me an "Izlamocentrist" for defending Islam, thereby scoring another point for neoconservative vocabulary).

While the second and third points pretty much outline the first point, but with emphasis on the Middle East and Islamic countries, and with the third point stating that diplomacy is not an option when it comes to crushing resistance to American demands, the fourth point is as follows:

فرض رقابة مشددة على العرب والمسلمين وتحركاتهم حول العالم, خصوصا في الدول الغربية.

, or surveillance on Muslims and Arabs and their whereabouts, especially in Western nations. While many other nations refuse to comply with such a policy, America's Muslims feel under constant scrutiny, with all the wiretapping that has been going on.

The fifth point involves something closer to home:

النظر إلى النموذج الصهيوني في فرض إرادة إسرائيل بالقوة المفرطة على الشعب الفلسطيني بعين الإعجاب، بالرغم من الفشل التاريخي للمشروع الصهيوني بسبب إرادة المقاومة والرفض لدى شعب فلسطين.

This refers to the rejection of Zionism by most Arabs and Muslims in the MidEast, and underscores the failure of Israel against Hizbullah during the late summer, and how Israel continues to undermine not only the PA, but passive Palestinian resistance. As'ad refers to places like Bil'in, a scene of passive resistance to Zionist landgrabbing and colonialism, and where such resistance is often crushed by the Israeli army, or is undermind by settler activity. This, of course, is terrorism: innocent civilians are driven to fear whenever they resist state policies that seek to harm them or uproot them from their homes. Nothing new, really, but America's silence in the issue seems to hint at the unwavering support for Israel, and complicity with crushing such passive resistance... or it may mean that Bush doesn't get his news from fair and balanced news sources.

America is also after this fifth goal:

الاستعانة بالأمم المتحدة عند الحاجة خصوصا بوجود أمين عام مطواع مثل كوفي أنان, وتجاهل المنظمة الدولية عند الحاجة أيضا.

It's not surprising that the U.S. has hypocritically made use of International Law to suit its own ends. International Law is usually against the smaller guys whenever the U.S. is in control, but let's cut to the chase. America has vetoed every last one of the 200+ resolutions filed against Israel for violations of international law. However, it used International Law to its own advanatage when it pointed out U.N. security resolutions in favor of the War on Iraq, which was unjustified to begin with. You might be as outraged as I am, but when you're talking about a neoconservative war machine that has been controlling the U.N. for over 50 years just to suit its own advantages, then you'll understand the duplicity behind the Bush Administration. Also,

عدم التمييز بين المنظمات العربية والإسلامية ووصف معارضي الهيمنة الأميركية بالإرهاب.

America seeks to blur the distinction between Arab and Muslim nations (which is probably advantageous in the sense that all Muslim nations might unite, but disadvantageous in the sense that the U.S. has a scapegoat to blame for the "mistakes" in his "War on Terror", and therefore unite the world against Muslims), and also associates all opponents of American imperialism with terrorism. That is in essence totalitarian: Bush seeks to shut out all criticism of his "War on Terror", which reminds me of the time he actually criticized Amnesty International for speaking out against the prisoner abuse common in American jails, like the famous one on Guantamo Bay. Now, I know I might have said this before, but think of a spoilt kid who is allowed to do whatever he wants. He does something wrong, and absolves himself from responsibility of his actions. Now, replace "kid" with "Bush" and you won't see much of a difference there.

The final point I will illustrate is pretty much the same as the first one, but it's more explicit:

محاولة تنصيب "حامد كرزاي" في كل بلدان العالم العربي وعدم السماح لحلفاء أميركا ولو بهامش صغير من حرية الحركة والتعبير.

This means installing a "Hamid Karzai" in every nation of this Earth (i.e. a leader who would mainly give in to America's economical and political demands at the expense of his own people, and allow for a pervasion of harmful elements of American culture that might corrupt the culture of the nation in question), even at the expense of the freedom of the people of the said nation. In extreme cases, the leader would be more like the Shah Reza Pahlevi of Iran, or the former Nazi collaborator and brutal anti-socialist dictator, George Papadopoulos. This, of course, is contradictory to America's stated goal of allowing nations to be democratic and being able to choose whatever leader they want, even if America's choice doesn't provide as much freedom and reform as the best one available.

I think these contradictions should be self-evident. Bush's empty use of "democracy", "freedom", and "civilization" are what they are: empty words that drive the neoconservative masses against Muslims and Arabs, as well as those who oppose American foreign policy, etc. I just hope that Americans who voted for Bush for his second term come to their senses and vote for a leader who seriously knows the meanings of the 3 aforementioned words. Only time will tell...

Salaam, from
Saracen