freedom costs money

November/2003

The recent terrorist acts in Turkey only serve to illustrate further how Bush and Blair’s strategy is all wrong. Modern-day terrorism mirrors the guerrilla battles that wore down the US during the Vietnam War in the sense that it begs the following question: how can you use traditional military means to defeat an enemy you cannot see?

My argument is that you cannot, in fact such action can only worsen the situation. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were crushed by overwhelmingly superior firepower yet although beaten soundly on the battlefield resistance continues. Whilst the world’s strongest military powers have worked tirelessly to ensure they have the capability to destroy the planet many times over their need to use their weapons of mass destruction has actually dwindled. This is why it is perceived to be in the military-industrial complex’s interest to sell so many surplus weapons to despotic regimes and ‘fanatics of terror’ (though perhaps described as ‘freedom fighters’ at the point of sale). When the stooges we’ve sold weapons to step out of line it presents us with the perfect opportunity to employ our more advanced weapons systems to batter them – then we can make more weapons and more money – YIPPEE!

Sadly, every time someone has to pick up bits of their relatives because a bomb has been dropped on their home it tends to make them and the people around them slightly miffed. Could it be then that this type of thing does nothing to stop terrorism? Crazy suggestion I know but bear with me. Perhaps hammering two already massively weak and impoverished countries on the pretext of defeating terrorism/preventing the use of WMD and then concentrating on securing access to oil rather than catching Bin Laden or finding supposed scary weapons (before quickly scratching around for a viable exit strategy) doesn’t really show America and Britain in a very positive light. Furthermore, whilst Bush and Blair might want to regard themselves as shrewd manipulators in the world of real-politik they must be made to see that they have done little to ensure global stability, rather they have undermined it. By throwing our military weight around we have incited more terrorist reprisals. Bush and Blair haven’t protected their countries interests they have only jeopardised them because it is no longer possible to project your military strength without the threat of somebody somewhere taking it upon themselves to exact revenge. In addition, many now judge the US and Britain to have made a mockery of international law, in turn inviting others to do the same. If it transpires that more countries now seek military solutions to disputes rather than negotiated agreements (current information supplied by figures such as Monbiot in the article 'Dreamers and Idiots' suggests both Afghanistan and Iraq tried desperately to negotiate a settlement rather than go to war) there exists much more scope for the existence of long-lasting grievances and it is surely this that bears much of the responsibility for upsurges in terrorist activity.

Whilst US and British forces are bogged down in the Middle East, different terrorist groups plan different attacks all over the globe. You can find out how to make a bomb, using easily available ingredients, on the internet – one person’s decision to make a violent stand, whether taken alone or prompted by an extremist organisation, cannot be halted unless you remove the factors that motivate them. Statements made by the president and prime minister alike have done little more than repeat an “us against them” mantra ignoring the brute fact people everywhere are increasingly offended by the manner in which the US and Britain exercise their power.

WILLIAM GRAY

(Anyone interested in the subject matter discussed in this piece will, in my humble opinion, find they can arrive at a better understanding of the international political system if they read work by Chomsky Pilger and Monbiot, or simply log onto ZNet)