🚀 go-pugleaf

(October, 2001 - The US/UK/NATO attack on Afghanistan started on
October 7, 2001, less than 4 weeks after 9/11 because all the plans to
take over the country and dislodge the Taliban/Pashtuns had already
been prepared long in advance.  9/11 was the perfect excuse.
It is totally impossible to improvise a air and land war in 4 weeks
due to the logistics involved. The illegal Gulf War in 1991,
instigated by Bush Sr, took more than half year to set up.)

New World Disorder
War is peace. Now we know.
by Arundhati Roy

A false choice.
NEW DELHI-As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on October 7, the U.S.
government, backed by the International Coalition Against Terror (the
new, amenable substitute for the United Nations), launched air strikes
against Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images
of cruise missiles, stealth bombers, tomahawks and bunker-busting
missiles. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and
stopped clamoring for new video games.

The U.N., reduced now to an ineffective acronym, wasn't even asked to
mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, "The U.S.
acts multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must.") The
"evidence" against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the
coalition. After conferring, they announced that it didn't matter
whether or not the "evidence" would stand up in a court of law.

Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is
committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's
resistance movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of
retribution by a recognized government. The bombing of Afghanistan is
not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of
terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is
killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of
civilians who died in New York and Washington.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get
killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use
flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and smother real thought, and then
as ceremonial shrouds to cover the mangled remains of the willing
dead. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are
now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly,
ordinary people in both countries share a common bond-they have to
live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of
bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding
escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings
and other terrorist acts.

There is no easy way out of the spiraling morass of terror and
brutality that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human
race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both
ancient and modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world
forever. Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have
taken on new meaning. Governments have to acknowledge this
transformation, and approach their new tasks with a modicum of honesty
and humility. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any
introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition Against
Terror. Or the Taliban.

When he announced the air strikes, President George W. Bush said,
"We're a peaceful nation." America's favorite ambassador, Tony Blair
(who also holds the portfolio of British prime minister), echoed him:
"We're a peaceful people."
So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace.

Speaking at FBI headquarters a few days later, Bush said, "This is our
calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most
free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that
rejects hate, rejects violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil.
And we will not tire."

Here is a partial list of the countries that America has been at war
with-overtly and covertly-since World War II: China, Korea, Guatemala,
Indonesia, Cuba, the Belgian Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia,
Grenada, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Sudan,
Yugoslavia. And now Afghanistan.

Certainly it does not tire--this, the most free nation in the world.
What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of
speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual
preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful
things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and
subjugate-usually in the service of America's real religion, the "free
market." So when the U.S. government christens a war "Operation
Infinite Justice," or "Operation Enduring Freedom," we in the Third
World feel more than a tremor of fear. Because we know that Infinite
Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for others. And Enduring
Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others.

The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the
richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and
sell almost all of the world's weapons, and they possess the largest
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological and
nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the
genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in
modern history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers
of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshiped, almost
deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the
Taliban just isn't in the same league.

The Taliban was compounded in the crumbling crucible of rubble, heroin
and land mines in the backwash of the Cold War. Its oldest leaders are
in their early forties. Many of them are disfigured and handicapped,
missing an eye, an arm or a leg. They grew up in a society scarred and
devastated by war. Between the Soviet Union and America, over 20
years, about $40 billion worth of arms and ammunition was poured into
Afghanistan. The latest weaponry was the only shard of modernity to
intrude upon a thoroughly medieval society.

Young boys--many of them orphans--who grew up in those times, had guns
for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never
experienced the company of women. Now, as adults and rulers, they
beat, stone, rape and brutalize women; they don't seem to know what
else to do with them. Years of war have stripped them of gentleness,
inured them to kindness and human compassion. They dance to the
percussive rhythms of bombs raining down around them. Now they've
turned their monstrosity on their own people.

More than a million Afghan people lost their lives in the 20 years of
conflict that preceded this new war. Afghanistan was reduced to
rubble, and now, the rubble is being pounded into finer dust. By the
second day of the air strikes, U.S. pilots were returning to their
bases without dropping their assigned payload of bombs. As one pilot
put it, Afghanistan is "not a target-rich environment." At a press
briefing at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked
if America had run out of targets. "For one thing, we're finding that
some of the targets we hit need to be re-hit," he said. "Second, we're
not running out of targets, Afghanistan is." This was greeted with
gales of laughter in the Briefing Room.

On the ground in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance-the Taliban's old
enemy, and therefore the coalition's newest friend-is making headway
in its push to capture Kabul. (Let it be noted that the Northern
Alliance's track record is not very different from the Taliban's.) The
visible, moderate, "acceptable" leader of the Alliance, Ahmed Shah
Massoud, was killed in a suicide-bomb attack early in September. The
rest of the Northern Alliance is a brittle confederation of brutal
warlords, ex-communists and unbending clerics. It is a disparate group
divided along ethnic lines, some of whom have tasted power in
Afghanistan in the past.

Among the global powers, there is talk of "putting in a representative
government." Or, on the other hand, of "restoring" the kingdom to
89-year-old Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile in Rome since 1973.
That's the way the game goes--support Saddam Hussein, then "take him
out," finance the mujahedin, then bomb them to smithereens; put in
Zahir Shah and see if he's going to be a good boy. (Is it possible to
"put in" a representative government? Can you place an order for
democracy--with extra cheese and jalapeño peppers?)

Reports have begun to trickle in about civilian casualties, about
cities emptying out as Afghan civilians flock to borders that have
been closed. Main arterial roads have been blown up or sealed off.
Those who have experience working in Afghanistan say that by early
November, food convoys will not be able to reach the millions of
Afghans (7.5 million according to the United Nations) who run the very
real risk of starving to death during the course of this winter. They
say that in the days that are left before winter sets in, there can
either be a war, or an attempt to reach food to the hungry. Not both.

As a gesture of humanitarian support, the U.S. government air-dropped
37,500 packets of emergency rations into Afghanistan. It says it plans
to drop a total of 500,000 packets. That will still add up to only a
single meal for half a million people out of the several million in
dire need of food. Aid workers have condemned it as a cynical,
dangerous, public-relations exercise. They say that air-dropping food
packets is worse than futile. First, because the food will never get
to those who really need it. More dangerously, those who run out to
retrieve the packets risk being blown up by land mines. A tragic alms
race.

Nevertheless, the food packets had a photo-op all to themselves. Their
contents were listed in major newspapers. They were vegetarian, we are
told, as per Muslim dietary law. Each yellow packet, decorated with
the American flag, contained: rice, peanut butter, bean salad,
strawberry jam, crackers, raisins, flat bread, an apple fruit bar,
seasoning, matches, a spoon, a towelette, a napkin and illustrated
user instructions.

After three years of unremitting drought, an air-dropped airline meal
in Jalalabad! The level of cultural ineptitude, the failure to
understand what months of relentless hunger and grinding poverty
really mean, the U.S. government's attempt to use even this abject
misery to boost its self-image, beggars description.

Put your ear to the ground in this part of the world, and you can hear
the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger. Please.
Please, stop the war now. Enough people have died. The smart missiles
are just not smart enough. They're blowing up whole warehouses of
suppressed fury.

With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not
have to choose between the Taliban and the U.S. government. All the
beauty of human civilization--our art, our music, our literature--lies
beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little
chance that the people of the world can all become middle-class
consumers as there is that they will all embrace any one particular
religion. The issue is not about Good vs. Evil or Islam vs.
Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate
diversity, how to contain the impulse toward hegemony-economic,
military, linguistic, religious, cultural and otherwise. Any ecologist
will tell you how dangerous and fragile a monoculture is. A hegemonic
world is like having a government without a healthy opposition. It
becomes a kind of dictatorship. It's like putting a plastic bag over
the world to prevent it from breathing. Eventually, it will be torn
open.

It is important for governments and politicians to understand that
manipulating these huge, raging human feelings for their own narrow
purposes may yield instant results, but eventually and inexorably will
have disastrous consequences. Igniting and exploiting religious
sentiments for reasons of political expediency is the most dangerous
legacy that governments or politicians can bequeath to any
people--including their own. People who live in societies ravaged by
religious or communal bigotry know that every religious text-from the
Bible to the Bhagavad Gita-can be mined and misinterpreted to justify
anything, from nuclear war to genocide to corporate globalization.

This is not to suggest that the terrorists who perpetrated the outrage
on September 11 should not be hunted down and brought to book. They
must be. But is war the best way to track them down? Will burning the
haystack find you the needle? Or will it escalate the anger and make
the world a living hell for all of us?

At the end of the day, how many people can you spy on, how many bank
accounts can you freeze, how many conversations can you eavesdrop on,
how many e-mails can you intercept, how many letters can you open, how
many phones can you tap? Even before September 11, the CIA had
accumulated more information than is humanly possible to process.
(Sometimes, too much data can actually hinder intelligence-small
wonder the U.S. spy satellites completely missed the preparation that
preceded India's nuclear tests in 1998.) The sheer scale of the
surveillance will become a logistical, ethical and civil rights
nightmare. And freedom-that precious, precious thing-will be the first
casualty. It's already hurt and hemorrhaging dangerously.

Every day that the war goes on, raging emotions are being let loose
into the world. The international press has little or no independent
access to the war zone. In any case, mainstream media, particularly in
the United States, have more or less rolled over, allowing themselves
to be tickled on the stomach with handouts from military men and
government officials. Afghan radio stations have been destroyed by the
bombing. The Taliban has always been deeply suspicious of the press.
In the propaganda war, there is no accurate estimate of how many
people have been killed, or how much destruction has taken place. In
the absence of reliable information, wild rumors spread.

Bush recently boasted: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2
million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's
going to be decisive." He should know that there are no targets in
Afghanistan that will give his missiles their money's worth. Perhaps,
if only to balance his books, he should develop some cheaper missiles
to use on cheaper targets and cheaper lives in the poor countries of
the world. But then, that may not make good business sense to the
coalition's weapons manufacturers.

Then there's that other branch of traditional coalition business--oil.
Turkmenistan, which borders the northwest of Afghanistan, holds the
world's fifth largest gas reserves and billions of barrels of oil
reserves. Enough, experts say, to meet American energy needs for the
next 30 years (or a developing country's energy requirements for a
couple of centuries). America has always viewed oil as a security
consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few
of us doubt that the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf has
little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to
do with its strategic interest in oil.

For some years now, Unocal has been negotiating with the Taliban for
permission to construct an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to
Pakistan and out to the Arabian Sea. From here, Unocal hopes to access
the lucrative "emerging markets" in South and Southeast Asia. In
November 1997, a delegation of Taliban mullahs traveled to America and
even met with State Department officials in Washington and later with
Unocal executives in Houston. At that time, the Taliban's taste for
public executions and its treatment of Afghan women were not made out
to be the crimes against humanity that they are now. Over the next six
months, pressure from hundreds of outraged American feminist groups
was brought to bear on the Clinton administration. Fortunately, they
managed to scuttle the deal. But now comes the U.S. oil industry's big
chance.

In America, the arms industry, the oil industry and the major media
networks-indeed, U.S. foreign policy-are all controlled by the same
business combines. It would be foolish to expect this talk of guns and
oil and defense deals to get any real play in the media. In any case,
to a distraught, confused people whose pride has just been wounded,
whose loved ones have been tragically killed, whose anger is fresh and
sharp, the inanities about the "Clash of Civilizations" and the "Good
vs. Evil" discourse home in unerringly. They are cynically doled out
by government spokesmen like a daily dose of vitamins or
anti-depressants. Regular medication ensures that mainland America
continues to remain the enigma it has always been--a curiously insular
people administered by a pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous
government.

And what of the rest of us, the numb recipients of this onslaught of
what we know to be preposterous propaganda? The daily consumers of the
lies and brutality smeared in peanut butter and strawberry jam being
air-dropped into our minds just like those yellow food packets. Shall
we look away and eat because we're hungry, or shall we stare
unblinking at the grim theater unfolding in Afghanistan until we retch
collectively and say, in one voice, that we have had enough?

As the first year of the new millennium rushes to a close, one
wonders--have we forfeited our right to dream? Will we ever be able to
reimagine beauty without thinking of the World Trade Center and
Afghanistan?

Arundhati Roy is the author of The God of Small Things, for which she
received the Booker Prize, and The Cost of Living. Her latest book of
essays, Power Politics, has just been published by South End Press.