9/11 – Five years on

USA:

9/11 – Five years on

Bush exploits tragedy to promote imperialism and repression

The collapse of the World Trade Centre’s Twin Towers, after two
planes were deliberately flown into the huge buildings, and the
resulting deaths of nearly 3,000 people, is a terrible, tragic event
etched in the memory of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
What quickly became known as ‘9/11’, united working people, globally, in
revulsion and in horror.

Robert Bechert, CWI, London, Monday 11 September 2006

However, the fifth anniversary of 9/11 provided the occasion for Bush
and others to indulge in grotesque exploitation of the deaths in New
York. Despite protestations to the contrary by the Bush Administration,
little thought is given to families and friends of those innocently
killed.

A US report, last week, warned that 70% of rescuers, contractors and
volunteers at ‘Ground Zero’ (the site of the 9/11 disaster) suffer lung
damage. More than 40,000 people worked to clear the "terrible pile of
building, aircraft and human debris from the smouldering rubble"
(Observer, London, 10 September). Many have died or are dying and others
were told they would be "sick for life". After years of denial by the
authorities that mysterious deaths and injuries amongst workers were
linked to their Ground Zero, solid evidence emerged that illnesses were
indeed caused by toxins at the destroyed Twin Towers site. Now the ill
workers are campaigning for compensation and to know why they were told
it was "safe" to work at Ground Zero.

The Bush Administration tries to sweep aside all these injustices.
Instead, the 5th anniversary of 9/11 is used by the White House to try
to deflect attention away from its disastrous foreign policy quagmire
and to try to justify more repressive measures and imperialist
aggression.

Despite initial military successes, Iraq and Afghanistan revealed US
imperialism to be a weakened giant, a view reinforced by the ‘Hurricane
Katrina’ catastrophe. Overwhelming US military might did not bring the
victory Washington’s neo-cons expected in Iraq. In fact, Bush created a
monumental disaster for US imperialism in Iraq, that is now being added
to by the unravelling of the position of imperialism in Afghanistan.

Immediately after 9/11, there was a tremendous international wave of
sympathy towards the New Yorkers and the US people. However, the
imperialist policies of Bush produced a seismic shift, as this sympathy
turned into deep mistrust and opposition to Bush (notwithstanding the
continued attraction of US living standards for many of the world’s
poor).

‘War on terror’

Bush is scraping the barrel politically; trying to use the tragedy of
9/11 to scare the US population into supporting his policies, especially
in Iraq, and to win support for his so-called "war on terror". The US
administration continues to try to link 9/11 with its war of aggression
against the people of Iraq. In doing so, Bush simply ignores a recent
Republican-controlled US Senate report that said there were no links
between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda or 9/11. Indeed, the Bush
administration depends upon the "big lie" technique. Only days after the
Senate report was published, Vice-President Dick Cheney went claimed on
US television there were "links" between the old Iraqi regime and
al-Qaeda.

In a cynical move to cover up the lies about Saddam’s supposed,
‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMD), Bush emphasises the threat of
"Islamic fascism". In an attempt to rekindle the fears of the ‘Cold
War’, the US president brackets together Lenin, Hitler and bin Laden –
as if there was anything in common between the leader of the world’s
first socialist revolution, the leader of the fascist counter-revolution
in Germany and a reactionary theocratic leader!

Even the idea of the ‘war on terror’ is meaningless, except as a
propaganda tool. As a US Republican Senator commented "This is no more a
war on terror than World War Two was a war on blitzkrieg …Terror is a
tactic; it is not our enemy."

Terror is not simply bomb attacks. Since 9/11, there have been terror
attacks in Bali, London and Madrid and other cities, but also there was
Bush’s "shock and awe" assault on Iraq that was designed to terrorise.
An estimated 72,000 civilians have died since September 11, 2001, as a
result of the global ‘war on terror’.

Part of Bush’s renewed propaganda push, is an attempt by the White
House to shore up Republican support in this November’s US mid-term
elections. That is the reason why Bush mentioned bin Laden 18 times in
one recent 40 minute speech. This signals the start of the Republican’s
election campaign.

As always, imperialist propaganda is highly selective. For electoral
reasons, Bush concentrates on the nearly 3,000 who died on 9/11 but does
not mention the nearly 3,000 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan, let alone the far larger numbers killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan, since September 2001. The London Financial Times
conservatively estimates that 44,000 Iraqis died since the US invasion,
as the result of what is, in many ways, mass state terror. The fact that
Bush, supported by Blair, refused to even ask the Israeli state to stop
its terror onslaught that killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians, many of
whom were children, is buried beneath the official White House 9/11
propaganda.

Huge human cost

If Bush and other leaders were really concerned about the world’s
welfare they would be speaking about a "war on poverty". On the very day
the Twin Towers were destroyed, the UN Food and Agricultural
Organisation estimated that 36,615 children died each day from the
effects of extreme poverty. This is 12 times the numbers that perished
in New York. But the world’s poor can expect nothing from the rich
rulers.

Even in relation to Iraq, Bush makes no mention of the mounting human
cost of the country’s descent into chaos and near civil war. This is not
simply due to continuing attacks on the occupying forces, but also
because of a developing civil war, of horrific sectarian bombings and
mass killings by sectarian death squads. This is causing large-scale
population movements in Iraq. Of course, Bush does not dare comment on
the results of a recent opinion poll in Iraq that asked people what were
the main three reasons for the US invasion. The survey found that Iraqis
cited US oil (76%) interests, the building of US military bases, and to
‘help’ Israel, as the primary reasons for the occupation.

For US imperialism, Bush’s policies in the Middle East have not only
utterly failed in their declared objectives but have actually weakened
the sole superpower, in many respects. Even the limited regional aims of
the Iraqi invasion – control over world’s second largest oil reserves
and a tighter strategic grip in the Middle East – totally failed to
materialise. One effect of Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the
strengthening of the influence and regional power of its arch local
rival, Iran.

Outside the shrinking band of Bush and Blair diehard supporters,
there is overwhelming despair amongst capitalist strategists and
commentators. There are deep divisions within the US ruling class. A
raging debate is taking place within the US right, between neo-cons and
more ‘traditional’ conservatives, as the implications of Bush’s
disastrous policies register. Many of the neo-cons are shocked at the
results of a policy that has weakened US influence internationally. They
are trying to distance themselves from the White House; the ‘blame game’
has started.

It is not accidental that earlier this year recently retired US
military generals criticised what was happening in Iraq and the Middle
East. Gerard Baker, a British supporter of the Iraq invasion, asked in
mid-August "…where did it all go wrong, George? … Tehran has emerged as
the true hegemonic power in the region …If I were a conspiracy theorist
I would be starting to conclude that you were some sort of Iranian
Candidate, an agent of Tehran, brilliantly executing a covert strategy
to enhance the prestige and power of the ayatollahs." Writing in early
September on the Iraq invasion, the well-known British military
historian, Antony Beevor, commented: "One is amazed that no move has yet
been made to impeach its architects." Madeleine Albright, former
Secretary of State to US President, Bill Clinton, said, "Iraq may turn
out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy."

In the run up to this November’s US mid-term elections, Bush hoped to
reduce US military numbers in Iraq. But the worsening situation in that
country forced an increase deployment of US troops, as well as more
former soldiers being called up. In July, Richard Armitage, who was
Bush’s deputy secretary of state, until January 2005, commented: "The US
has almost totally reversed the troop situation from two months ago. The
danger is that this is too little and too late and that the US will turn
into a bystander in an Iraqi civil war it does not have sufficient
resources to prevent."

Civil war in Iraq

At almost the same time, the farewell memo of Britain’s retiring
ambassador to Iraq, stated, "The prospect of a low level intensity civil
war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this
stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable
democracy. Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq – a
government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and
is an ally in the war on terror – must remain in doubt."

Recently retired US generals were scathing in their condemnations of
two serving colleagues. They testified, in early August, to the US
Senate, that Iraq was "…devolving into civil war." The London Financial
Times described Iraq as a country where "…the economy has collapsed. Oil
production is half pre-war levels, while the provision of basic services
such as water, power and sewage is below that."

Imperialism’s strategists are desperately debating about what to do
about the Iraq disaster. Some argue for Iraq’s partition. Others object
to this ‘plan’, pointing to the huge bloodshed and destabilisation the
country’s division would involve, particularly in Baghdad, and its
regional effects, especially the opposition by Turkey, and other
neighbouring states, to the establishment of any independent Kurdish
state in the north of Iraq. Other imperialist strategists in the US talk
about creating a new Iraqi dictatorship. In mid-August, it was reported
that in Washington "…senior administration officials have acknowledged
…that they are considering alternatives other than democracy." This is
not new. After all, Saddam was a key western ally until he invaded
Kuwait in 1990. In the 1980s, Iraq was the third largest recipient of US
assistance. The only difference next time is that it is likely that
there would be three dictatorships in a partitioned Iraq.

While the situation in Iraq descends deeper into a downward spiral
the US’s Afghanistan "settlement" is also falling to pieces. NATO
military leaders are forced to admit that the fighting in Afghanistan is
far more severe that they expected. In just over two months, the British
troop contingent fired other 400,000 rounds of ammunition. Even before
the latest round of fighting began top British generals were deeply
sceptical about the new NATO plans. Some retired British generals wrote
to Blair about their misgivings. But Blair, with no opposition from his
New Labour ministers, was determined to go ahead with pouring more
soldiers into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan disaster

The result is heavy fighting that is making a mockery of NATO’s
stated goal of winning "hearts and minds". NATO forces are now regularly
issuing public statements high body counts of dead "Taliban" that is
reminiscent of the Vietnam War. In that conflict, the US military used
to issue such high body counts that they were regularly predicting
"victory" over the Vietcong. The reality was different. Many of dead
were civilians, which only increased the determination of the Vietnamese
people to fight the US imperialism. Significantly, in Afghanistan, the
body counts are mainly the result of aerial reconnaissance. But NATO’s
‘successes’ mean its troops are unable to patrol on the ground.

But this is not simply the question of the sharp increase in fighting
between Taliban and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Karzai government is
becoming increasing isolated from the population, partly because of the
widening gap between the small elite that has benefited from aid and the
drug trade, and the impoverished masses. Since 2002, $82.5 billion has
been spent on military operations in Afghanistan, compared with just
$7.3 billion on ‘development’.

The growing anger of the destitute Afghans was vividly illustrated at
the end of last May, when 17 people were killed during riots in Kabul.
This followed the death of three civilians when they were hit by a US
military truck. The Kabul rioters shouted, "Death to Karzai".
Afterwards, Karzai appointed a former warlord as police chief of Kabul,
"with known links to organised crime" (New York Times, 23 August). In
reality, President Karzai can only survive on the basis of US and NATO
troops and by a policy of buying support from warlords and drug dealers.

Karzai’s deals with warlords are mirrored, in a different direction;
by the Pakistani army’s early September deal with pro-Taliban elements
in the North Waziristan area.

Clearly feeling incapable of winning a military conflict against the
pro-Taliban forces, the Pakistani regime agreed to a ceasefire, in May,
and then negotiated an agreement to end fighting in North Waziristan. In
return for an end to army attacks, the self-declared "Pakistani Taliban"
promised not to attack the army or to allow cross-border raids into
Afghanistan. News of this deal was accompanied by the Pakistan army’s
top spokesperson, General Shaukat Sultan, being forced to claim that he
was "misquoted" after he told the US TV station, ABC, in a recorded
interview, that bin Laden would not be arrested "as long as one is
staying like a peaceful citizen."

Imperialist deals with opposition?

This deal mirrored the debate that is starting to open up about
whether it is possible to reach some kind of deal between the
imperialist powers and some of the armed opposition they face. Such
deals are not unknown. A few years ago, in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein
leaders served as ministers in a coalition ‘power-sharing’ government
that carried out social cuts, after declaring a permanent end of
hostilities by the IRA.

But the Middle East is different. The region’s vast oil resources are
vital to the world economy. Both the US and other imperialist countries
want "reliable" governments to administer the region. That is why the
arch reactionary Saudi feudal dictatorship is supported so much by the
West. But the march of events could force the imperialist powers to
reach deals with different forces, if only to keep the oil flowing.

An important aspect of the so-called "War on Terror" is governments,
most notably those of Bush and Blair, seized the opportunity to
institute wide ranging repressive measures. They have ruthlessly
exploited working people’s fears of terror after 9/11 to justify and to
try to get approval for huge strengthening of the capitalist state and
executive power.

Bush now presents as "normal" the CIA’s secret prison network, where
it hides suspects seized from around the world; a modern day, "globalised"
version of the Nazis’ "Nacht und Nebel"("Night and Fog") policy of
disappearances and secret imprisonment. Despite the US army’s deputy
chief of staff for intelligence testified to Congress last week that "no
good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices", Bush still
justifies it, and makes a semantic distinction between "coercive
interrogation techniques" and "torture". Significantly, Bush is
currently asking the US Congress to grant retroactive legal impunity to
all civilian officials who authorised torture and war crimes since 9/11.
This must serve as a warning of how superficial is the ruling class’s
adherence to "law and order", let alone democratic rights, when they
fear their interests are challenged.

Enormous global opposition to Bush

The lies about Saddam’s "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), the
disaster of Iraq, the US/British support of the Israeli state’s attack
on Lebanese civilians, and the continuing questions about what actually
happened on 9/11, all fuelled enormous distrust internationally towards
the US and Bush. Both Bush and Blair are weakened at home. Bush’s
Republicans face the possibility of significant defeats in the mid-term
elections. Blair is so unpopular he is facing a revolt by Labour
ministers and parliamentarians who are terrified of being too associated
with the prime minister and therefore losing their jobs.

Even before the invasion of Iraq, the world saw the biggest-ever
international wave of protests. The mood of opposition and distrust
towards Western imperialism deepened around the world, which is
reflected in the collapse of US’s imperialism’s prestige.

In many countries, there is a growing anti-imperialist mood. Iraq is
no exception to this. While the Israeli government was battering the
Lebanon a protest march against US support for the massacres took place
in Baghdad. Although the US military claimed that only 14,000 took part,
international press agencies reported that hundreds of thousands
marched.

For a handful of deeply alienated and desperate young Muslims, anger
at Bush, Blair and co. reached such a point they were prepared to carry
out indiscriminate suicide attacks, as was the case in London, in July
2005. But while socialists understand the intense feelings of outrage at
US imperialism and the desire to strike back, we utterly oppose the very
idea of attacking civilians, whether it is in Amman, Bali, London or
Madrid.

Shortly after 9/11, we wrote: "The actions of the hijackers,
notwithstanding the right-wing obscurantist programme of bin Laden, are
ultimately grounded in the feeling of intense oppression of the Arab
people as a whole. Consequently, US imperialism’s ‘war against
terrorism’ cannot succeed in the long run, so long as the conditions
that have bred terrorism remain. The fact that these methods are used is
also a reflection of the weakness of Marxism and the organised working
class movement. This is partly because of the dramatic shift to the
right of the ex-social democrats who head the ex-workers’
organisations."

Anti-war movement needs socialist direction

Unfortunately, this weakness is not yet rectified, with the result
that, despite growing opposition to the war, there is a working class
movement able to give a clear anti-imperialist and socialist direction
to the hostility of many youth and working people to imperialist
adventures.

One consequence of this is growth in support for ‘radical’ Islamic
movements. This is fuelled by Bush’s self-declared "crusade" against
mainly Muslim countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon; Bush’s
denunciation of "Islamic Fascism"; and the increasingly hostility
towards Muslims in many countries.

But the political-Islamic movements are based upon capitalism and, as
was shown in the history of all Muslim countries, cannot answer the
needs and aspirations of working people and the poor.

Today, opposition to the occupation of Iraq, to the war in
Afghanistan, and to future imperialist military adventures, are key
issues. Mass international opposition to the policies of Bush play an
important role. But if the imperialist occupation of Iraq is to be
permanently ended, an independent workers’ movement, which has mass
support amongst the urban and rural poor, needs to be urgently built.

Internationally, support has to be given to those activists seeking
to build workers’ organisations and fighting for democratic rights for
all, including women and all nationalities and religions. Socialists
call for decisive measures to deal with the social and economic misery.
This requires struggling for a socialist confederation in Iraq that
would decisively break with capitalism and imperialism.

Although Afghanistan is a more rural society than Iraq, the same
basic issues of building independent organisations of the workers and
the poor are posed, if the country is going to break out of a seemingly
endless cycle of wars and poverty.

The events of the last five years, especially the Iraq war and
occupation, provoked huge worldwide mass protests, and deepened the
radicalisation already under way globally. It has added opposition to
militarism and to imperialist war to the increasing protests against
neo-liberalism, capitalist globalisation, and the international
offensive against working people’s democratic rights and living
standards.

Events since 9/11 graphically show the horrors inflicted by
imperialism. The lessons working people and youth draw from events will
help prepare the re-building of the international socialist movement.
Only such a mighty class movement can fundamentally change the world,
ridding it of war, poverty, oppression, dictatorship and repeated
economic crises; by ending capitalism and by starting to build a
socialist world.