[A-List] What happened to the War on Terrorism?

["annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

 What Happened to the War on Terrorism?




February 6, 2003

Notice what Colin Powell didn't say. Addressing the United Nations Security
Council, the meticulous secretary of state - the Bush administration's most
credible spokesman - didn't say that Saddam Hussein had anything whatever to
do with the events of 9/11.

That was supposed to be the whole point of the "war on terrorism": to avenge
and punish the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the
Pentagon, and to prevent a recurrence of that horror. It's hard to see how
war on Iraq will achieve either purpose. What do Iraq's hidden "weapons of
mass destruction," however terrible, have to do with a score of terrorists
armed only with box-cutters? Nothing.

Nor did Powell say that conquering Iraq would amount to a victory. Or that
it would defeat or diminish terrorism. Or that Americans would be safer from
terrorists if the United States launches war on Iraq.

Have Americans already forgotten that the "war on terrorism" is supposed to
be about - terrorism?

The rest of the world seems to remember. It wonders what the real purpose of
this war is, when North Korea is both far more evil and far more menacing.

Powell did allege nebulous "links" between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but he gave no
evidence of any operational conspiracy in the events of 9/11. He didn't even
try. He knew better. Instead he offered horrifying descriptions of the
weapons in question - particularly chemical weapons - and made a
plausible-sounding case that Iraq has them and has deceived the UN
inspectors. But his claims were so technical that few of us can assess them,
and we had to take his word even for what the satellite photos showed.

In short, there was no "smoking gun" - or, more to the point, smoking
box-cutter. All this had nothing to do with 9/11. Powell, like the rest of
the administration for the last year or so, was talking about an entirely
different subject and hoping we wouldn't notice.

Al-Qaeda's modus operandi is totally different from Hussein's. If he had
wanted (and been invited) to help it stage the 9/11 attacks, he could have
supplied the 20 terrorists with flight training, lodgings, money, and
chemical weapons. They obviously didn't rely on him at all. If they even
asked him for support, they may well have been refused. But more likely they
are entirely separate from him. In his eyes they would be fanatics and loose
cannons. He likes to be in control, and it's hard to imagine him sharing his
precious weapons with them to do what they please with them. For their part,
they saw him as one of the many "traitors to Islam" who rule the Arab world.

So why does the Bush administration want this war so badly? What's it all
about? Oil? Israel? There are plenty of rabid Zionists in the
administration, and they do want war with Iraq (for starters), but they aren
't in command. The oil men are. Not that they need access to Middle Eastern
oil; the free market could take care of that well enough.

But whoever controls the Arab world controls everyone's access to oil. If
the United States conquers Iraq, then Iran, it will gain enormous leverage
over the whole industrialized world - including a little country that has
been largely ignored during the recent discussions: China. No wonder China
has been resisting the American war plans.

Not too long ago, the United States had virtual control of the region
through compliant rulers in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. But Iran
overthrew the shah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are also vulnerable to Islamic
revolution, and Iraq acquired its own ambitions. So if the United States
wants global hegemony, it must step in and take the reins in its own hands.

The purpose of the 1991 Gulf War was to restore the status quo when Iraq
seized Kuwait. Gulf War II has no such pretext. The American people aren't
in the mood for yet another war. So the trick was to convert the shock of
9/11 into war fever, then to redirect it at Iraq by "linking" Saddam Hussein
to "terrorism." This required some slippery semantics and a lot of
propaganda - which is mostly sheer repetition of nonsense until resistance
is worn down, and logic surrenders.

That's about where we are now. Osama bin Laden may have started one war, but
Saddam Hussein is about to lose the other one it has morphed into.


Joseph Sobran