Bin Laden, US Policy and Afghanistan (Chomsky) : Indybay

Interview with Noam Chomsky by Radio B92, Belgrade 
Q: Why do you
think these attacks happened? 
 
To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the
crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the
Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the
Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless
inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control.
Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible
person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments
of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the region. About
all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden has been
interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East
specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the region, Robert
Fisk (London Independent), who has intimate knowledge of the entire
region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire,
Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians
out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious fundamentalist
extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and their allies
in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the Russians -- quite
possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts suspect -- though
whether he personally happened to have direct contact with the CIA is
unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the CIA preferred
the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end result
was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from
groups recklessly financed by the Americans" (London Times correspondent
Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These "Afghanis"
as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried
out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated
these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which
they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes
against Muslims. 
 
The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however.
They joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not
object, just as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons
that we need not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the
grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis"
are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are
involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in
Russian territory. Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against
the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia
-- from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of
Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special
status as the guardian of the holiest shrines. 
 
Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes
of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including
the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime
in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its
origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes.
Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support
for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's
decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support
of the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the
daily humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding
settlements designed to break the occupied territories into Bantustan-like
cantons and take control of the resources, the gross violation of the
Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized as crimes
throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility
for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support
for these crimes with the decade-long US-British assault against the
civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused
hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein --
who was a favored friend and ally of the US and Britain right through
his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds, as people
of the region also remember well, even if Westerners prefer to forget
the facts. These sentiments are very widely shared. The Wall Street
Journal (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged
Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with
close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same views: resentment
of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and blocking the international
consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many years while devastating
Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic
regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers against economic
development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the
great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar
sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair
that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who
are interested in the facts. 
 
The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (Sept. 16), the perpetrators
acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom,
tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage."
U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned
(Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance
is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the
norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know,
but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for
power. 
 
It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will
cause "fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many
others.). That too is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is
typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both
sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans,
to cite only one of many cases. 
 
Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American
self reception? 
 
US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being
offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain
prospect of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the
use of force against any individuals or countries the President determines
to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards
as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same
people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after
the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its
"unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a
Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international
law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even
than this atrocity. 
 
As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex.
One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally
have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this question
is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases,
with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism,
blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know
that very well. 
 
Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest
of the world? 
 
The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that
led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support
for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda
of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarization,
domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be
expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence
they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of
the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing
inevitable about submission to this course. 
 
Q: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going
to be. Are you afraid, too? 
 
Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one
that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's
prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the
familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale. 
 
The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other
supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering
people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown
numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism
will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that
Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims
of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a
far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened
by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and
probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the
moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing
the reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident
that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being
done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive
to seek historical precedents. 
 
If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come
under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan
does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government
will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case
will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the
region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering
the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society. 
 
Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden,
as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His
voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the
Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring
others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck
driven into a U.S. military base -- drove the world's major military
force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks
are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent. 
 
Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do
you think so? 
 
The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new
in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target.
For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national
territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been
attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these years
the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half
of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered
Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos),
and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force
throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For
the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The same
is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous
destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the
world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims
outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England, for example). It
is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US;
hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the
intellectual and moral culture. 
 
It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of
the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance.
If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds
of years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the
escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar dynamic, with long-term
consequences that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable.
An aroused public within the more free and democratic societies can
direct policies towards a much more humane and honorable course.

Bin Laden, US Policy and Afghanistan (Chomsky)

Donate

Get Involved

Publish