War on Civilians: Mark Weisbrot

["Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From Counterpunch

November 3, 2001

A War On Civilians?
by Mark Weisbrot

President Bush has declared a "war on terror," and political leaders such as
House minority leader Dick Gephardt insist that "this is not a strike
against the people of Afghanistan."

But the evidence is accumulating that our current military campaign is
indeed, as most of the world sees it, being waged against the Afghan people.

Consider this statement from Admiral Michael Boyce, Chief of the British
Defense Staff. Referring to the bombing campaign, he said, "The squeeze will
carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is
going to go on until they get the leadership changed."

It seems clear from this statement that Admiral Boyce sees the punishment of
Afghan civilians, including their children, as an important part of the
US/British strategy. On September 16 the New York Times reported that our
government had demanded from Pakistan "the elimination of truck convoys that
provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian
population."

Food shipments fell drastically, although the border has remained porous,
especially to those who pay bribes. The Taliban is even able to make money
by exporting things as big as logs.

In recent weeks the UN World Food Programme has increased its shipments. But
these are still far short of the amount needed to prevent mass starvation
during the winter. The increased risk to truck drivers, the breakdown in law
and order, and other disruptions due to the war are taking their expected
toll.

There are currently about 5.3 million people receiving food aid, and this is
expected to increase to 7.5 million in the near future. In about two weeks
winter will begin, many roads will become impassible, and people will have
to rely on stockpiled food. Relief groups have called for a halt in the
bombing so that food - as well as blankets and medicines - can get through
before it is too late. But their appeals have so far gone unheeded.

And everyone acknowledges that the air drops of food from US planes are so
small that they are little more than an exercise in public relations.

What is terrorism? Edward Herman, Emeritus Professor from Pennsylvania's
Wharton School of Business, has offered a politically neutral,
straightforward definition of terrorism that is difficult to argue with:
"the use of force or the threat of force against civilian populations to
achieve political objectives."

A strategy to "squeeze" Afghanistan, through bombing and starvation, "until
the people of the country themselves . . . get the leadership changed" would
certainly qualify as terrorism under this definition.

Most Americans would like to see Osama Bin Laden, and anyone else that was
responsible for the atrocity of September 11, brought to justice. But they
would certainly be ashamed if they knew that their government was pursuing a
strategy that involved starving hundreds of thousands, and possibly even
millions, of innocent people.

Of course this is not the first time that our government has used collective
punishment, or terrorism, in order to achieve its political goals: there was
Nicaragua in the 1980s, Vietnam prior to that, and many other examples. In
fact, by any objective definition of terrorism - one that includes the
terrorism of states as well as individuals - the United States has been its
largest single sponsor over the last half-century.

This war is different, in that it originated with a horrific terrorist
attack on Americans. But the collective punishment of the people of
Afghanistan is no more excusable than the crimes of September 11. As such,
it will only inspire more hatred and terrorism against us.

There is no military solution to the problem of terrorism within our
borders. We will have to change our foreign policy, so that our government
does not make so many enemies throughout the world. Those who collaborated
in the crimes of September 11 will have to be pursued through legal and
political channels, including the United Nations.

A good start would be to cut off the major source of Bin Laden's funding and
support, which is not in Afghanistan but in Saudi Arabia. The Bush
Administration has done very little on this front, due to a combination of
big oil and other "geopolitical" interests. Our government is willing to
risk American lives, at home and abroad, and kill any number of innocent
Afghanis, but it is apparently not willing to risk disturbing its relations
with the Saudi royal family.

Going the legal route won't boost the President's approval ratings the way a
war does, nor will it make the world fear our military power. But at least
we won't be fighting terrorism with more terrorism, and fueling an
escalating cycle of violence. CP

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington, DC.