Get Ready for more War

written at the end of the Afghanistan pseudowar

Criticizing Bush administration policy in the war on terrorism is not, as John Ashcroft suggested, indicative of treason or support for terrorists.  That kind of demagoguery and propaganda nurtured McCarthyism.  War is such a serious matter that it demands careful introspection and deep analysis of causes and effects.  I see none of that behind current policies, nor even less in the media representation of the war.  [ click here for more commentary on the loss of our 1st Amendment Rights ]  So, in order to help you understand more clearly where I stand, let me start with a criticism of the terrorists and the culture that nurtured them. 

I do not support the violence of insane suicide martyrs.  Everyone on this planet has the right to protect themselves from such activity.  But, we also have an even stronger obligation to prevent terrorists from being created in the first place.  It is my opinion that our government is in extreme denial over this issue--primarily because multinational corporations stupidly believe that it's not in their interest to respond to this.

I do not support the treatment of women in some Islamic nations.  But, this kind of oppression existed in worse form in Christian culture until secular humanism and feminism gave Christians a conscience.  Don't forget that Christianity has over 600 years head start on Islam in its development, so perhaps that's why it seems like the year 1367 in Saudi Arabia.  I am deeply annoyed by the nostalgic fictions of the conservative Christians who believe that secular humanism, socialism and feminism have destroyed the world and inspired God to punish or abandon us.   

But, my strong bias against fundamentalist religions aside, this essentially is the crux of my bitching: American policymakers are making themselves into hypocrites to further corporate ends.  America is not innocent in the suffering of the Middle East, and we can't hide the fact by pretending that their hatred is resentment for our freedom.  Furthermore, it is evident that conservative, fundamentalist interpretations of religion are closely connected to the terrorists, AND to the "Americans" who insist that we must not criticize Bush's war on terrorism.  

Many Muslims are deeply angry about the violence and economic injustices they have suffered.  The history of the Middle East shows that Christian and Jewish cultures have engaged in inexcusable tactics--in particular, setting up and supporting tyrannical puppet governments who are friendly to our petroleum needs.  The influx of wealth from those resources helped entrench and corrupt these governments.  Ample evidence suggests that the Western World has absolutely no interest in the well-being of Muslims, but rather they are concerned only that the cheap oil continues to flow.  

Yet, the main reason their culture has fallen behind in the global economic community is because of the Parmenidean Permanence of Wahabi's worldview.  By the time Christians took up Aristotle from the Muslims, and initiated the project of Scholasticism (XII-XIII century), Islamic culture began to fossilize in the Middle Ages.  The Turkish Empire made a very feeble attempt at modernism, but it was quite moribund by the time it was swallowed up by the fundamentalist Wahabism of the Saudi rebellion aided by the British "intelligence agent" Sir Lawrence of Arabia.  The torch of progress passed from the hands of Muslims to the Christians at about the same time that goddess worship entered the Catholic Church in the cult of the Virgin Mother.  This religious innovation in Christianity helped to improve the lot of women in Christian culture, whereas the conservative and misogynist tendency in Islam was brought to a head in the 18th Century with Wahabi--kind of like Hasidism and Mennonitism.  Still, we shouldn't overstate the condition of women in comparison to Muslim women before the Twentieth Century.

Imagine what would have happened to America if religiously devout, anti-modern, sexist, ultraconservatives like this had taken over America in 1776.  We would all be plowing fields with oxen, and women would be dressing like nuns and Puritan pilgrims (not much different from the burka, really).  Yet,  the Hassidic Jews and Amish people live quite peacefully in America.  Both groups allow women more privileges than the Taliban--perhaps it's only because they are the minority.  I have never heard of Ted Kazinsky-style terrorist among them, in spite of their staunchly anti-modern views.  They don't even hold important positions of political power.  Indeed, I feel strongly that there remains in many Muslim nations an inexcusably oppressive religious culture.  Observing it reminds me how good of an idea it is to take the notion of separation of Church and State as absolutely far as possible.  

The violence of the terrorists is partly understandable in light of the neocolonialist, racist and religious oppression they have suffered.  However, I am not inclined to sit back and let this kind of violence continue.  I am not willing to passively or actively support terrorism against anyone.  I merely wish to make the one-sidedness of the American position known.   

Why does the Taliban feel justified in forcing an entire nation to live by their screwed-up laws?  They have the right to live as they want to live, but the Taliban do not have the right to impose outrageously sexist, puritanical thought on people who do not willingly, as adults, choose that lifestyle.  Inasmuch as the United States and allies have done a good job routing the Taliban, they deserve applause and praise.  But, we did not go over to Afghanistan to liberate women--that's been going on for years in that country.  Americans weren't moved to war by sexism and human rights violations.  We went to war because they attacked global capitalism and because multinational energy corporations want to build pipelines across Afghanistan to move Central Asian petroleum to the Indian Ocean.  

Pacifism is not the proper response to Bin Laden, nor to the abuse of women's and human rights.  But a strategy that aims only at eliminating our enemies in the Middle East does absolutely nothing toward giving us assurance that more terrorists won't take their places.  It's like treating cancer caused by industrial pollution by killing the sick and giving money to the families of victims, but continuing to produce the carcinogenic pollution.  Besides, it seems evident that the USA had no interest in blowing the shit out of the Taleban when they destroyed the statues of the Buddha, or when they got repeated news of mass executions in soccer arenas, nor when they discovered that doctors weren't allowed to look at the bodies of female patients.  It took four jet airliner bombs on American soil to get them interested.  Pitiful.  Pitiful.  Pitiful. 

Then, when we finally did get involved, the method we used was to launch tons of depleted uranium ballast onto their land--setting the stage for future heavy metal and radiation toxicity, and ridding us of a lot of undesirable nuclear waste from the nuclear energy industry.  

Where will the military be pointed next?  Somalia?  Iraq?  Have you noticed how we seem to prefer bombing countries that we have already bombed back into the stoneage?  Are we setting the stage for perpetual warfare against those who resent Modernity and American policies?  Terrorism is like landmines and nuclear weapons.  All the nations are involved--even America-- and nobody wants to give it up.  But, when the terrorists beat up on the wrong persons, the US military will come and get them.  What scares me most about the apparent success of the Afghanistan War is the possibility that the victory will persuade people that warfare is acceptable--even on a non-specific, eternal war with no final goal--only an unending fight with those we piss off.