The Spirit of the Internet Weekly

Click here for opinions from prior weeks.

[Note: The following news and opinions primarily came from email sent by our friends. Thank you Sirius and all the others who have forwarded these messages to us. Due to the large volume of email we are receiving, we can only post a sampling here, but we thank everyone for sending stories like this. We read them all and post what we can as time permits.]

Israel's conscience (Anne Karpf, The Guardian, February 11, 2002)
“On February 3, 300 peace activists defied the ban against travel to Palestinian Authority-controlled areas and went to Ramallah to express solidarity with the Palestinian leadership and people. They pressed on when Israel Defence Force soldiers tried to stop them at a checkpoint along the way, met Arafat, and later chanted at the IDF: ‘Soldiers come home.’ The soldiers responded with stun grenades. . . . Such acts of conscience challenge the prevailing view that, once the current intifada began in September 2000, Israeli doves simply flew away. . . . In reality, throughout the past 17 months a small but symbolic array of Israeli peace groups has intensified its efforts, and has been further galvanised by the combat reservists' recent petition calling on soldiers to refuse to serve beyond the ‘green line’ (the 1967 borders). Their numbers may be tiny but their moral and political significance is huge. . . . Israeli women's peace organisations that make up the Coalition of Women for a Just Peace run some of the most interesting, least publicised, projects. Among them are the 70 members of Machsom Watch, who conduct daily observations at checkpoints between Israel and the West Bank, challenging capricious new rules invented by officers in charge, and Women in Black, which holds regular anti-

vigils. . . . The Israeli government has been exhorting diaspora Jews to holiday in Israel, to demonstrate their support for the Jewish state. Those of us who believe that the best way of doing this is to encourage the creation of a Palestinian state, prefer to give succour to the myriad Israeli groups working to that end.”

Sharon's hard line stirs peace movement (Phil Reeves, The Independent, 11 February 2002)
“More than 25 grassroots political organisations fired the opening salvo of the new campaign by gathering in Tel Aviv on Saturday to protest against the government's handling of the intifada and to demand Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. . . . As the crowd unfurled banners lambasting Israel for assassinating Palestinians, uprooting orchards, and demolishing homes, activists were distributing thousands of leaflets across Israel calling on soldiers to refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. . . . Every day, fundamental questions are being asked in public by Israelis about what is being done in their name. ‘For the first time we are seeing the beginnings of some form of movement on the part of the left,’ said Professor Benjamin Isaac, a history lecturer from Tel Aviv University, who was among the 5,000 people at Saturday's protest for peace. . . . The tone of Mr Sharon's critics has also hardened significantly. When the Israeli army demolished 60 homes in Rafah, southern Gaza, last month and then attempted to lie about it, the word ‘war crime’ began to appear in the Israeli press. . . . This refers not just to the fact that the Prime Minister is facing possible indictment in a Belgian court for his role in the massacre of Palestinians at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, but also to his army's conduct during the intifada. . . . A crucial role in Israel's changing mood is being played by army reservists who have signed a petition saying they will refuse to do their annual service, of up to a month a year, in the occupied territories.”

Imagine all the People (Gila Svirsky, Women for Peace, 10 February 2002)
“This was the largest pro-peace rally since this Intifada began in September 2000, with an estimated 10,000 participants - Jews and Arabs from all over Israel filling the large Tel-Aviv Museum plaza. The mood is clearly swinging in Israel, and the homemade signs of people who had not attended a demonstration for years reflected the new thinking - ‘Stop Sharon before he kills us all’, ‘More conscientious objectors!’, ‘Occupation itself is a war crime’, and all permutations of ‘Share Jerusalem’, ‘Dismantle Settlements’, and ‘Bring our soldiers home’. . . . ‘How can we serve in an army that kills children?’ asked Yishai Rosen-Zvi, an Orthodox tank corps sergeant in the reserves, ‘How can we serve an army that demolishes homes, does not allow the sick to get medical attention, seeks to humiliate an entire population, and reduces them to hunger and poverty?’ . . . It was a rally in which the stage was shared by Arabs and Jews, women and men, Mizrahim and Ashkenazim, young and old, religious and secular. . . . Shulamit Aloni, former government minister and perennial conscience of Israel, called out her message of hope, ‘All of you here today are the harbingers of a mass movement that already has begun. You will be the teachers of democracy to this government. You will set an example of morality. We shall clean out the crimes of this country and fill it with peace!’ . . . And the other was the transformation of a beloved Zionist song ‘Ein li eretz aheret’. Reciting this song in two languages, Hebrew and Arabic, suddenly infused it with new meaning: ‘I have no other country to go to. And even if the land is burning under my feet, this is my home.’ For the Arabs in the crowd, the song suddenly became theirs, too, and for the Jews, it meant a land we both love deeply. . . . I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.’ ”

The Great Game (Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Network, February 8, 2002)
“Some weeks ago, something curious happened: Israel discovered that Iran is the Great Satan. . . . America is still in a state of fury after the Twin-Towers outrage. It has won a amazing victory in Afghanistan, hardly sacrificing a single American soldier. Now it stands, furious and drunk with victory, and does not know who to attack next. Iraq? North Korea? Somalia? The Sudan? . . . President Bush cannot stop now, because such an immense concentration of might cannot be laid off. The more so, as Bin-Laden has not been killed. The economic situation has deteriorated, a giant scandal (Enron) is rocking Washington. The American public should not be left to ponder on this. . . . An important component of the US administration has given Israel a sign: Start a massive political offensive in order to pressure the Congress, the media and American public opinion. . . . The most coveted resource on earth is the giant oil-field in the Caspian Sea region, that competes in scale with the riches of Saudi Arabia. . . . The United States is determined (a) to take possession of it, (b) to eliminate all potential competitors, (c) to safeguard the area politically and militarily, and (d) to clear a way from the oil-fields to the open sea. . . . This campaign is being led by a group of oil people, to which the Bush family belongs. Together with the arms industry, this group got both George Bush senior and George Bush junior elected. The President is a simple person, his mental world is shallow and his pronouncements are primitive, bordering on caricature, like a second-rate Western. That is good for the masses. But his handlers are very sophisticated people indeed. It’s they who guide the administration. . . . If I were a believer in Conspiracy Theory, I would think that Bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one, I can only wonder at the coincidence. . . . It works like this: Israeli generals declare every day that Iran is producing weapons of mass-destruction and threatens the Jewish State with a second Holocaust. . . . President Bush knows how to reward those who serve him well. Sharon got a free hand to oppress the Palestinians, imprison Arafat, assassinate militants and enlarge the settlements. It’s a simple deal: You deliver the support of the Congress and the media, I deliver the Palestinians on a platter. . . . those of us who desire an Israeli-Palestinian peace cannot rely on America. Now everything depends on us alone, the Israelis and the Palestinians. . . . Our blood is more precious than Caspian Sea oil. At least to us.”

Armed to the teeth (The Observer, February 10, 2002)
“Is Bush's awesome increase in military spending a reasonable response to the afermath of September 11, or is he creating a force almost too powerful for its own good? . . . [Bush] announced an increase in US military spending of 15 per cent, the biggest in 20 years, more than double the military spending in all of the European Union. . . . this seems to be about repairing the bruised American psyche after 11 September. America's powerlessness in the face of this attack requires big gestures and reassurances, even if they are counter-productive and meaningless.' . . . Indeed, some analysts say, if it is security that America seeks it is better sought in dialogue with potentially threatening states, rather than in reinforcing the idea already held by many anti-US groups that it is an evil empire bent on world domination. . . . So why the need for more and better military power? Even military analysts are baffled. 'The rise in US military spending,' says Dan Plesch, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, 'ought to be compared to the decision in the First World War to order up more cavalry when the first wave had been mown down by machine-guns. . . . 'The US has no competitor in high-tech military equipment. And what it is spending its money on is mostly irrelevant against the knives used to carry out 11 September. The bombing of Afghanistan has created the illusion of victory.'

Professor Paul Kennedy at Yale University calculates that the US now spends more each year than the next nine largest national defence budgets combined. Indeed America is responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's military spending. . . . 'The war on terrorism,' says Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies, 'is simply a euphemism for extending US control in the world, whether it is by projecting force through its carriers or building new military bases in central Asia.' ”

Another World Is Possible (Susan George, The Nation, February 18, 2002)
“Negatively labeled ‘antiglobalization’ by the media but known to its thousands of participants and millions of sympathizers as the movement for global justice, the nebula of protest and proposals was coalescing and gaining strength. The corporate and political elites could no longer meet in plush peace and confidential quiet to do their deals, and were obliged to retreat to fortresses whose defenses the demonstrators regularly stormed both physically and ideologically. The winds of history were blowing in a new and refreshing direction. . . . Then came September 11. . . . Nor were we surprised when these same elites in Europe, our neoliberal corporate adversaries and their domestics, instantly seized upon the atrocities to advance their cause. By the morning of the 12th they had already sharpened their sticks. Using crude, faulty but sometimes effective logic in an attempt to intimidate and criminalize the citizens' movement, they declared, ‘You're antiglobalization, therefore you're anti-American, therefore you're on the side of the terrorists.’ For weeks, the media gleefully and unrelentingly framed their coverage and their questions in that light alone. . . . So we've had to explain incessantly why such arguments are not just wrong but pernicious, and we've refused them the pleasure of painting us into the villain's corner they had reserved for us. We reject as well the ‘antiglobalization’ label and, in order to counter accusations of ‘anti-Americanism,’ stress our ties with our American friends in the global justice movement. . . . We know that for Americans, the backlash of the terrorist attacks has been far more powerful and the aftermath more lingering. With flags flying on every corner, the obligatory rallying around President George W. Bush no matter what he decides, and a kind of suffocating and frequently phony patriotism dominating the debate, it's clear that the pressure is considerable. . . . September 11 is not the end of the world. History may even be handing us a radically new moment, one we did not choose but ours to seize. Our message is more relevant today than it was on the eve of September 11. . . . Those who hold our futures in their hands are not serious. They see no farther than the noses of their bombers. Frightening though the prospect may seem, citizens must accept the risk of being serious in their place. . . . The only rational response to global problems is global solutions. . . . None of the profound changes we call for will, however, happen spontaneously, and our present elites certainly don't want them. Clearly the shock of September was not great enough to force them to change their minds and their behavior. . . . So, American friends, where does all this leave us? First of all, please bring the United States back. We need you, the world needs you. Although people on every continent are joining in this struggle, there are no guarantees we can win. Without a strong US movement, in the bastion of corporate and financial-market-driven globalization, we are in fact likely to fail.”

US Commandos Kill Innocents, CIA Pays Off Kin--A Model Program? (David Corn, The Nation 02/07/2002)
“On January 24, U.S. Special Operations troops attacked two small compounds in Haraz Qadam, a town 100 miles north of Kandahar. At least eighteen people were killed. . . . According to local Afghans, the bodies of two individuals had their hands tied behind their backs. About a week later, C.I.A. officers were in the field working with tribal leaders to pay $1000 to the family of each Afghan wrongfully killed. . . . What is interesting is how the Pentagon at first tried to deny a tragedy had taken place. When Craig Smith of ‘The New York Times’ wrote a story questioning the raids on January 28--after interviewing dozens of local folks whose testimony was compelling--the Pentagon, in automatic-pilot fashion, defended the operation. ‘We take great care to ensure we are engaging confirmed Taliban or Al Qaeda facilities,’ Maj. Bill Harrison, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, told the newspaper. ‘As a result of this mission, we detained 27 individuals, and believe that our forces engaged the intended target.’ . . . Three days later, after Afghan officials kept insisting innocent troops had been killed, the Pentagon announced it was reviewing the episode. . . . On February 4, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally acknowledged that ‘friendly’ Afghan forces might have been killed during the raid. Forty-eight hours later, the Americans released the 27 Afghans it had grabbed at the compounds, and the Pentagon announced that not one was a Taliban or al Qaeda fighter. By now, U.S. officials were confirming the C.I.A. was arranging compensation payments. Still, Maj. Ralph Mills, a spokesman for Central Command, maintained, ‘The release of the detainees isn't an admission that we made a mistake.’ . . . Craig Smith reported that a farmer who claimed to have witnessed the attack said he heard people in one compound screaming, ‘For God's sake, do not kill us. We surrender.’ . . . It is worth noting that it took a lot of pressure--from media reports and Afghan officials--to force the Pentagon to concede there may have been a problem with this raid. Recall that the Pentagon's first reply was, we hit the intended target--which is always its first reply when a military action is questioned. . . . Rumsfeld has said, ‘we mourn every civilian death.’ If that is true, then the Bush Administration should build upon the C.I.A.'s latest program in Afghanistan and compensate all civilians who have been the victims of Pentagon errors. If the C.I.A. supports restitution, how unpatriotic can it be?”

Patten lays into Bush's America, Fury at president's 'axis of evil' speech (Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, February 9, 2002)
“Like France, Mr Patten singled out Mr Bush's branding of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as ‘an axis of evil’. . . . ‘I find it hard to believe that's a thought-through policy,’ he says, adding that the phrase was deeply ‘unhelpful’. . . . EU officials concede that the US and Europe could now be on a collision course over Iran, with the EU determined to forge a trade and cooperation agreement with Tehran just as Washington has deemed it an ‘evil’ sponsor of terror. . . . The commissioner's remarks represent the most public statement yet of what has become a growing sense of alarm in Europe's capitals at the increasingly belligerent tone adopted by Washington. . . . One senior EU official said: ‘It is humiliating and demeaning if we feel we have to go and get our homework marked by Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. We've got to stop thinking that the only policy we can have is one that doesn't get vetoed by the United States.’ . . . In the interview the former Conservative party chairman delivers a devastatingly comprehensive critique of US strategy. He upbraids Washington for showing much more interest in stamping out terrorism than in tackling terror's root causes. . . . ‘When you're addressing that agenda, frankly, smart bombs have their place but smart development assistance seems to me even more significant,’ he said. . . . Mr Bush's ‘axis of evil’ speech appears to have been the last straw for EU policymakers. In today's interview, Mr Patten offers withering condemnation of the phrase. . . . Besides balking at the word ‘evil’, he disputes whether the three countries named are an axis at all, insisting there is no evidence that they are working together on weapons of mass destruction. But Mr Patten also expresses great irritation with Washington for undermining long-established EU efforts to reach out to Tehran and Pyongyang. . . . ‘There is more to be said for trying to engage and to draw these societies into the international community than to cut them off,’ he says.”

Republican agenda rules the war on terrorism (Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, February 7, 2002)
“European and international reaction to George Bush's ‘axis of evil’ state of the union address has ranged from unenthusiastic to downright hostile. . . . The ‘Bush doctrine’. This holds that any country that the US considers to be currently or potentially hostile and which seeks to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction that could be used by terrorists is a legitimate target. . . . This targeting may include diplomatic and financial sanctions but could also take the form of pre-emptive military action. . . . The second policy prong is an enormous increase in US defence spending to enable Washington to pursue its new priorities . . . Thirdly, Bush appeared definitively to answer the question: who is next in the war against terrorism? He singled out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the component parts of his ‘axis of evil’ and pledged his administration, in effect, to disarming them by whatever means necessary. . . . A fundamental problem with this three-pronged American approach - and one that should concern American voters as much as it does, say, America's Nato allies - is that it has less and less to do with the ‘war against terrorism’ and more and more to do with a pre-existing conservative Republican agenda. . . . The Republican right has long wanted to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and to eliminate Iran's and North Korea's missile-building and the associated proliferation concerns. . . . The prospect of US military assaults on these three countries has little or no support in Europe, the Arab and Muslim worlds, or in Asia. If Bush goes ahead in even a limited way, it will splinter alliances such as Nato and could have deeply damaging consequences in terms of trade and financial stability. . . . Bush's three-pronged attack on the triple axis of terror has troublesome implications on the home front, too. For at a very basic level, his frequently repeated message to Americans that their country is involved in a life-and-death, protracted war has the effect of defanging or neutralising domestic opposition on numerous other fronts, ranging from depleted social spending to weakened environmental safeguards and unreformed energy policy. . . . By blatantly stoking up public fears about darkly swirling, unquantifiable menaces, Bush further discourages dissent and quashes alternative ways of thinking. Bush's frequent references to the ‘calling of our time’ reflects not only the challenge posed by global terrorism but also the fact that he was came to office without a clear mandate, indeed without the support of most of his countrymen and women. . . . On the ‘war against terrorism’ washing line is now being pegged a whole conservative political agenda which the population at large did not vote for but which it is - for the time being at least - unable or unwilling to oppose.”

An Open Letter to George W. Bush from Michael Moore (January 29, 2002)
“It's kind of sad when you think about it. Here you were -- the most popular president ever! -- the recipient of so much good will from your fellow Americans after September 11, and then you had to go and blow it. You just couldn't stay away from your old cowpoke friend from Texas, Kenneth Lay. . . . Kenny has always been there for you. You needed a way to fly around to all the primaries and campaign stops in the 2000 election -- so Kenny gave you his corporate jet. . . . He flew you around America on the Enron company jet, and for that favor you touched down on tarmac after tarmac to tell your fellow citizens that you were ‘going to restore dignity to the White House, the people's house.’ . . . You said this standing in front of an Enron jet! . . . He [Kenneth Lay] interviewed those who would hold high-level Energy Department positions in your administration. . . . You not only let Kenny Boy decide who would head the regulatory agency that oversaw Enron, you let him hand-pick the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Harvey Pitt -- a former lawyer for his accountant, Arthur Andersen! . . . [Kenneth] Lay and Dick [Cheney] formed an ‘energy task force’ which put together the county's new ‘energy policy,’ the one that shut down every light bulb and juicer in the state of California. And guess who made out like bandits while ‘trading’ the energy California was in desperate need of? Kenny Boy and Enron! No wonder Big Dick doesn't want to turn over the files about those special meetings with Lay, eh?! . . . THE LIST OF ENRON PEOPLE ON YOUR PAYROLL IS IMPRESSIVE. Lawrence Lindsey, your chief economic advisor? A former advisor at Enron! Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary? Former CEO of Alcoa, the top polluter in Texas, whose lobbying firm, Vinson and Elkins, also represents Enron and was the #3 contributor to your campaign! Timothy White, the Secretary of the Army? A former vice-chair of Enron Energy! Robert Zoellick, your Federal Trade Representative? A former advisor at Enron! Karl Rove, your main man at the White House? He owned a quarter-million dollars of Enron stock.

the Enron lawyer you’ve nominated to be a federal judge in Texas
the Enron lobbyist who’s your chair of the Republican Party
the two Enron officials who now work for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm who sits on Enron's board
and, of course, the aforementioned Mr. Pitt, the former Arthur Andersen attorney whose job it is now as SEC head to oversee the stock markets.

Who wanted you to deregulate the energy industry further? Kenny Boy! . . . Who convinced you to explore the sick idea of PRIVATIZING our water supply and then allowing private corporations to ‘trade’ it in the future? Kenny Boy! . . . Who wanted Social Security to be tied to the stock market? Yup, Kenny Boy! (And what would have happened if our precious Social Security funds had been invested in Enron stocks as you, George, suggested during your election campaign?!) . . . If someone called you to help them set a house on fire, and they set it on fire, and you said no you wouldn't help them -- BUT then you also ‘did nothing’, DIDN'T call the police that someone was going to burn down a house, do you think you would have committed a crime?! . . . You had prior knowledge but knowingly and purposefully HID this information from the authorities and the people living in the house! You only admitted you knew a house was going to be torched when you were confronted by the police. ARE YOU COMPLICIT? YES! ARE YOU AN ACCESSORY? YES! Who would even think boasting, ‘Hey, look what a great guy I am -- a friend of mine told me he was going to commit an act of arson, and then I decided NOT to tell ANYONE about it!! WHOO-HOO!!’ . . . The saddest part of this whole affair was the day the scandal was revealed -- and you denied you even knew your good friend, Kenneth Lay!! ‘Ken who?’ you said. Oh, he's just some businessman from Texas. . . . You were like Peter after they grabbed J.C. from the Garden of Gethsemane. . . . You feeling any shame for the lies you’ve told? . . . You feeling any shame for using the dead of 9-11 as a cover for your actions, hoping our sorrow and our fear of being killed by terrorists would distract us from what you and kenny and the boys were up to? . . . The country was behind you when you said you were fighting the evildoers. In fact, all the while, the real fight Enron were conducting was against the clock, to see how fast they could transfer all the loot to their personal accounts and scarper!! Those were the evildoers, George, and you knew it. . . . And because, by design or negligence, you allowed all this to happen, it is time for you to resign.”

Anti-Americanism has taken the world by storm (Salman Rushdie, The Guardian, February 6, 2002)
“If America now attacks other countries suspected of harbouring terrorists, it will almost certainly do so alone, without the backing of the coalition that supported the action in Afghanistan. The reason is that America finds itself facing an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than militant Islam: that is to say, anti-Americanism, which is presently taking the world by storm. . . . America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done and did it well. The bad news, however, is that none of these successes has won friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may paradoxically have made the world hate America more than it did before. . . . As always, anti-US radicalism feeds off the widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and it remains true that nothing would undermine the fanatics' propaganda more comprehensively than an acceptable settlement in the Middle East. . . . What America is accused of - closed-mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance - is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror. . . . Colin Powell's reported desire to grant these persons PoW status and Geneva Convention rights was a statesmanlike response to global pressure; his apparent failure to persuade President Bush and Mr Rumsfeld to accept his recommendations is a worrying sign. The Bush administration has come a long way from its treaty-smashing beginnings. . . . And yet, more than ever, we need the United States to exercise its power and economic might responsibly. This is not the time to ignore the rest of the world and decide to go it alone. To do so would be to risk losing after you've won.”

A question-and-answer guide to the world's leading ‘rogue state’ (Mehdi Hasan, Media Monitors Network, January 4, 2002)

The Fascisization of Israel (Neve Gordon, Media Monitors Network, February 4, 2002)
“Thousands of American fatalities are considered—in this cynical world—a godsend simply because their deaths helped shift international pressure from Israel onto the Palestinians, while allowing the Israeli government to pursue its regional objectives unobstructed. . . . As the cycle of violence consumes more lives, many an Israeli has lost the ability to think clearly. According to a recent poll, which appeared in the country’s largest newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, 74 percent of Israelis are in favor of the government’s assassination policy. But when asked if they thought the assassinations were effective, 45 percent claimed that they actually increase Palestinian terrorism, 31 percent stated that they have no effect on terrorism, and only 22 percent averred that assassinations help deter terrorism. Almost half of all Israelis believe that the government’s reaction to terrorism is inimical to their own interests, but continue, nonetheless, to support assassinations. . . . Already in the Republic, Plato warns against the ascendancy of feelings and emotions in the public sphere, claiming that these traits characterize the emergence of despotic rule. Many years from now people may ask how it was that a whole population did not realize what was happening. . . . The fascisization of politics takes many forms, some more apparent than others. Perhaps most conspicuous is the dramatic change in the Israeli landscape, currently covered by thousands of billboards, posters, car stickers, and graffiti with slogans like ‘No Arabs, No Assaults,’ ‘Expel Arafat,’ ‘Kahana was Right,’ and ‘The Criminals of Oslo should be Brought to Justice.’ Israelis, so it seems, are neither shocked nor alarmed that their slain prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, has been criminalized by his own people. . . . The Israeli secret service routinely intercepts the emails of peace groups and often obstructs solidarity meetings or protests in the West Bank by declaring whole regions ‘closed military zones.’ Peace activists are ‘invited’ to meetings with the secret service, where they are ‘warned’ about their activities. For months, the Gaza Strip has been totally closed off to Israelis from the peace camp—including Knesset Members—and only Jewish settlers, journalists, and soldiers can now enter the region. . . . The Bush administration has extended its unequivocal support of the Sharon government, thus allowing the Israeli security forces not only to strike the PA, but also to silence all opposition from within. The crucial point that many foreigners neglect to notice is that in Israel, democracy is also under attack.”

America's imperial war (George Monbiot, The Guardian, February 12, 2002)
Both Hamid Karzai, the interim president, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy, were formerly employed as consultants to Unocal, the US oil company which spent much of the 1990s seeking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. . . . More importantly, the temporary US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian states appear to be putting down roots. US military "tent cities" have now been established in 13 places in the states bordering Afghanistan. New airports are being built and garrisons expanded. In December, the US assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Jones promised that "when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region." . . . An asymmetric world war of the kind George Bush and his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, have proposed provides the justification, long sought by the defence companies and their sponsored representatives in Washington, for a massive increase in arms spending. Eisenhower warned us to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." But we have disregarded his warning, and forgotten how dangerous the people seeking vast state contracts can be. . . . This week's New Scientist reports that the FBI has yet to catch the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks. "Investigators are virtually certain of one thing, though: it was an inside job. The anthrax attacker is an American scientist - and worse, one from within the US's own biodefence establishment... If he wished to scale up US military action against Iraq, he almost succeeded - many in Washington tried hard to see Saddam Hussein's hand in the attacks. If he wished merely to make the US pour billions into biodefence, he did succeed." . . . Over the past few weeks, the men who run the military-industrial complex have shoved aside the government of the Philippines, dispatched 16 Black Hawk helicopters to Colombia, arrested the Cuban investigators seeking to foil a bomb plot in Miami, alarmed Russia and China by scrambling for central Asia, begun developing a new tactical nuclear weapon, and all but declared war on three nations. Yet still the armchair warriors who supported their bombing of Afghanistan cannot understand that these people now present a threat not just to terrorism but to the world.

Return to Opinions Return to top

[Home] [World Events] [Take Charge] [Links] [Hagerty Home Page] [About Us] [Store] [Search] [Site Map]
[What's New]