COVER STORY: How US warmongers exploited 9/11
BY NORM
DIXON

In the week before the first anniversary of the devastating September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, TV networks aired a
seemingly never-ending string of “special events” featuring “exclusive” or
“never before seen” footage of the collapse of the twin towers of the World
Trade Center (WTC) and its aftermath. People around the world again
experienced the horror, anger and tragedy of that terrible day, when almost
3000 working people were murdered.

Culminating on the anniversary of the day itself, thousands of journalists
and TV presenters from across the globe will converge at “ground zero” in New
York for “remembrance and reflection”. Solemn ceremonies will be telecast and
patriotic speeches by top US politicians broadcast, restating Washington's
determination to pursue its “war on terrorism”.

But by the end of the 9/11 anniversary hoopla, after the thousands of hours
of TV time and the column-kilometres published in the world's newspapers and
magazines, you can be sure that the most glaring aspect of the post-9/11
period will have remained unmentionable by all but the most honest
commentators: that Washington's “war on terrorism” is a cynical fraud.

The most repeated 9/11 media cliche is that on that day “the world
changed”. However, few commentators have bothered to explain how.

September 11 did mark a change in the US and world politics — just how
permanent remains to be seen. On that day, the US rulers realised that those
awful acts of terrorism provided them with a golden opportunity to achieve the
US capitalist ruling class' long-held objective of world domination — the
“American century” it predicted was at hand at the end of World War II.

Top officials in President George Bush junior's administration seized that
opportunity, coldly calculating that the traumatised US people would now
support significant military interventions by US ground troops abroad, in the
guise of fighting “terrorism”, even if there was a risk of large numbers of US
casualties — something they have refused to accept since the end of the
Vietnam War in 1975.

Before September 11, Washington had long labelled governments and political
movements it opposed as “terrorists”. The US State Department each year
publishes a list of countries that “support terrorism”; for years it has
included Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Until
September 11, that was not enough to convince the US people to support
sustained military operations against them.

Almost as soon as the smoke from the rubble of the WTC had cleared, the
Bush administration moved to take the focus of the “war on terrorism” from the
alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities — Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
network of religious reactionaries — to US-defined “terrorism” and “evil” in
general.

“From this day forward”, Bush told Congress on September 20, “any nation
that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded … as a hostile
regime”. The “first war of the 21st Century” will not end, he declared, “until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”.

The bombing of Afghanistan began on October 7. On November 21, Bush
outlined what has become known as the “Bush doctrine”: “Afghanistan is just
the beginning of 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 these threats are
defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil
ones, and we will win…

“America has a message for the nations of the world: if you harbour
terrorists, you're terrorists; if you train or arm a terrorist, you are a
terrorist; if you feed or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will
be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”

On November 26, with Iraq now in his cross-hairs, Bush expanded the scope
of the “war on terrorism” further when he stated, “If they develop weapons of
mass destruction that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held
accountable”.

The transformation was complete with Bush's January 29 State of the Union
speech. The next stage of Washington's “war on terrorism” was officially
delinked from the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden
or al Qaeda. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had suddenly taken the elusive Bin
Laden's place as public enemy number one.

The “axis of evil” that now topped Washington's hit-list — Iraq, Iran and
North Korea — has no proven links with al Qaeda, bin Laden or the 9/11
attacks. Nor do three of the four organisations Bush cited by name — Hamas,
Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah — have a connection with al Qaeda; their “crime”
was to oppose Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine.

Bush also bluntly stated that the US had the right to unilaterally launch
military action against “terrorists” inside any country, and launch preemptive
military strikes against states that Washington suspected of developing
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons: “Some governments will be timid in
the face of terror. And make no mistake about it, if they do not act, America
will.”

Bush reminded the world that US vengeance has no geographic limits. “Our
armed forces [in Afghanistan] have delivered a message now clear to every
enemy of the United States: even 7000 miles away, across oceans and
continents, on mountain tops and in caves, you will not escape the justice of
this nation”, he warned.

In less than six months, Bush's “war on terrorism” had morphed seamlessly
from action directed at the alleged perpetrators and backers of the 9/11 mass
murders into a war against any Third World state or political movement that
Washington considers too independent, too defiant or a hurdle to the goal of
US global hegemony.

Bush's State of the Union speech was the formal announcement that
Washington is unashamedly seeking world domination. As the February 1 New
York Times editorial noted: “The application of power and intimidation has
returned to the forefront of American foreign policy… Not since America's
humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam more than a quarter-century ago has US
foreign policy relied so heavily on non-nuclear military force, or the threat
of it, to defend American interests around the world.”

Since the end of World War II, the US ruling class' overarching strategic
goal has been the maintenance of overwhelming military, economic and political
dominance and the prevention of the emergence of other powers — great or
regional — that could challenge that position. This goal was dubbed the
“American century” at the end of World War II.

However, Washington's expectations of total world domination were
frustrated for nearly 50 years by the industrial and military strength of the
Soviet Union and the national liberation struggles, beginning with the victory
of the Chinese revolution in 1949 and the Cuban revolution in 1959, followed
by the wave of successful independence struggles in Africa and Asia throughout
the 1960s that culminated in the historic defeat of US forces in Vietnam in
1975.

Washington's defeat in Vietnam was a political defeat as well as a military
one. Over time, with the assistance of a growing anti-war movement, the US
people had come to realise that the US rulers had cynically lied when they
proclaimed the bloody war against the people of Vietnam as a fight for
democracy — at the cost of 50,000 young US soldiers' lives and the deaths of
millions of Vietnamese — when in fact it was an unjust, imperialist war of
aggression.

The “Vietnam syndrome” was born, and for more than 25 years, it made it
politically impossible for Washington to deploy large numbers of ground troops
in “hot” wars overseas.

Militarily and politically hamstrung by the Vietnam syndrome, US
imperialism suffered further setbacks in the late 1970s with the victories of
the independence struggles in Angola and Mozambique, a revolution in Ethiopia
in 1977, the 1978 Afghan revolution, and the revolutionary processes begun in
Nicaragua and Grenada in 1979.

The overthrow of the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979 was also a serious threat
to US imperialism's hold on the strategic oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Under President Ronald Reagan, who came to power in 1980, the US ruling
class launched a counter-attack against what it dishonestly dubbed “Soviet
expansionism”. Washington massively funded and armed counter-revolutionary
bandits and terrorists, such as RENAMO in Mozambique, UNITA in Angola, the
contras in Nicaragua and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Reagan also boosted US
support to the apartheid regime in South Africa and dictatorial regimes like
those in Pakistan, Indonesia and Chile.

However, Reagan's strategy was also specifically engineered to avoid
putting US troops in harm's way. When Reagan ordered US troops to invade
Grenada in 1983 (and when George Bush senior ordered the invasion of Panama in
1989), the operation relied on massive firepower before elite US troops
entered and then left as quickly as possible.

However, Reagan massively boosted US war spending across the board,
including on the “star wars” missile defence system. The goal of this fanciful
project was to achieve the ability to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on
the USSR without fear of retaliation. Attempts to match these massive military
expenditures played a role in “bleeding” the Soviet Union, hastening its
collapse.

With the demise of the USSR in 1991, the US rulers hoped that the “American
century” was again on the horizon. George Bush senior hailed the US victory
over Iraq in the 1990-91 Gulf War as also marking the “end of the Vietnam
syndrome” and declared that Washington would now oversee a “New World Order”.

However, he spoke too soon. Bush senior had been not prepared to test the
Vietnam syndrome. The US military had relied on the use of its overwhelming
air superiority and its massive technological edge to avoid significant ground
operations. Fear of the Vietnam syndrome in part deterred Bush from sending US
troops into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Throughout the 1990s, this was the pattern of US military operations. The
Vietnam syndrome was shown to be alive and kicking with the public outcry in
the US to the deaths of 18 soldiers during Washington's “humanitarian”
intervention in Somalia.

The Bush senior and the Clinton administrations clothed their military
actions in the guise of defending human rights, halting “ethnic cleansing” or
providing humanitarian assistance. They were conducted under the cover of
regional or UN “peacekeeping” operations and were generally conditional on
winning multilateral endorsement.

The American people's hopes that the end of the Cold War would result in
much reduced military spending and a “peace dividend” also frustrated US
ruling class demands for the maintenance of military spending at Cold War
levels.

With 9/11, the dominant wing in Bush junior's administration clearly
believes the Vietnam syndrome has finally been put to rest.

The claim that the attacks on the WTC “changed the world” are part of a
myth that is being carefully crafted: that the launch of the “war on
terrorism” was simply a response to the terrible events of one day.

This myth-making is exemplified by a melodramatic September 5, 2002,
article by Associated Press White House correspondent Ron Fournier: “In a
cramped nuclear shelter deep beneath the White House, President Bush stared
across a spare wooden table and told his national security team, `Get the
troops ready'. Twelve hours after the terrorist strikes, moments after his
nationally televised address, Bush was preparing for a war that would
transform and define his presidency … `This is a time for self defence', he
told his war council. `This is our time'.”

The truth is more straightforward. In the 12 months following 9/11, Bush
junior's administration has cynically seized upon and exploited the terror
attacks to launch a drive to achieve the US ruling class dream of an “American
century” or “New World Order”— an unchallenged global US military, political
and economic empire.

The power behind the throne of George Bush junior's regime is vice
president Dick Cheney and a warmongering team made up of veterans of the
Reagan and Bush senior administrations.

Throughout the 1990s, these “hawks” organised for their return to power,
formulated their programs for unchallenged US hegemony and advocated the
unbridled use of US military power through a network of tightly interlocked
right-wing ruling-class think-tanks — the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC), the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Victory over
Terrorism and the Center for Security Policy. The Murdoch-owned Weekly
Standard and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal
championed their views (and continue to do so).

The lessons of the Bush senior and Clinton administration, the new
“centurions” constantly claimed, was that US power should not be constrained
by attempts to balance US interests with those of its European or other
allies. Alliances, international organisations or multilateral treaties must
not get in the way of the unfettered exercise of US military or economic
power.

Other key planks pushed by the hawks have been unconditional military and
political support for Israel — Washington's key ally in the Middle East — and
implacable opposition to any regimes in that region that could pose a threat
to US domination of the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf. As a result, a
trademark of the centurions has been extreme hostility towards the regimes in
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and even Lebanon, as well as cheering every move made
by Tel Aviv to crush the national liberation movement in occupied Palestine.

In 1997, the PNAC was established to promote “American global leadership”.
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (now US defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (now deputy
defence secretary) and Jeb Bush (Bush junior's brother) were signatories to
the PNAC's founding “statement of principle”. It stated bluntly:
“[Conservatives] seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both
present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposely
promotes American principles abroad; and a national leadership that accepts
the United States' global responsibilities…

“America has a role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia and
the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our
fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us
that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet
threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have
taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

The PNAC argued that the US must “increase defense spending significantly”
and “modernize our armed forces … if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today” ; “strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to
challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values”; “promote the cause of
political and economic freedom abroad”; and “accept responsibility for
America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order
friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles”.

“Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today”, the PNAC conceded. “But it is necessary if the United
States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our
security and our greatness in the next.”

In September 2000, the PNAC fleshed out its imperial vision with the
release of a report, Rebuilding America's defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century. The project's participants included
Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby (now Cheney's chief of staff) and Weekly Standard
editor William Kristol.

The report's introduction noted that the US “is the world's only
superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological
leadership and the world's largest economy… At present the US faces no global
rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this
advantageous position as far into the future as possible”. To preserve this
“desirable strategic situation”, the report stated, the US “requires a
globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future”.

The report's authors admitted that they had built upon the 1992 draft of
the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), which was prepared for Cheney,
who was then US defence secretary in the Bush senior administration, Wolfowitz
and Libby.

This document stated bluntly that the US must continue to “discourage ...
advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or ... even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role ... [To achieve this, the US]
must retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing ... those wrongs
which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or
which seriously unsettle international relations.”

This was an admission that the massive build-up of US military might in
Europe, Asia and the Middle East after 1945 was not simply directed at
containing “Soviet expansionism”, crushing Third World revolutions and
controlling natural resources such as Middle Eastern oil — as vital to US
interests as they were. It was also aimed at enmeshing its potential
capitalist rivals — Britain, France, Germany and Japan — within US-dominated
military alliances designed to prevent them developing independent armed
forces.

The PNAC report endorsed the DPG's “blueprint for maintaining US
preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and interests...
The basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound.”

The PNAC report recommended that the US turn around the 1990s “decade of
defence neglect” and boost war spending to a minimum of 3.5-3.8% of GDP (up
from around 3%) by adding US$15 billion to US$20 billion annually; increase
the numbers of active-duty military personnel from 1.4 million to 1.6 million;
and “reposition US forces ... by shifting permanently based forces to
southeast Europe [the Balkans] and Southeast Asia [preferably the Philippines
and/or Australia], and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect
growing US strategic concerns in East Asia [meaning the `containment' of China
and the `defence' of Taiwan]”.

The report also urged Washington to develop the capability to “fight and
win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” and at the same time “perform
the `constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions”; maintain “nuclear strategic superiority” by developing
smaller “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons and resuming nuclear testing; develop
the “star wars” global “missile defence system”; and “control the new
`international commons' of space and `cyberspace' and pave the way for the
creation of a new military service — US Space Forces — with the mission of
space control[!]”.

As all the above indicates, the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz cabal have had a
long-standing program for the expansion of US hegemony. What it lacked was the
“trigger” to implement it or the existence of a serious enough “threat” that
would convince the US people to abandon their desire for a “peace dividend”
and their opposition to US war casualties abroad.

Which is why the 9/11 attacks were a godsend for the Bush gang. Washington
immediately recognised the opportunity with which it was presented. As Bush
junior's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted: “I really think
this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947 in that the events ... started
shifting the tectonic plates in international politics. And it's important to
try to seize on that and position American interests and institutions before
they harden again.”

Since 9/11, Bush's new centurions have fast-tracked the implementation of
their agenda in case the “window of opportunity” closes. They have won a
massive increase in military spending of US$48 billion, to US$379.3 billion,
in 2002-2003. Adding non-Pentagon military spending, mostly by the energy
department for the nuclear weapons program, total military spending will be
US$396.1 billion.

A further US$38 billion is to be spent on “homeland defence” — mainly for
the plethora of US police agencies. Washington has projected that the war
budget will steadily increase to more that US$451 billion by 2007, a 30%
increase.

Washington has signalled — with its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol on
greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International
Criminal Court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty — that US military,
economic and political power will not be subject to any form of international
constraint.

It has been revealed that the US has plans to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states under guise of eliminating the threat of “weapons of mass
destruction”. There have also been reports that US special forces will soon be
authorised to kill or capture “terrorists” anywhere in the world, whenever the
opportunity arises, without having to obtain permission from the relevant
government.

As a result of its war to overthrow the Taliban, Washington has secured a
permanent military bases and stationed tens of thousands of troops for the
first time in the increasingly strategic Central Asian region. From these
bases, the US can more easily “contain” Russia and China, control the emerging
oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea region, strengthen its hold over the
Persian Gulf and increase further its military stranglehold on most of the
world's vital energy resources.

Using the cover of the “war on terrorism”, Washington has increased or
resumed military funding for notoriously repressive regimes — including as
Yemen, Georgia, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Colombia and the former
Soviet Central Asian republics — as well as sending thousands of troops and
military advisers to help them crush anti-government movements.

Washington has given the green light for Russia to continue its brutal
campaign against the Chechen freedom struggle and the Chinese government's
repression of separatists in Xinjiang.

The September 11 attacks and the subsequent US “war on terrorism” has
presented the US ruling-class warmongers with their biggest opportunity yet to
“cure” the Vietnam syndrome. The greatest test of this will be the coming US
invasion of Iraq.

Anti-war activists need to organise and mobilise in massive numbers to stop
this war and to revive as rapidly as possible the seemingly dormant anti-war
consciousness of the US people. Solidarity must be offered to the inevitable
resistance to the imperialist warmongers that will develop throughout the US
empire.

From Green Left Weekly, September 11, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

<=0 alt="What is Green
Left?">

http://www.greenleft.org.au

Green Left Weekly, Australia's socialist newspaper
Issue
#508
September 11, 2002

Green Left Weekly provides news, information, opinion and debate from
an environmental and left perspective.

Featured this week: HOW US WARMONGERS EXPLOIT 9/11
Green Left Weekly
explains how the Bush gang have hijacked the fear generated by "9/11" to
mobilise public support behind their plans for US global domination.

COVER STORY
How US
warmongers exploit 9/11

FREE SPEECH AIN'T FREE! DONATE TO
GLW
If
you enjoy reading GLW, how about sending us a small (or large) financial
contribution. Click here for details

FEATURES
Refugee
drownings: Labor sabotages inquiry
DSP
discusses major initiative for left unity

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

PHILIPPINES: Asian Peace Alliance formed
SRI LANKA:
Ban on Tamil Tigers lifted
SOUTH
AFRICA: Social movements march on Earth Summit
CUBA:
Global environment more threatened than ever
SOUTH
AFRICA: Mass struggle is the only road
BRITAIN:
When the whirlwind blows
UNITED
STATES: Bush forest fire plan: log it all
Asia
Pacific news briefs
WEST PAPUA:
Military accused of orchestrating Freeport killings

ISSUES
Corporate
elite calls for Democrats split
`We always
put workers first'
Trade
unionism Abbott and Cameron-style
3CR hosts
Timorese radio workers
AMWU
dispute: Cameron's corporate unionism
Big turnout
for militant unions
Refugees,
religion and the war on terror

AUSTRALIAN NEWS
Dayson
takes legal action against AMWU
GLW
correction
Council supports refugees
Young
feminist to stand for women's officer position
Action
Updates
SRC censors refugee campaign
Illawarra
Grammar votes for refugee safe haven
La Trobe
supports refugee safe havens
Howard
receives unexpected welcome at UQ
Ruddock
shouted down
Save Callan Park!
Sydney
Social Forum to discuss anti-WTO protest
West Papuan
leaders meet
Meeting called to organise against WTO
What
Ruddock doesn't want you to know
Refugees
rights speak-out

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Unionists Against Corporate Tyranny on the web
Green Left Weekly available on CD-Rom

CULTURAL DISSENT

Why we hate the banks
Demystifying Nazism
September
11
Afghan refugees to be interviewed on Channel 31

REGULAR FEATURES

and ain't i a woman: US women get poorer and married
Loose
cannons
On the box
Write On:
Letters to Green Left Weekly
Cartoon

ACTIVIST CALENDAR …

Adelaide
Brisbane
& S-E Queensland
Canberra
Darwin
Geelong
Hobart
Launceston
Melbourne
Newcastle
Perth &
Fremantle
Sydney
Wollongong
& NSW South Coast

Articles posted are as they were before proofreading, and prior
to any final changes in the printed version.

All articles appearing in Green Left Weekly, and reprinted here, are
copyright by their authors. However, most regular contributors have granted
permission for their work to be republished by non-profit green, left, human
rights or generally progressive publications.

Where such permission has NOT been granted, articles are marked with
the symbol && in the index above. Before reprinting such an article, or
if uncertain whether your publication is allowed to reprint, please inquire by
e-mail at [email-masked].

ALL cartoons are copyright and must not be reproduced without
permission of the artist.

We like to know what audiences we are reaching, and would
therefore appreciate being informed of any republication (in print or
electronically).

[email-masked]