Bulatlat.com

Inexcusable, but Also Unexplainable Acts of Terror?

BY ANDREW KENNIS
www.nyc.indymedia.org

Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index

The crashing of four airplanes this past Tuesday in the United States, presumably by hijackers, was a series of inexcusable acts of terrorism. Such acts, according to CNN as late as the night of the bombings, cost the lives of 1,350 people with some 2,100 more injured.

There is no need, however, to recant the details of what happened. They have been amply reported in the mainstream media in the U.S. What has not been present in most media analysis and commentary (if not all), and what will probably continue to fail to appear, is analysis and commentary that speculates why such acts of terrorism were committed. While the terrorism was certainly inexcusable, was it also unexplainable as well?

Within the mainstream U.S. media, this question is not even asked, much less answered. The explanation for why this is so can perhaps be found in an article that appeared shortly after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, which could be said to arguably accurately convey mainstream U.S. intellectual opinionon the subject. Therein, a New York Times commentary by Douglas Jehl reads that the search for a rational explanation for the bombing is misguided, a "particularly American" error, as Jehl put it. Jehl continues by explaining that U.S. culture is one thatis "attuned to the straightforward"; but "terrorism represents a confrontation with the oblique." We must learn, Jehl advises us, "to not assume that terrorist attacks will always reflect Western logic." Such thinking could explain how the question of whysuch attacks happened is never even addressed by mainstream media and the respective intelligentsia they so often consult and rely on. After all, as Jehl said, it cannot be assumed that terrorists from other countries have the capabilities of "Western logic" that the U.S. apparently uniquely possesses.

In this regard, however, an alternative viewpoint may be in order. It can be argued, for instance, that a quick dismissal such as that of Jehl's is one that could lead to a lack of understanding of real and possible explanations for these horrible acts of terrorism. Such a lack of understanding could in turn decrease (if not eliminate) the chances at avoiding such acts of terrorism in the future. Unfortunately, when one reflects on recent U.S. foreign policy during the last few years, as well as the fact that the media has consistently ignored the question on why such terrorist acts may have taken place, it seems that such a lack of understanding is just what has taken place.

In an attempt to take an honest look at U.S. diplomatic history, let us consult the words of respected scholar and U.S. military analyst William Blum, who wrote that "since World War II, the United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations." Thisfigure is quite staggering and certainly is not replicated by any other nation. Nevertheless, the media has a habit of sticking to a very short time frame of history. Thus, putting any possible objections to this practice aside, let us stick to only the recent history of U.S. foreign policy.

Within the last few years, respected commentators and intellectuals, who in other times could be described as war hawks, have warned that Washington is treading a dangerous course. For example, the influential scholar Samuel Huntington, in writing for the renown journal Foreign Affairs (which he edits), states that in the eyes of much of the world (probably most of the world), that the U.S. is "becoming the rogue superpower," considered "the single greatest externalthreat to their societies." (see Foreign Affairs, May 1999) Indeed, even a cursory glance at recent U.S. military actions certainly suggests that such a perception may in fact be true.

In the time span of little over a year between 1998 and 1999, the U.S. had the dubious distinction of being the only country in history to carry out air bombing raids on five countries in such a respectively short time span. These bombing raids were carried out against the likes of poor and impoverished countries from different regions all over the world. In the Middle East, Afghanistan was bombed, on the lone pretense that they were harboring terrorists (a crime that many countries, including the U.S., could be said to be guilty of). Pakistan was bombed as well, albeit according to U.S. officials, accidentally. Finally, Iraq has been victim to a series of bombings over the last few years that have cost the lives of hundreds of civilians. Such bombings have been carried out on the pretext of protecting the Kurds, despite the fact that the U.S. is heavily funding and arming Turkey, a country which has committed acts of ethnic cleansing against their own respective Kurdish population (including the political imprisonment of hundreds of Kurds). This also occurs despite the fact that the U.S. was an ally of Iraq during the late 80's, when Saddam Hussein was sending Kurds to gas chambers.

The bombings in Iraq, however, have caused much less death and destruction than that of the sanctions imposed, at this point, only by the U.S. and Britain. These sanctions have long since been repudiated in other parts of the world. In fact, the sanctions have had such tremendous consequences as to precipitate the resignation of one of the officials who had previously been presiding over them (Dennis Halliday). That former U.N. official has since been traveling on speaking tours to against the genocidal consequences of the sanctions. And indeed, the sanctions can easily be argued to have been genocidal: they have killed millions of Iraqi civilians, including an average of over 5,000 children a month (or almost 200 a day).

Turning to other corners of the world, in Africa, the "rogue superpower" managed to wipe out half of a starving country's medical supplies, when it bombed the Sudan in August of 1998. A key source, a former manager from Britain that had worked in the plant that was bombed, testified that the plant could not have been used for anything but medical production to WBAI's Democracy Now! the day following the bombing. Such reports and sources, however, were ignored by mainstream media, which instead, initially following the bombing, supported it in most commentaries and editorials, calling it a justified "reaction" to terrorism.

Finally, in Europe, it was not only bombing raids that were carried out against Yugoslavia during the Spring of 1999 - instead, an all out aerial war that caused 35 billion dollars worth of damage and raised the toll of refugees and deaths considerably, *after the bombing*, is what occurred. Such effects were hardly surprising, and even "entirely predictable," according to the U.S.-NATO Commanding General, Wesley Clark. Commentary from dignitaries abroad was particularly critical and prominently published in the foreign press (only to be effectively and dutifully suppressed by the U.S. mainstream media). Amongst the likes of such critics included former U.N. Secretariat-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who stated that he had "fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy. Power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy ... The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States."

The military expeditions noted above do not even speak to the fact that the U.S. has the distinction of being the largest arms dealer in the world, selling more weapons to more countries than any other in the world. These sales are often supplanted with intense military relationships, involving training and education (i.e. the infamous School of the Americas with graduates by the likes of Pinochet and Noriega). These types of relationships can be with countries who have extremely high counts of human rights violations, refugee tolls and massacres - examples abound, and are simply too numerous to mention - prominent amongst whom include, however, Colombia, Israel and Turkey (as noted above). Even with our southern neighbor of Mexico, we can find another example of crucial U.S. support for human rights violations, as Mexico is the second largest recipient of U.S. military aid and training and also the second largest violator of human rights in this hemisphere. Such distinctions are according to Amnesty International, which also ranks the leading recipient of military aid and training, Colombia, as the greatest human rights violator in the hemisphere. The corroboration between human rights violations and U.S. military aid and training is a familiar one, as it has been for over two decades now (that is, two decades since such patterns were amply documented by scholars such as Lars Schultz, amongst others).

These elementary observations about recent U.S. foreign policy - again, sticking to the rules of mainstream media to only include recent history and thereby excluding examples such as horrific U.S. policies during the 80's towards Central American countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala - can go a long way to possibly explain why such extreme acts may occur. As for the question about who is responsible for such acts, possibilities could reasonably include any number of the countries and groups who have suffered as a result of the imperialistic foreign policy of the U.S. The real question is, however, whether the U.S. will learn from this atrocity. In the past, unfortunately, such lessons were apparently not learned.

For instance, in 1993, prominent U.S. foreign policy critic and linguist Noam Chomsky wrote that "As recognized at once, the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on February 26, 1993 which killed 6 people and caused great damage, may be a portent of things to come." Indeed, it was a portent of things to come, as the U.S. did not lessen the aggressiveness of their foreign policy, and instead increased it right through the Clinton years and into the present (hence, plausibly resulting in the current acts of terrorism against the U.S.). Early comments from the government, do not suggest that the U.S. is modifying such aggressive behavior. CNN reported, for example, that "the president says the U.S. government will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed the acts and those who harbor them."

In light of this comment, and also the U.S. government and mainstream media unwillingness to address the question of what of any number of recent agressive U.S. foreign policy stances may have provoked the bombings, one can reasonably predict that more U.S. military adventures abroad will be increasingly seen in the near future, as well as more terrorist acts within U.S. borders.

Email the author at AndrewInMexico@yahoo.com .

Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index

We want to know what you think of this article.