Emergency response and the September 11 attacks

¶ … war on international terrorism and terrorism inside the U.S.A. is the main theme of mass media and political agendas. War on terrorism opens the eyes of Americans on modern geopolitical situation telling them about events in the remote and unknown parts of the world. Some 5 years ago most of Americans experienced trouble telling anything about Middle East countries, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, the only thing they could probably say was "they are in war." But somehow the war of those countries concerned Americans on September 11, 2001. Today it had become a tradition to divide modern American history and foreign policy on two periods: before 9/11 and after 9/11. Analysis of historians, political scientists, specialists of Middle East issues had shown that American government's imperial policies which were promoted since early 20th century to defend the interests of American corporations worldwide led to the development of uncontrolled terrorism and anti-American, anti-globalist movement among the countries which supported fundamentalist Muslim ideas. Promoting principles of democracy and spreading economical and political influence in the third world, American administration often supported military regimes, insurgent fighters, guerillas who were loyal to American protectionism. It's hard to define who is "right" or who is "wrong" in civil conflicts, the only prism through which USA evaluated those fighting groups was loyalty to the U.S.A., but not loyalty of these fighters to their own people. It would be very correct to call all participants in civil war "terrorists" no matter which side they belong to, as they bring sufferings, death and damage to peaceful civilians. If fact, only few of foreign conflicts where the U.S.A. troops participated directly or indirectly had a real danger for the security of the American people, but the rest of conflicts was fought only to promoute its political and economical influence, which of course can be regarded as support of terrorism or participation in it.

Today it had become obvious that the world after September 11, 2001 had transformed to a new phase with a very abstract hazard for the humanity in the form of international terrorism. It has no territorial borders; it even has no single leader because it would be very vulnerable and weak in case of hierarchal unity and strict organization. Even the word "Al-Kaida" is translated as cell, meaning that every terrorist group can exist and act independently from the rest of organization. In the scope of modern world international terrorism is viewed as an opposite effect of globalization, as anti-globalism of the Muslim radical world, which opposes western culture and western ethical and moral values. The discussion about the origins of Muslim and international terrorism can be very continuous as its premises were set long before 2001 and go all the way back to 1940's -1950's, years of liberation of colonial world. That was an epoch when new independent states of Africa, Asia and to some extend of Latin America were choosing between "capitalist pro-western" and "socialist pro-Soviet." No wonder that both superpowers tried their best to gain favor of local leaders, which would as a result bring strategic cooperation and spread of ideologies. The failure of the two super powers during the Cold War epoch to establish balance of power in the hot spots of the third world, especially in the Middle east region, their manipulations of different religious, financial and political fighting clans led to the creation of alternative military forces which appeared to be able to resist both powers. Such situation became especially obvious in the last half of the 1990's when oil prices started to grow rapidly and funding issues of terrorist groups in the Middle east were protected by the dependence of the whole world from hydrocarbon fuel. Such situation created the most profitable scheme of funding which can not be compared to drug traffic, traditionally practiced by Latin America guerillas and communist radicals of Indo-China region.

Discussing the origins of terrorisms and their tactics we should refer to earlier events in European and world history. Guerilla tactics of warfare, which is often used in war against a stronger enemy, had been often very successful. Guerillas or partisans played a key role in liberation of Europe from Nazis as they represented considerable military power both in the Western and Eastern fronts. Germans regarded their actions, sabotage and sapping activities as terrorism and members of resistance groups who were caught by Nazis were accused mainly in terrorism. Such fact draws a very interesting parallel with modern realities. But not only Nazis but also civilians suffered from their actions, as presence of any guerilla movement is an extra burden for local population, which has to support them financially, with provision and provide them shelter in case of danger. That's why historians say that any kind of insurgent movement has negative impacts on local population. Terrorist tactics used by guerilla fighters in earlier years laid into the basic principles of special troops training, which are successfully used by U.S. Army Intelligence and CIA. There is no secret that special military groups of the U.S.A. army such as commandos are often used as instructors for local troops of insurgents in different parts of the world. American instructors took part in trainings of insurgents in Angola, Latin America countries, Pakistan (against Soviets during their invasion of Afghanistan) and Caribbean and it's often very difficult to differe4nciate between insurgents and terrorists. From this point it's symbolic to mention the joke of St. Augustine about Alexander the Great and a pirate: "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (St. Augustine, The City of God)

Today president Bush propagandizes doctrine of "liberation of the world from terrorism and evil." After September 11, 2001 he said that America was ready to declare war to any state, which supported terrorism. After invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq today Bush tells about possibility of war with Syria, Venezuela and North Korea. But at the same time it's important to note that USA provided shelter for some persons, who were declared terrorists in their own countries. Such strategy looks like promoting of double standards and in many respects it contradicts principles of American foreign policy and military doctrine.

Noam Chomsky in his critical works about modern geopolitical strategies of the U.S.A. tries to discuss this problem from the dialectical point-of-view, criticizing its attitudes towards a number of regimes worldwide, which were democratic but chose independent way of development from American corporations. It's a well-known fact that since 1959 the U.S.A. supported terrorist activity of Cuban refugees after Batista's fall. These activities included unsuccessful operation of marines in Bay of Pigs, shooting of civilians and bombing in Havana. A special place takes the crash of airplane of Cuban airlines prepared by Orlando Bosch in 1979. It's an interesting fact that president Bush vetoed the decision of Justice Department to refuse asylum to Bosch in 1989, as a result Bosch continues to live in the U.S.A. Among other persons, who are declared terrorists in their home countries, but who live in the U.S.A. is Emmanuel Constant, the leader of Para militarists from Haiti, who terrorized peaceful civilians in 1990-1994. E. Constant, also known as "Toto," took part in overthrow of Haitian president Aristide. He is accused in death of nearly 5000 civilians who died from terror of FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Ha ti), which actions were aided by CIA.

The deal is that not all terrorists are the same. Those who share interests of American administration cannot be called "terrorists," they are insurgents who "fight for the freedom of their country." Some 2 decades ago Osama Ben Laden was also among such insurgents ("our kind of guy") during the years of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today it's a well-known fact that operative and quick work of CIA in detecting guilty in September 11 tragedy was simply limited to "reading old Middle east notebooks with names of former friends from 1980's."

But as we know today the fruits of the war on terrorism are not so obvious, moreover a big number of people have an opinion that the war on terrorism is lost. The number of terror victims continues to grow from the date of 9/11, espcially after the start of campaign in Iraq. Today the list of the cities, which suffered from the war on terrorism, was supplemented by Baghdad, NY, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, Moscow, Istanbul, Jakarta, London, etc.

Today more people are sure that the concept of Bush's "preventive war" is euphemism, which can be used in order to declare war to any country. The results of the war are not very persuasive, as Iraq turns into a very expensive and very bloody project for American nation.

Noam Chomsky in his famous work "9-11" writes that the "war on terrorism" was not a new project for the U.S.A., as it was practiced for more than 20 years before 2001. War on terrorism took an important place in the foreign policy of Reagan's administration, in administration of Bush (father) and in administration of democrat Clinton. First, the war on terrorism was directed against the spread of communism and pro-Soviet tendencies in the developing countries as the U.S.S.R. supported and aided Marxist insurgents who fought in Latin America and Arabs in the Middle East (Lebanon and Palestine).

Chomsky gives a clear image of the approach used by the U.S.A. And its NATO allies in description of their militarism: "Intelligent bombs" in Iraq, "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo. The U.S.A. never used the word "war" to describe that. Now they are talking about war against a nameless enemy. Why? At first the U.S. used the word "crusade," but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist their allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons. The rhetoric therefore shifted to "war." The Gulf War of 1991 was called a "war." The bombing of Serbia was called a "humanitarian intervention," by no means a novel usage. That was a standard description of European imperialist ventures in the 19th century." (Chomsky, 9-11)

Chomsky writes that long before NATO the term "humanitarian intervention" was by Hitler when he annexed Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, by Japan when they seized Manchuria and by Mussolini when he captured Ethiopia.

In recent practice after September 11, there existed a number of examples in actions of American administration, which can be regarded as acts of terror and violence against civilians. For example on September 16, NYT reported that the U.S.A. demanded from Pakistan: "the eliminated of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population"-the food that is keeping probably millions of people just this side of starvation" (John Burns, Islamabad, New York Times).

A very important fact should be also added about relations of the U.S.A. And Great Britain with Suddam Hussein in 1980's. Hussein's oil-rich Iraq was one of the most secular states in the Arab world; it was one of the most loyal regimes to interests of European powers and the U.S.A. Noam Chomsky writes that both USA and U.K. supported Hussein during his purges against religious and ethnic minorities, including gas attacks in Kurdistan.

All these facts witness about divergence of the U.S.A. aims in global politics and their means. Close cooperation of the U.S. with favorable regimes abroad, despite the fact that most of them are inhuman (for example Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others) only witnesses that principles of democracy, liberty and freedom, which are propagandized by the most developed countries of West, cannot be achieved on practice. There always appears a need to sacrifice anything in order to achieve good for chosen: exploitation of less developed countries with dependent economies is the price, which USA pays for the prosperity of its citizens. It has become quite obvious that principles of democracy and freedom in economy fail to work effectively in global scale, especially in the countries, which have their own interests, which may contradict to the interests of the U.S.A., U.K. And other powerful economies.

Today in the epoch of globalization and domination of international corporative business such contradictions look especially sharp, as energy resources which are vital for civilization's development are in the hands of countries which have different principles of development (Russian federation, Muslim world). In order to win this prolonged war it's enough to use financial power to subsidize opposition in these countries; even to support terrorists, which may destroy growing power and stability of these countries. Such practices were obviously used in Russia's war against its separatist province Chechnya. A number of questions in this war are still unsolved, and today no one will definitely say that this war was the war for independence from Russia. The key factor in this war was oil and money, but not the desire of Chechen people to become independent. The terrorism of Chechens is nearly always called as "actions of insurgents" in Western and even in American press, often these terrorists are called insurgents, despite the fact that they are financed by Al-Kaida. Such manipulations in media had become a common practice since the beginning of the Cold War.