THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" OR A "WAR ON ISLAM"? THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE’S GEO-STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES.

William Mark Hardiker 20/11/03


Introduction.

It is often stated that the events of September 11, 2001 changed everything. September 11 changed nothing. But it did allow the worlds superpower to "test the water" in order to assess what measure of global resistance it might confront (and from what quarters) in this the "New American Century", which will demand that it pursue and gain control of essential geo-political and strategic imperatives. The opening moves in this grand chess game have seen the attack on Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq. The negative stereotyping of the enemy is under way and the focus of multi-media propaganda. The "War on terrorism" has become entrenched in to contemporary life, though it is not a war on terrorism, but rather one against Islam.

A BBC survey has revealed that the majority of British Muslims consider the "war on terror" to be a war on Islam. More than half those surveyed believed Osama Bin laden and his al-Qaeda network should not have been blamed for the September 11 attacks on the US. It is common for Muslims to believe that they have replaced communists as the West's enemy. This is blamed mostly on the fact that the inappropriately coined "war on terrorism" with its lack of clear goals generates much speculation about the wars real motives and aims.

Two years after that which is now universally known as "9/11" the people of the Middle East can see that a culture of hate and prejudice is being sown by some of the domestic allies of the Bush administration on the Christian far right. Whilst the finger is being pointed at Arab States in general by the administration, it is Islam itself that is evil according to mainstream fundamentalist America, and as a consequence the enemy of America's contemporary interpretation of " freedom" and "democracy"

1.

On September 11, 2001 America was attacked. This act of revenge was committed in a manner that indicated that those responsible lacked any conventional method of declaring an act of war. The desperate measure of suicidal attacks at the heart of the perceived enemy allows us some indication of the depth of injustice those who forfeited their lives felt that the United States perpetrates in the pursuit of the national interest. The message to the world on September 11, 2001 was that it is no longer acceptable for the world's wealthiest nation to sustain such a status at the expense of the vast majority of the world's struggling and impoverished people. Other nations could be accused of similar failings to address the inequities between themselves and the millions they exploit. But America is an icon, a symbol of Western decadence that represents the very worst aspects of the capitalist, mass consumerist society with all the excesses and waste that is generated by such societies. There are many in the US and throughout the world that maintain that those behind the scenes figures who dictate policy to the Bush administration such as the various right wing fundamentalist “think tanks” and “Defense policy boards”, declared a "war on terrorism" publicly, but a "war against Islam" privately. Islam and the West were always destined to "clash" if for no other reason than because the western industrialized nations most sought essential commodity is oil, and the greatest reserves lie beneath Islamic soil. The US cannot wipe out a religion, a culture and a way of life, though it has held democracy at bay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and ensured a corrupt authoritarian regime and monarchy have not been challenged. It can only initiate regime change through intimidation, economic sanctions and now, after Iraq, pre-emptive war.

The events of "9/11" simply precipitated the inevitable, and brought forward that which was inevitably going to occur. It is conceivable that the US whilst at the zenith of it's global status as world superpower, chose to act now rather than wait since it is widely predicted that world demand for oil will surpass supply within the next twenty to twenty-five years. Whether or not the events of September 11, 2001 were deliberately permitted to transpire in order to create the threat to the national security that would enable radical measures such as pre-emptive and unilateral war to be introduced as policy enabling the US to take control of The Middle East's oil fields and gain access to those of Eurasia, we will possibly never know. Either way it makes little difference. The fact that it is a completely logical and reasonable opinion to maintain by all except those gullible souls who refuse to accept the depths of moral and ethical depravity the pursuit of ‘the national interest’ can drive individuals to, and is as a sobering indictment of the unchanged nature of politics since at least the days of Machivelli's Prince. Those who accept that terrorism, defined as; "the policy of using violence and intimidation to obtain political demands, or enforce political authority" has been a part of the human experience since democratic governments were first formed and implemented in ancient Greece, will have no difficulty accepting the allegation and implications of the measures the United States will take to deal with an Islamic world it views as hostile and a threat to it’s 'national interest'.

The adamant, though fraudulent claims made by the US government in the immediate aftermath of "9/11" that the “war on terrorism” was not a war against Islam, were obviously frantic attempts to “seize the moment” in order to deceive a shell-shocked and traumatized public. The sheer spectacle and audacity of the attacks guaranteed that if the Administration moved quickly enough, the public would give it's consent to virtually any response against whomsoever as long as blood was spilt and vengeance sated. However, two years after the attacks people are beginning to re-acquaint themselves with their sanity and question the wisdom of the Administrations actions. Likewise the political opposition is beginning to experience some apprehension in regards to that which is transpiring in the Middle East.

It cannot be easy for the average American who must be feeling alarmed and angered by their governments gross human rights violations, refusal to sign international treaties, support of murderous Israeli governments, instigation of wars, intervention into, and the cause of civil uprisings, conspiracies to assassinate leaders and being directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Indonesian communists in one instance and tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds on another. After all they have never been informed. The American media is the world’s greatest propaganda machine surpassing anything the Soviet Union came up with during the cold war years. One would assume that now however, not so many Americans are asking ridiculous questions such as “Why do they hate us?”

September 11 allowed for the implementation of the radical agenda of the Neo-Conservatives; the key Bush administration advisory people. These ultra right wing fundamentalists closely avowed to a greater Israel and led by Paul Wolvowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Chenney (amongst many others) consider present policy of “re-shaping” the map of the Middle East as part of a war on Islam. Any denial of this deserves to be treated with contempt. The more vigorous the denials that the “war on terrorism” is not simply a play on words who’s true meaning is “war on Islam” is simply mantra for the masses. As Australian Prime Minister John Howard said during the anti-Iraq war protests, “ there are more complex issues that 'the mob' do not understand”. But the "mob" does understand. Or at least the new generation "mob".


2

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer dismissed such claims as made by albeit dubious self-professed Islamic "experts" and "scholars" such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis. In a written statement on 15th September this year Mr. Downer declared that “the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam” nor a “clash of civilizations”. Despite Mr. Downer’s recent comments, such a hypothesis requires a little more study and analysis than his clueless parroting of American propaganda and partisan denials in the interests of the status quo indicate. Mr. Downer's is the sanitized explanation of the American initiated terrorist threat that promotes perpetual war on Islam for the all too obvious reasons relating to oil reserves in the Middle East, and to those only accessible through control of The Middle East.

Mr. Downer appears to interpret the events of September 11, 2001 as an altercation between the "peasantry" of the underdeveloped, uncivilized world against their masters in the free west, and but an attack on the international order in which the privileged but powerful minority pontificate on matters of life and death as they would their social calendar. In fact the stronger the rejection of the assertion that this is not a war against Islam and the more frequent the denial, the more likely the truth of the claims. If what we have is not a war on Islam, why was there not a criminal investigation into the crimes rather than an immediate bombing campaign on the Taliban in Afghanistan? What cause one wonders would people such as Mr. Downer sacrifice their lives for? Such words as “The Americans will sort it out, and look it should all blow over in a matter of time" are uniquely "Downeresque", though perhaps they are lost on non-Australians. But then all nations have within their governments such people.

The events of “9/11” can be considered only a direct attack upon unjust American foreign policy. The response was to declare a war on Islam. Global circumstances may never have arisen that would allow for the events which have transpired in the past two years instigated by the neo-conservative's of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to implement the geo-strategic policies. A tremendous impetus, such as a grave and serious threat to the national security was required, and the fact that the enemy chosen could also be considered a threat to the "civilized freedom loving world" in general. The war on Islam turned a very good idea into a stroke of genius. The far right Christian fundamentalist Bush administration has, since September 11, 2001 exploited the concept to its furthest limits. Only now when things are turning ugly in Iraq does it appear to be running looking precarious.

Why a criminal investigation to solve that that was essentially a crime against the US was not instigated is perplexing. For such reasons a Pandora’s box of conjecture, suspicion and conspiracy has justifiably been unleashed and many crucial questions either cannot, or will not be answered Those who believe everything George Bush’s Administration and it's neo-conservative colleagues led by Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle amongst others inform them, would be well advised to do a little research into the nature of why the "9/11"attacks which were not quite as unexpected as we are led to believe. There is a complete lack of explanation (due to the administrations refusal to allow for an independent inquiry) for a number of crucial facts regarding the events which led to the incredulous simultaneous high jacking of four commercial aircraft from airports within the US (without anyone being any the wiser until it was too late) and which had deviated from their designated flight plans for at least an hour before two of them hit the twin towers in New York causing the deaths of 2,500 people, is not acceptable.


3
.
American conceit is of such magnitude that they cannot even begin to acknowledge that anyone might dislike their shallow, superficial consumerist idolatry of materialistic values and free enterprise system of capitalism. A system, which translates into successes being measured by the extent to which self-advancement, is achieved at the expense of the other; the so-called "individualized" society. This America cannot conceive that any could take exception to being attacked, invaded and occupied and instructed as to how and who to elect as their chosen representatives. And whilst in the process, ensuring there are no loose ends in the contracting out to US firms of lucrative reconstruction assignments, rebuilding of infrastructure and redevelopment and control of the oil industry and flow of petro-dollars. All of which is securely tied up under US corporate law which I might add, Bush administration key players such as condoleeza Rice and Vice President Dick Chenney, to name but two, received first preference.

There are conceivably three reasons why the US is still in Iraq despite what must be an overwhelming urge to pack up and go home in view of the increasing level of hostility and opposition to occupation which could very likely see the Bush Administration lose the Presidency at the next election. The first is the protection of oil industry infrastructure to ensure that petro-dollars continue to flow for US corporations. . Secondly, to increase Israel's status in the region as the dominant power representing US interests. And third to make secure a region in which the US can begin to gain access to the resource rich “Eurasian Balkans” surrounding the Caspian Sea basin.

The West’s reaction to the world trade center attacks leaves no room for doubt that what is being declared in the name of the people is a religious fundamentalist war on an adjacent culture. One with a different religion, a different heritage and a different set of cultural traditions - all of which have been stereotyped in the Western media in a negative way. How often do we ever hear anything positive in relation to Muslims and Islam? That such irresponsible world leaders as America’s President Bush and Australia’s Prime Minister Howard seek to indoctrinate and misinform their domestic public in order to prepare them for possible future actions perpetrated in the name of "the war on terrorism" is reprehensible.

Prime Minister John Howard won a third consecutive term in office on the election slogan, “We decide who comes to this country, and the way in which they get here" referring to asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan arriving in small numbers in fishing boats. After falsely accusing Afghan parents of throwing their children overboard into the ocean came, “We do not want people like that in this country." (The parents were simply holding up their children so that the Australian Navy could see that children were on board their boat and that they might cease firing ammunition across their bow. These are but two examples of the Australian Howard government's level of compassion and regard for the human rights and dignity of Muslims. These are the words and actions of self-professed Christian God fearing people.

The West’s reactions to the events of September 11 2001 have been revealing. Immediately a “War on terrorism/Islam" was declared and Osama Bin Laden overnight became a household name before there was any consideration, let alone investigation into the possible suspects. The 'Oklahoma bombing' had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, why then were other possible suspects not considered? The immediate conclusion that this was an act of terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists supports allegations that the administration was forewarned. Many known terrorist organizations were not even considered, though they may have just as likely carried out the attack as Islamic fundamentalists as far as the inept and incohesive US intelligence community later revealed. All were dismissed. The ETA, The Tamil Tigers. The IRA, various South American guerilla groups, and the far right extremist Christian fundamentalist groups within the US. All eyes turned to Islamic terrorists led by Osama Bin Laden.

The Bush administration was intent on casting the blame squarely at those originating from the Middle East because of the Neo-Conservative doctrine that called for Middle East regime change and policy designed for control of the Middle East oil fields and the gateway to the Eurasian Balkans. The threat to the US is not one of terrorism; it is one of losing control of Middle Eastern and Eurasian oil. This also explains Russia’s acquiescence. They too face the same problem with Islamic fundamentalists in Cechnya.

Because of the present situation confronting the coalition in Iraq, it might be expected that the Bush administration would reconsider its neo-colonialist foreign policy and rein it in. This is wishful thinking, for the agenda is far bigger than a few hundred American military lives, even in an age such as ours where soldiers are not supposed to actually die on the battlefield any longer. Washington's approval of Israeli war criminal and President, Arial Sharon's bombing raid on Syria in October is no more than an expansion of the Bush crusade. The words of Vice President Dick Chenney sum up the philosophy of the Bush administration. " As long as George w Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies".

The PNAC report (Project for a new American century) issued a paper in June 1997. It is over eighty pages long but on page fifty-one it states "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent of some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". In 1942, America sent an ultimatum to Japan to sever links with Nazi Germany and withdraw immediately from China. Such demands were drafted in such a manner that compliance would be impossible thus causing Japan to attack the US fleet at Pearl Harbor and enter the US into world war two. The Bush administration neo-conservatives required a similar external threat to homeland security in order to implement that which they call the "war on terror".

The early cautious attitude of the Bush administration had toward Islam has now given way to what most in the Middle East perceive to be a "war on Islam". Afghanistan and Iraq and the one sided reports of the violence of Palestinian terrorism have convinced many that the US is using "the war on terror" as a façade for a war on Islam. The fact that anger towards Arabs only came after the administration showed itself to be only interested in revenge and the US had little or no interest in re-considering it's long standing policy of supporting Israel on the one hand, whilst also helping maintain Arab authoritarianism (Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait) in return for oil and stability on the other. Israel was encouraged, and wasted no time in portraying its oppression of Palestinians as an extension of "the war on terrorism" which we now know to be a "war on Islam", and by March 2003 Israeli forces were free to occupy most of the West Bank.

Conclusion

Today every act of terrorism, no matter whom it is committed against and in whatever part of the globe it occurs, it is invariably blamed on Al-queda. With no evidence to back up such allegations, media reports more often than not state, "the attacks bear all the hallmarks of an Al-queda operation". How many ways are there to blow up buildings that supporters of the war against Islam can draw such conclusions? The author Enver Masud may be considered one of the few voices of reason and wisdom in an era which can be characterized by it's militancy, neo-colonialism, and consolidation of power in too few hands, all of which reveal the emotional depth of "mental unhingement" amongst the leaders of the worlds global superpower. Masud has written a book titled " the war on Islam" but he is far from that which is considered an Islamic fundamentalist. An engineering management consultant by profession, he has worked for the World Bank and USAID. Perhaps two of the most notable quotations from his book are firstly, "It is dangerous to divorce terrorism from politics. Yet the US media continue to talk about an abstract war against terrorism without mention of the issues or context that lie behind them" and second, "Terrorism is a political act, a response to US foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States". These words read like they were quoted yesterday yet the first quote comes from Graham E Fuller, former vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the CIA spoken in August 1998 and the second is by Charley Reese, an ex soldier who did a column for the 'Orlando Sentinel' and were also spoken in 1998. The title of Reese's story was "Face it: US foreign policy contributes to acts of terrorism". Prophetic words indeed.


William Mark Hardiker