<<

. 7
( 42 .)



>>


A compelling lust for political, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the
world, divorced from moral considerations? Suggesting that to Americans is akin to
telling them of one's UFO abduction, except that they're more likely to believe the
abduction story.

Earth is not enough

Previous empires could not even imagine it. The American Empire is making detailed
plans for it. Control of outer space. Not only control, but planning for wars there. Let us
mark the words of the gentlemen of the Pentagon:

US Space Command”dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect
US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across
the full spectrum of conflict...During the early portion of the 21st century, space power
will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare...The emerging synergy of
space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum
Dominance...Development of ballistic missile defenses using space systems and planning
for precision strikes from space offers a counter to the worldwide proliferation of WMD
[weapons of mass destruction]... Space is a region with increas-ing commercial, civil,
international and military interests and invest-ments. The threat to these vital systems is
also increasing...Control of Space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of
operations within the space medium and an ability to deny others the use of space, if
required...Control of Space is a complex mission that casts USCINCSPACE [US
Commander-in-Chief of space] in a classic warfighter role and mandates an established
AOR [area of responsibility].54...With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it,
and we're going to keep it.55...We will engage terrestrial targets someday”ships,
airplanes, land targets”from space...We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight
from space and we're going to fight into space.56 (emphasis in original)

In 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted by unanimous acclamation a resolution
calling upon all states "To refrain from placing in orbit around the earth any objects
carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installing
such weapons on celestial bodies or stationing such weapons in outer space in any other
manner."57

This expressed hope is still very much alive today. On January 26, 1999, United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva: "One
concept which is now widely shared is that of maintaining outer space as a weapons-free
environment."

The Madman philosophy

In March 1998, an internal 1995 study, "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence", by the
US Strategic Command, the headquarters responsible for the US strategic nuclear arsenal,
was brought to light. The study stated:

Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an
adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too
fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially
'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the
minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force
of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are
attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries.58

The author of these words would have the world believe that the United States has only
been pretending to be "out of control" or "irrational and vindictive". However, it can be
argued”based on the objective facts of what Washington has inflicted upon the world, as
described in this book”that for more than half a century American foreign policy has, in
actuality, been clinically mad.
On the other hand, the desire for world hegemony, per se, is not necessarily irrational,
whatever else one may think of it. Michael Parenti has pointed out that US foreign policy
"may seem stupid because the rationales offered in its support often sound unconvinc-ing,
leaving us with the impression that policymakers are confused or out of touch. But just
because the public does not understand what they are doing does not mean that national
security leaders are themselves befuddled. That they are fabricators does not mean they
are fools."59

A Truth Commission

In recent years, the people of South Africa, Guatemala and El Salvador have held official
Truth Commissions to look squarely in the eyes of the crimes committed by their
governments. There will never be any such official body to investigate and document the
wide body of Washington's crimes, although several unofficial citizens' commissions
have done so over the years for specific interventions, such as in Vietnam, Panama and
Iraq; their findings were of course ignored by the establishment media (whose ideology is
a belief that it doesn't have any ideology).

In the absence of an official Truth Commission in the United States, this book is offered
up as testimony.

Washington, DC, January 2000
PART I

Ours and Theirs: Washington's Love/Hate Relationship with
Terrorists and Human-Rights Violators


CHAPTER 1 : Why Do Terrorists Keep Picking on the United States?
Washington's war on terrorism is as doomed to failure as its war on drugs has been.

"I think the American people need to know that we live in a world where by virtue of
America's leadership to some degree, by virtue of a degree of fanaticism by some people,
we will be targeted," declared National Security Adviser Sandy Berger after the
bombings of two US African embassies on August 7, 1998.1

When asked "What is it that these terrorists want from the United States?", Richard
Haass, head of the foreign policy department at the Brookings Institution, replied: "Well,
the answer is it's not anything we're simply doing. It is who we are. It's the fact that we're
the most powerful country in the world. It's the fact that we're a secular country...It is
simply who we are and it is our existence that really bothers them."2

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times would say amen. Terrorists, he wrote, "have
no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized
hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam."3

Finally, we have President Clinton: "Americans are targets of terrorism, in part, because
we act to advance peace and democracy and because we stand united against terrorism."4

These are some of the platitudes our leaders and pundits feed us after each terrorist attack
against an American installation. It is...the image of America the beauteous on its hill, so
envied by all that it is subject to attacks by terrorists who cannot bear so much sheer
goodness to triumph in a world that belongs to their master, the son of morning himself,
Satan. Gore Vidal 5

What our leaders and pundits never let slip is that the ter-rorists”whatever else they
might be”might also be rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds
they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply
concerned by what they see as social, political or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and
the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United
States...
The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981; the bombard-ment of Beirut in 1983
and 1984; the bombing of Libya in 1986; the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in
1987; the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988; the shooting down of two
more Libyan planes in 1989; the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991; the
continuing sanctions and bombings against Iraq; the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan
in 1998; the habitual support of Israel despite its belligerence and routine torture, and
condemnation of Arab resistance to it; the double standard applied to Israeli terrorism,
such as the wilful massacre of 106 Lebanese at the UN base at Qana in 1996; the
continued persecution of Libya, now nearing the end of its second decade; the abduction
of wanted men from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and
Albania; the large military and hi'tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and
elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region...these are some of the American actions that can
turn an Arab or a Muslim into a fanatic, into a terrorist, into a decrier of "America, the
Great Satan".

But those who feed us the platitudes know this. They're merely performing the time-
honored public dumbshow. Mir Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani who shot five people outside
CIA headquarters in 1993, told the FBI that he had done so to protest US policies toward
Muslims in the Middle East, including the bombing of Iraq.6 Two days after Kansi's
conviction in 1997, four Americans were gunned down in Karachi, Pakistan while
driving in a car. "I think the linkage is quite evident," said a former CIA counter-
terrorism expert about the Karachi slayings.7

The bombing of PanAm 103 in 1988 was clearly initiated by Iran as an act of retaliation
for the shooting down of its own passenger plane by the United States a few months
earlier, and American officials well know this. The bombing of the two US embassies in
Africa in 1998 took place on the eighth anniversary, to the very day, of the arrival of the
first US troops in Saudi Arabia, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And during the
US bombing of Iraq in 1991, there were dozens of terrorist attacks against American
institutions all over the Middle East and elsewhere. Did US officials and the media not
pick up any hint of cause-and-effect? They did, but subsequently, when it's been platitude
time, they suddenly become pre-Alzheimer. As the media critic Norman Solomon
observed:

When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating. When they
respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond
with further attacks, we're retaliating again.


Good and bad terrorists

On March 13, 1996, the United States assembled 27 world leaders in Egypt at an "anti-
terror" conference after a wave of suicide bombers had killed dozens of people in Israel.
President Clinton asserted: "We must be clear in our condemnation of those who resort to
terror. Violence has no place in the future we all seek in the Middle East."8 At the very
same time, in Iraq, the US was supporting with millions of dollars the Iraqi National
Accord, which was using car bombs and other bombings in Baghdad and other cities,
trying to destabilize Saddam Hussein. It was estimated that the bombings had taken the
lives of more than 100 civilians in Baghdad alone during the preceding few years. Two
weeks after the Egyptian conference, the attending countries met in Washington for a
follow-up on counter-terrorism. Among the topics discussed were the flow of funds to
terrorist groups.9

The following month, President Clinton, with much fanfare, signed the Anti-terrorism
Act, which bars financial transactions between American corporations and countries
accused of supporting terrorism. Four months later, the administration quietly exempted
Sudan, to allow a US oil company to negotiate an oil deal. At the same time, Syria was
granted an exemption, to encourage participa-tion by Damascus in the Middle East peace
process.10

In February 2000, there arose a new proposal for a major international conference to
combat terrorism. On this occasion the United States was quick to throw cold water on
the very idea, saying it would have no "practical benefits". The proposed conference was
backed by the 119-member Non-Aligned Movement of Third World Nations. One of the
issues the conference hoped to address was how to distinguish between a "terrorist" and a
"freedom fighter." citing the examples of the Hizbollah and Hamas groups fighting Israel.
The question of "state terrorism" also loomed as a possible conference issue”for
example, should military attacks by armed forces of any state be deemed acts of terrorism
when civilians are killed? The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia had been discussed
as a case in point.11

FBI definition of terrorism

The FBI defines international terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence
committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or
whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate
or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of
political or social objectives."12

The FBI definition, although meant to describe acts directed against the United States,
would seem to cover rather well countless acts of the US government itself. Many of
these acts will be found in the pages of this book, under the headings of bombings,
interventions, torture, chemical and biological warfare, etc.



CHAPTER 2 : America's Gift to the World”the Afghan Terrorist
Alumni

Osama bin Laden”alleged to have been the mastermind behind the bombing of two US
embassies in Africa in 1998”was not always on Washington's hate list. He and many
other Islamic fundamentalists were supremely useful during the 1980s in Washington's
war which quashed the last chance the Afghan people had for desperately needed social
and economic reform and a secular society. Because of their uninhibited, sadistic cruelty
directed against government and Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, the fundamentalists”the
moujahedeen (Muslim holy warriors)”were good terrorists. They were our terrorists.
After the success of their jihad, these forces roamed afar, carrying out grisly actions in
numerous corners of the world, metamorphosing into really bad terrorists.

Forcing the Soviet Union to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan truly went to
the heads of the moujahedeen. They thought they were invincible and had a god-given
mission. Allah Akbar! They seemed to place little weight upon the fact that it had been
the United States, bringing its military, political and financial weight to bear, that had
been the sine qua non of the victory.

In 1992, after 12 years of battle, the various factions of the moujahedeen could claim
Afghanistan as all their own, albeit now fighting each other. The war had been a rallying
point for Muslim zealots from throughout the world”an Islamic Abraham Lincoln
Brigade”and laid the groundwork for their future collaboration and support. Tens of
thousands of veterans of the war”young men from every Muslim nation, battle-hardened
and armed”dispersed to many lands to carry out other jihads against the infidels and to
inflame and train a new generation of militant Islamists and terrorists, ready to drink the
cup of martyrdom: a virtual Islamic Foreign Legion.

In the midst of a wave of assault weapons and violence (dubbed a "Kalashnikov culture"),
Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto complained in 1996 that her country got stuck
with this air of frenzy as a direct result of cooperation with the United States in forcing
Soviet troops from Afghanistan. "We are left on our own to cope with the remnants of the
Afghan war, which include arms smuggling...drugs and...[religious] zealots who were
leaders at the time of the Afghan war."1

"Your government participated in creating a monster," complained an Algerian
sociologist to a Los Angeles Times correspondent in Algiers. "Now it has turned against
you and the world”16,000 Arabs were trained in Afghanistan, made into a veritable
killing machine."2 His figure may be rather low inasmuch as there are an estimated
15,000 veterans of the Afghanistan war”or "Afghans" as they've come to be known all
over, whether from Afghanistan or not”in Saudi Arabia alone.3

Professor of Middle East Studies Eqbal Ahmad has observed:

The propaganda in the West suggests that violence and holy war are inherent in Islam.
The reality is that as a world-wide movement, Jihad International, Inc. is a recent
phenomenon...Without significant exception during the 20th century, jihad was used in a
national, secular and political context until, that is, the advent of the anti-Soviet war in
Afghanistan.4

Following are some of the highlights of the remarkable bloodied ting of the "Afghans":
In the United States

Mir Aimal Kansi”the Pakistani who slew two CIA employees, and wounded two other
employees of the Agency and one employee of a CIA contractor outside CIA
headquarters in Virginia in 1993”came of age in the Pakistani province that borders
Afghanistan, which was used as a key staging area for the moujahedeen. His father and
other relatives had ties to the CIA-Pakistani intelligence operations of the war. Kansi,
those who knew him said, was "one of the children of the C.I.A.'s jihad."5

Most of those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York”
which killed six people, wounded more than 1,000 and caused half a billion dollars worth
of damage”were veterans of the Afghan war.6

<<

. 7
( 42 .)



>>