Robert Fisk: This is not a war on terror. It's a fight against America's
enemies
25 September 2001
'We are being asked to support a war whose aims appear to be as misleading
as they are secretive'

While covering the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, I would, from time to
time, drive down through Jalalabad and cross the Pakistan border to Peshawar
to rest. In the cavernous, stained interior of the old Intercontinental
Hotel, I would punch out my stories on a groaning telex machine beside an
office bearing the legend "Chief Accountant" on the door. On the wall next
to that office – I don't know if it was the Chief Accountant who put it
there – was a framed piece of paper bearing four lines of Kipling that I
still remember:

A scrimmage at a border station

A canter down a dark defile

Five thousand pounds of education

Felled by a five-rupee jezail

Or, I suppose today, a Kalashnikov AK-47, home-produced in Quetta, or one of
those slick little Blowpipe missiles that we handed over to the mujahedin
with such abandon in the early Eighties so that they could kill their – and
our – Russian enemies.

But I've been thinking more about the defiles, the gorges and overhanging
mountains, the sheer rock walls 4,000 feet in height, the caves and the
massive tunnels which Osama bin Laden cut through the mountains. Here,
presumably, are the "holes" from which the Wes is going to "smoke out" Mr
bin Laden, always supposing that he's been obliging enough to run away and
hide in them. For there is already a growing belief – founded on our own
rhetoric – that Mr bin Laden and his men are on the run, seeking their
hiding places.

I'm not so certain. I'm very doubtful about what Mr bin Laden is doing right
now. In fact, I'm not at all sure what we – the West – are doing. True, our
destroyers and aircraft carriers and fighter aircraft and heavy bombers and
troops are massing in the general region of the Gulf. Our SAS boys – so they
say in the Middle East – are already climbing around northern Afghanistan,
in the region still controlled by the late Shah Masoud's forces. But what
exactly are we planning to do? Kidnap Mr bin Laden? Storm his camps and kill
the lot of them, Mr bin Laden and all his Algerian, Egyptian, Jordanian,
Syrian and Gulf Arabs?

Or is Mr bin Laden merely chapter one of our new Middle Eastern adventure,
to be broadened later to include Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the
destruction of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the humbling of Syria, the
humiliation of Iran, the reimposition of yet another fraudulent "peace
process" between Israel and the Palestinians?

If this seems fanciful, you should listen to what's coming out of Washington
and Tel Aviv. While The New York Times Pentagon sources are suggesting that
Saddam may be chapter two, the Israelis are trying to set up Lebanon – the
"centre of international terror" according to Israeli prime minister Ariel
Sharon – for a bombing run or two, along with Yasser Arafat's little garbage
tip down in Gaza where the Israelis have discovered, mirabile dictu, a "bin
Laden cell".

The Arabs, of course, would also like an end to world terror. But they would
like to include a few other names on the list. Palestinians would like to
see Mr Sharon picked up for the Sabra and Chatila massacre, a terrorist
slaughter carried out by Israel's Lebanese allies – who were trained by the
Israeli army – in 1982. At 1,800 dead, that's only a quarter of the number
killed on 11 September. Syrians in Hama would like to put Rifaat Al-Assad,
the brother of the late president, on their list of terrorists for the mass
killings perpetrated by his Defence Brigades in the city of Hama in the same
year. At 20,000, that's more than double the 11 September death toll.

The Lebanese would like trials for the Israeli officers who planned the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which killed 17,500 people, most of
them civilians – again, well over twice the 11 September statistic.
Christian Sudanese would like President Omar al-Bashir arraigned for mass
murder.

But, as the Americans have made clear, it's their own terrorist enemies they
are after, not their terrorist friends or those terrorists who have been
slaughtering populations outside American "spheres of interest". Even those
terrorists who live comfortably in the US but have not harmed America are
safe: take, for example, the pro-Israeli militiaman who murdered two Irish
UN soldiers in southern Lebanon in 1980 and who now live in Detroit after
flying safely out of Tel Aviv. The Irish have the name and address, if the
FBI are interested – but of course they're not.

So we are not really being asked to fight "world terror". We are being asked
to fight America's enemies. If that means bagging the murderers behind the
atrocities in New York and Washington, few would object. But it does raise
the question of why those thousands of innocents are more important – more
worthy of our effort and perhaps blood – than all the other thousands of
innocents. And it also raises a much more disturbing question: whether or
not the crime against humanity committed in the US on 11 September is to be
met with justice – or a brutal military assault intended to extend American
political power in the Middle East.

Either way, we are being asked to support a war whose aims appear to be as
misleading as they are secretive. We are told by the Americans that this war
will be different to all others. But one of the differences appears to be
that we don't know who we are going to fight and how long we are going to
fight for. Certainly, no new political initiative, no real political
engagement in the Middle East, no neutral justice is likely to attend this
open-ended conflict. The despair and humiliation and suffering of the Middle
East peoples do not figure in our war aims – only American and European
despair and humiliation and suffering.

As for Mr bin Laden, no one believes the Taliban are genuinely ignorant of
his whereabouts. He is in Afghanistan. But has he really gone to ground?
During the Russian war, he would emerge, again and again, to fight
Afghanistan's Russian occupiers, to attack the world's second superpower.
Wounded six times, he was a master of the tactical ambush, as the Russians
found out to their cost. Evil and wicked do not come close to describing the
mass slaughter in the US. But – if it was Mr bin Laden's work – that does
not mean he would not fight again. And he would be fighting on home ground.
There are plenty of dark defiles into which we may advance. And plenty of
cheap rifles to shoot at us. And that wouldn't be a "new kind of war" at
all.

Also from the Commentators section:

Barbara Lee: I will not put more innocent lives at risk
25 September 2001
Terrorists attack the United States in an unprecedented and brutal manner on
11 September, killing thousands of innocent people, including the passengers
and the crews of four aircraft.

Like everyone throughout our country, I am repulsed and angered by these
attacks and believe that all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the
perpetrators to justice. We must prevent any future attacks. That is the
highest obligation of our federal, state and local governments. On this, we
are united as a nation. Any nation, group or individual that fails to
comprehend this or believes that we will tolerate such illegal and
uncivilised attacks is hugely mistaken.

Recently, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with
anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of
voting to authorise the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution
was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore
that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the
constitution, to go to war.

It was a blank cheque to the President to attack anyone involved in the
September 11 events – anywhere, in any country, without regard to our
nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests,
and without time limit.

In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its
responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not
support such a grant of war-making authority to the President; it would put
more innocent lives at risk.

The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from
further attack and he has mobilised the armed forces to do just that. The
Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted
with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents in the wake of this vote.
Many – a majority – have counselled restraint and caution, demanding that we
ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not beget violence. They
understand the boundless consequences of proceeding hastily to war.

Others believe that I should have voted for the resolution – either for
symbolic or geopolitical reasons, or because they truly believe a military
option is unavoidable. However, I am not convinced that voting for the
resolution preserves and protects US interests.

We must develop our intelligence and bring those who did this to justice. We
must mobilise – and maintain – an international coalition against terrorism.

Finally, we have a chance to demonstrate to the world that great powers can
choose to fight on the fronts of their choosing, and that we can choose to
avoid needless military action when other avenues to redress our rightful
grievances and to protect our nation are available to us.

We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for
ourselves and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not
dispute the President's intent to rid the world of terrorism, but we have
many means to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of
terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our
security.

Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, himself eloquently pointed out the
many ways to get at the root of this problem... economic, diplomatic, legal
and political, as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous military
attacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women and children
will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe will lead
to such an outcome.

Barbara Lee (Democrat – California) was the only member of the House of
Representatives to vote last week against authorising the use of military
force

Source:THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER 0F 25-9-01
        lONDON,UK.
With the very best of good wishes,
Musa Amadu Pembo
Glasgow,
Scotland
UK.
[log in to unmask]
May Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,guide us all to His Sirat Al-Mustaqim (Righteous
Path).May He protect us from the evils of this life and the hereafter.May
Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,grant us entrance to paradise .. Ameen

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------