[A-List] US imperialism: accumulating blowback 2

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

The mounting rhetoric of fear and the strategy of tension aimed at forcing
all of us into line behind our respective imperialist governments was shown
to be ineffective by the Spanish voters this past weekend. But the meaning
of this is being clouded yet by pompous columnists and other rent-a-quotes
who decry al-Qaeda's ability to change the result of the Spanish election.
Al-Qaeda did no such thing -- Aznar and co. sealed their own fate by lying,
all too transparently, about who was responsible for the bombing. The
mobilisation of anti-PP voters was merely the first response. A deeper and
lingering effect of al-Qaeda's actions will be to further undermine the
rationale within Europe -- very much including Britain -- for supporting the
US-led occupation of Iraq, its activities in Afghanistan, and US imperialism
more widely. The Bush administration has been proven utterly wrong in its
assessments of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the likely aftermath of "victory",
and the effect this would have on "terrorism". Its likely replacement by a
Skull-and-Bones administration led by John Kerry means only that instead of
neoconservative rampaging imperialism and complete withdrawal, we'll get a
"third way", very much in line with the so-called Progressive Policy
Institute's blatherings: a more concerted effort by US leaders to co-opt
fellow imperialists onto the "war on terror" bandwagon via sweeter diplomacy
and use of economic incentives, but no fundamental reorientation.

Where this leaves Blair is very much alone, since he looks ever more
isolated internationally and domestically. An al-Qaeda strike in London,
which we are informed today is "inevitable", courtesy of the chief of the
Metropolitan police, will stand as good a chance of turning people against
Blair as it will pulling them into line. Blair has more or less been caught
lying, and his steadfast refusal to own up, and instead to lay waste to
anything and everything that might act as a useful scapegoat (e.g. the BBC,
David Kelly) has brought only diminishing returns to his credibility. The
consistent theme struck by Scott Ritter concerning the loss of credibility
as a result of lies is absolutely correct in this instance. Aznar was merely
the first to suffer the consequences of being caught.

The Labour Party has been turned into a state party utterly dependent on the
credibility of its leader. When that is gone, the security of backbench MPs
becomes an overriding issue, and while MPs alone cannot overthrow the
leader, they can certainly undermine the legitimacy of the leadership. Again
idiotic columnists and commentators miss this -- apparently, "whereas Spain
had an opposition, in Britain there is none". Two mistakes here -- firstly,
that the PSOE represents a fundamentally different alternative to the PP (Ed
George has explained clearly that the PSOE is as statist as the PP);
secondly, that the Labour Party is a monolithic, homogenous party devoid of
difference. The chattering classes forget so easily how Thatcher was
toppled. The men in suits will come for Blair too, once events prove beyond
a doubt to one and all that he is an electoral liability. And the
"inevitable" strike in London may just precipitate that. For far from
"defending our way of life" Blair has in fact laid it open to attack and
under siege from those whose outrage at the West's exploitation and
subjugation of the Arab world and elsewhere has reached the point of no
return. And the kind of society built in the West, the one to which all
should aspire, is in fact uniquely vulnerable. It's not just the US military
that faces the problem of asymmetric warfare. Civilians populating the
metropolis are uniquely vulnerable to the problems caused by the removal,
sabotage or destruction of infrastructure vital to the daily functioning of
the metropolis. And such discomforts, routinely used by US imperialism in
its effort to destabilise uncooperative regimes in places like Cuba,
Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Haiti, etc., can be just as effective
when used against the populations of countries even more accustomed to the
creature comforts of modern living.

None of this is to condone terrorism -- although it is depressing that so
many fall victim to the propaganda spewed forth by the ministries of
information that any sort of objective analysis of this sort of thing
results in overblown accusations driven by emotionalism and fear of the
unknown, themselves products of the very same propaganda. But given what is
at stake here, the onus is very much on the people of the West, especially
those countries with an active part in the "coalition", to assert their will
and force their governments to resign membership of that coalition.
Additionally, they must understand that the "inevitability" of such attacks
is a direct consequence of the actions of their governments -- actions
which, in the case of the Iraq invasion, were contrary to the wishes of the
vast majority of humanity. Thus our governments have conspired to place us
all in the front line of a war that cannot be fought in the traditional way.
That will not stop those same governments from behaving in the traditional
way, and using the organs of state to beat their populations into
submission, with those not being "with us", effectively "against us". So it
is as well to be as prepared as possible for the equally inevitable effort
to marginalise and close down all opposition as unpatriotic and treacherous
by nailing the lies that have been perpetrated in the name of
"civilisation", because, despite the dangers, the situation is uniquely
poised, as the result of the Spanish election has shown. Not only did the
Spanish government lie to its people, but it got caught up in an even bigger
lie -- that spun by the Bush administration with the help of its helpless
poodle, Tony Blair. And it is the lingering, simmering resentment created by
this even bigger lie that represents the fertile ground for a mass
mobilisation aimed at a fundamental reorientation of politics in Britain
that will not only bring down Blair (itself inevitable) but in addition
force a reappraisal of Britain's geopolitical position vis a vis Atlanticism
and Europe.

The hysteria likely to be the bread and butter of the UK tabloid press will
not be enough to save Blair or any other US-satrap British government, when
it is obvious to even the dumbest Sun reader that it was the weakness of
Britain with respect to the US that put it in this currently dangerous
position. Of course the dumbest Sun reader will be asked to believe that it
is all the fault of muslims and too-lenient immigration policies, etc., and
the ground for this has already been prepared very carefully. But with the
intelligence services now showing belated recognition of the danger posed by
the far right, there is evidence that there are sections of the British
state ready to counter the rightward, US-ward drift that is being willed to
fruition by Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black, "Lord" Rothermere and other
sections of British and US capital together with the ideologues of the
American Enterprise Institute (the Delaware court's blockage of Black's sale
of the Telegraph titles to the Barclay brothers should not be dismissed as
unconnected with this). Hence the highly visible maneouvring of Peter Hain,
for example, whose ascendancy will find him walking an ever more precarious
tightrope in the fashion that has characterised Tony Blair's political dance
ever since Bush stole the 2000 presidential election. But Hain's balancing
act is more finely judged that Tony's, because Hain will move into position
only when Blair's credibility and that of the whole "special relationship"
is utterly diminished. By then he will have a small window of opportunity to
achieve the strategic reorientation originally intended by Tony and his
backers back in 1997. For the fall of Blair and the rise of terrorism will
expose just how vulnerable is the British economy to destabilising financial
bubbles (a key legacy of Gordon Brown's "prudence") and currency crises (the
perennial problem of post-1945 sub-imperialist Britain), themselves
triggered by the instability caused by Blair's demise and/or continued
terrorist attacks/Iraqi resistance. At that point, with the credibility of
the "special relationship" and all its paraphernalia in tatters, the British
economy on the rack, Blairite government policy threadbare and rising social
discontent, a "great man" will emerge to take the reins of power. In 1979 it
was Thatcher; in 2004/5 it is most likely to come from within the Labour
Party, and Peter Hain is doing all the right things to ensure that it is
him. It is absolutely vital, not for the success of Peter Hain (or any other
bourgeois politician), but for the future of Britain, Europe and the wider
world that there is sufficient mobilisation to make this reorientation come
to pass, and thereby weaken the hegemony of US imperialism.

-----

US's foes set to pounce
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times, March 17 2004

KARACHI - While the United States-led coalition makes its latest attempt to
round up Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters on the Pakistan-Afghan border, new
evidence is reinforcing the certainty that the Afghan resistance isn't just
sitting around waiting to get caught, and nor is the International Islamic
Front going to relent in its determination to wreak havoc on the US and its
allies elsewhere.

High-level sources tell Asia Times Online the Afghan resistance movement and
the International Islamic Front - a loose umbrella for a network of cells
dedicated to jihad against America - have finalized plans to enter a
decisive phase of their offensive, aimed at forcing the US-led coalition out
of Afghanistan by inflicting injuries on the interests of the US and its
allies both on and off the battlefield.

On the Afghan-Pakistan front
Pakistan was informed quite some time ago that US forces will be launching
operations that will result in a major clashes with Afghan guerrillas, who
are expected to try to melt into the Pakistani mountains. However, this is
not the complete story. According to sources, different groups of trained
jihadis left Karachi for Pakistan's tribal areas of South and North
Waziristan about two weeks ago, where they have now taken up position for
their own attacks on the US-led forces. These jihadis are said to have been
trained for suicide attacks in Kashmir against Indian troops. Now their
targets will be both Pakistani and US troops. Pakistan has already mobilized
70,000 troops in those same tribal areas - especially in South Waziristan,
Bajur Agency and Mohmand Agency.

The Afghan resistance has adopted a strange modus operandi. Though the
resistance is clearly does not follow an organized pattern yet, orders are
trickling down from Taliban leader Mullah Omar, not by any modern means but
through Mullah Obaidullah and Mullah Bruther. These two Taliban officials
hold meetings with different commanders once every six months, when the
commanders are informed of the plan of action and targets. Even their
warfare strategies are quite basic; however the Afghan resistance is sure to
make an impact on the US as soon as the snow melts from Afghan terrain.

Pakistani authorities, meanwhile, have set up another operation in Wana to
compliment the US's recently launched operation Mountain Storm. But in a
dramatic development, Pakistani tribals have refused to comply with federal
government orders and have jointly demanded the withdrawal of Pakistani
forces. Tribal groups are even said to have threatened Pakistan that if
tries to launch another operation there, war will be inevitable. As a
result, the operation has come to a halt while Pakistan seeks ways of taking
face-saving steps in front of US authorities.

Since the US-led "war on terror" began over two years ago, it has brought
little other than despair to Afghanistan. Though the US disposed of the
Taliban regime after two months of intense bombardment, it has failed to
fill the political vacuum. Anarchy and instability remain the order of the
day. Because of this, the "war on terror" has been taking on an unseen enemy
with no known hide outs. It emerges from somewhere, attacks, and disappears
to somewhere else. This game of hide-and-seek is able to continue through
the Taliban's proven ability to regroup after carrying out small attacks and
suicide missions. The Taliban is now aiming to retake major Afghan cities in
the near future.

But this is not the lone aspect of the US dilemma in Afghanistan. The areas
which are out of Taliban trouble - Kabul, Pansher, Mazar-i-Sharif, etc - are
controlled by warlords. At present, there are at least 30 powerful warlords
who do not listen neither to Afghan interim President Hamid Karzai nor the
US. There is now strong cognizance on the US's part that with the passage of
time, several factors are compounding to US woes in Afghanistan.

Therefore, the aim of the US is to catch Osama bin Laden dead or alive and
leave Afghanistan, saving face by handing over the reins of power to
"moderate Taliban".

This week's visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to Pakistan and
Afghanistan is expected to involve the finalizing of agendas in the US's
ongoing offensive. Powell's ultimate mission is to arrive at strategies that
will free the US from the Afghan quicksand into which the Bush
administration is sinking ever deeper.

Meanwhile, well placed sources maintain that in a review meeting between
Pakistan and US intelligence officials recently, the failures of previous
operations in Pakistani tribal areas were discussed. The blame was leveled
at several Pakistani officials connected with the planning of the
operations, who are said to have been part of an organized system of
leakages.

Pressure is mounting on Pakistan to help the US complete its agenda in
Afghanistan, or face the possibility of sanctions over the country's nuclear
proliferation through the ties of Pakistani scientists to Libya, North Korea
and Iran.

The global plan of attack
The International Islamic Front's global operations are likely to kick off
when the Afghan resistance clashes with US coalition forces in major Afghan
cities in the coming weeks. It is then that the network is expected to exert
pressure on the US and its allies through more terror attacks, a new game
that is likely to begin in Pakistan.

The present war - the US versus the International Islamic Front - is a
situation unprecedented in history, involving a superpower and an opponent
with no state, no organized force, only a few known people, and a live-wire
ideology that is creating an expanding network of cells inspired by
al-Qaeda. In many radical Muslim organizations, breakaway factions are being
established which support and follow bin Laden's program - whether they are
in touch with him or not. This is the situation in Iraq, where even the
Baath Party split and gave birth to jihadi factions. This is happening
within Pakistani jihadi outfits as well, with members breaking away and
becoming bin Laden followers.

Amid these developments, bin Laden is unlikely to surface. Sources say the
International Islamic Front will carry out operations on the directives of
just a few individuals who visit their contacts only occasionally in various
regions. There is, once again, a likelihood that the coming months will see
a major attack: a plane hitting a skyscraper in the US or a "dirty bomb"
being detonated in a strategic place in the United Kingdom.