Moo nirvanaflats.com » The American Jihad

The American Jihad

The American Jihad

In one of his video appearances, Osama Bin Laden invited the world of Islam to rise up against the western world. The Bush administration has apparently decided to meet this challenge. Some even question if they made this decision prior to September 11th, 2001.

While the campaign in Afghanistan was at first questionable, it actually did accomplish several positive things (disrupting Al-Qeda, forcing Pakistan and India into a tense peace) with a minimal loss of innocent lives. Sadly, the promises to support and rebuild the country after the ‘war” have largely gone unfulfilled; Kabul remains in ruins and the country is still fraught with violence and desperation while War Lords slowly resume control of areas pockets of the country and the opium trade was set back on track.

The saddest aspect of the US response to the September 11th attacks was the unprecedented opportunity to create something positive out of the horrific events of that day. The world, in response, was aghast at the mass murder that took place in New York and Washington D.C. that morning. Even long-time sworn enemies of the US demonstrated support and sent condolences. But instead of taking this momentum begat from global outrage at terrorist violence and murder of innocent non-combatant citizens and creating a world-wide forum of unity against such acts, the Bush administration pulled out the Bush I-era Wolfowitz document and almost immediately used it to polarize the world. “You are with us or you are against us,” said Bush II.

Rather than embracing the international community –allies and enemies alike— to create a multi-lateral plateau of consensus and policy of how to eradicate terrorist cells and attacks bringing about a safer and more peaceful world, Bush declared “war” and a “crusade” to attack terrorists and “those that would provide safe harbor”. It’s no wonder the entire Islamic world went cold at these words, having experienced dogmatic Christian “crusades” previously. The moment Bush announced his “Axis of Evil.” all chance to build a genuine global coalition was lost. This could be written off as pandering to the US population for political gain, but some might argue that there are much deeper and insidious reasons behind this stance.

A few brief points- There was a purposeful ignorance of terrorist threats during the first several months of the administration, attributed largely to ignoring anything that was Clintonesque. But in reality, between the increased terrorist “chatter” the NSA had been recieving, the warning signs from field agents being ignored and the direct tip-offs from informants should have been enough to motivate the Bush camp to action. It can be argued that it was much less an issue of “connecting the dots” than it was a willful ignorance. The most glaring example of this is while Attorney General Ashcroft decided not to have the FAA heighten airport security around the nation due to known threats of terrorist hijackings, he did feel threatened enough himself to start taking chartered jets- protecting himself.

Regardless of so much damning evidence demonstrating that something could have been done to help prevent 9/11 from happening, let’s assume the intelligence failure under the Bush administration was just due to incredible incompetence and ineptitude (which is certainly wholly believable). We all know that after the previous attack on the WTC, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the bombings of several US Embassies around the world and countless other smaller terror attacks globally, that the previous and current administrations knew eventually there would be an attack of some kind on US soil.

Tapes seized by U.S. troops from terrorist suspects in Afghanistan allegedly have Al Queda operatives claiming that even they were surprised that the World Trade Center fully succumbed to the airliners slamming into them. One wonders if the Bush administration, armed with what knowledge they had and that was passed down to them from Clinton, was too. Some have theorized that there was a complicit acknowledgement by Bush administration staff that “something” could happen on U.S. soil (thus Ashcroft taking chartered jets), but the extent of which was thought to be minimal. Apparently no one expected as much damage to have been done as the 9/11 events turned out.

But why take the war to Iraq and why now?

Iraq was the logical choice as a primary target for a myriad of reasons.

Despite nearly global opposition to waging a war in Iraq, the Bush administration, early on after the 9/11 attacks, targeted Iraq as a “threat to the United States” and to “freedom loving people everywhere.” Prior to the 2002 US Congressional elections, the hunt for Bin Laden was going nowhere, the bizarrely confusing multi-colored terror alerts seemed to be randomly issued, and American unease about the “war on terrorism” was growing. The Republicans needed to both shore up public support for their party and the Bush White House had to demonstrate to the American people that they were being proactive by protecting the US against further attacks, amid the scathing reports of intelligence failures and the inability of the administration to create a cohesive HomeLand Defense Policy. With the 1991 Wolfowitz pre-emptive strike doctrine dusted off, revised and in hand, Iraq was an easy target of choice to distract from the current woes of the RNC (Republican National Committee) and to proactively (and preemptively) begin to “export Democracy” across the world.

By identifying Iraq as a threat to the United States due to their development of Weapons of Mass Destruction over and over again, Saddam Hussein’s regime became global public enemy #1. UN Resolution 1441 was pushed through the UN Security Council, despite several previous resolutions demanding Iraq disarm and comply with the agreements that ended the second Gulf War (the first real Gulf War, being the bloody and horrific battle between Iraq and Iran and claimed millions of casualties on both sides). HR. 1441 was the fulcrum the White House needed to justify a pre-emptive attack, a policy never officially used before by the US, save possibly for the invasion of Grenada, although some may argue that a couple of Cuban engineers setting up camp was justification enough. In all other wars the US has been involved in during the past 100 years, there was at least a pretense of legitimate military action.

Yet Iraq has been primarily a crippled country since the end of the second Gulf War. Virtually bankrupt and unable to export goods at all, except when allowed through UN policies or via the black market, most intelligence reports of the past several years have determined that little, if any, renewed production of WMD has taken place. Analysts determined that most of Hussein’s resources were being used to just hold on to power by increasing fear and mistrust across Iraq’s people, rather than any plans for aggression beyond it’s borders. Hussein had already lost control of most of the North and parts of the South. And regardless of insinuation and theoretical musings, not a single claim of Hussein’s regime supporting terrorist actions against the United States or the EC has been proven.

Politics is easily the most simplistic explanation –without a common enemy and an aura of being pro-active against protecting Americans from future terrorist attacks, the Bush White House would be under the increasing scrutiny of the 9/11 investigations and be seen as powerless to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. Losing the White House and several seats in congress to the Democrats in 2004 would be disastrous to the Republican Party.

Oil: Despite the Bush Administration’s rabid attack against the environmental policies marginally shored up by the Clinton Administration, drilling for oil in ANWAR and re-initiating the wells off the California coast has been repelled by most Americans. Long tired of being subjected to the whims of OPEC and continued turbulence in South America as well as Iraq having the largest known stores of crude in the world readily accessible; having a US friendly government in Iraq would alleviate the US of being under international control of the oil supply. The United States cannot be an autonomous world leader if strangled by dwindling oil supplies.

Money: Also easy pickings. The Bush family is from oil as are most of the senior cabinet members as well as Vice President Cheney (Haliburton). Oddly, every company George W. was “placed” into that dealt with oil, went bankrupt or was driven into financial ruin. Hundreds of millions of dollars had been lost under his control. Not only does the US oil industry have a great deal to gain from cheap and plentiful oil, some have argued that George has a “debt to repay.”

Israel: Israel’s days as a predominant force in the region, as we know it, are numbered. The US cannot justify its actions in Iraq (after leaning on HR 1441 and others) without addressing the Israeli/Palestinian issues. Over 60 UN Security Council resolutions against Israel have been filed pertaining to their treatment and responses to the plight of the Palestinians. If only for the pretense of equal application of international law, the US will “address” the Israeli/Palestinian issue. The creation of a Palestinian state and economy (which needs to happen anyway from all moral standpoints) along with a physical strong hold in the Middle East will negate the dependence on Israel for US policy. It will also partially eliminate the sinkhole that billions of dollars of aid to Israel are poured into annually. Israel will still be in great danger of attacks by its neighbors, and whatever party in charge in the US will need to placate the American Jewish electorate. However with the establishment of a beachhead in Iraq (so to speak), there will be limits to this aid. If Israel decides to not comply with giving the Palestinians autonomy, they will be facing the war(s) to come alone, allowing Washington to finally be “free of the Israeli problem” once and for all and at the same time save face internationally, claiming to have “done their best.”

Religion: Secular economies are easier to export Christianity to than are monastic dogmatic societies. With controlling interests in government and the rebuilding efforts in Iraq come “Humanitarian” aid deployments. “Christian” humanitarian aid foundations readying for deployment to Iraq have already been reported. Regardless of countless statements to the effect that “all free peoples have the right to worship as they see fit,” even “our Islamic brothers and sisters”, it has to be noted that throughout Bush’s speeches, words such as “Crusade”, “God is on our side” and “evil-doers” have abounded. It has been reported that Bush’s own “born-again Christian” beliefs drive his overall belief system and that he spends a few hours a day reading the New Testament and praying to God for guidance. Bush has also been quoted as describing the US as a primarily “Christian Nation.” With all this rhetoric, one has to question if it truly is rhetoric or if is more a glimpse into another underlying, if not lesser, goal at hand.

Doctrine: Here is where the various arguments culminate. It is a wonder that no one has questioned the Wolfowitz document as to “what purpose” it serves. Self-contained, it is an aggressive foreign policy switch –much closer to Germany’s stated goals of self-preservation in WWI and II— but one has to question what policies led to the creation of the plan. The United States, the last true world super power, with a thriving non-wartime military economy and semi-healthy non-military economy, has unprecedented opportunity to shape the world as it sees fit. Expanding our global economic reach into a “controlling force” and continuing to export our “democracy” and ideology to regions of the world where we don’t have the strongholds or like minded allies will produce one effect ultimately: Global dominance of US ideology and policy. Iraq’s strategic location as the “cradle of civilization,” where we know the oldest documented evidence of civilization to have begun and expanded outwards from, has not changed.

Regardless of whether the US works with the Iraqis to instill a secular, democratic government or props up Iraqi exiles through a puppet government, US military forces will not be leaving Iraq for years to come, for, if nothing more than “security reasons.” Knowingly, this will increase the rhetoric of anti-US sentiment throughout the region, and as anger mounts and inevitably violent attacks happen, the US will be able to deploy military responses in like at a moment’s notice. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, even Pakistan and Indonesia will need to either “be with us or against us.” As we recently demonstrated, an actual connection to a terrorist act against US interests by any of these countries will not be needed to retaliate with force.

Just the suggestion of the possibility is enough now to warrant a pre-emptive attack and invading force if a threat of any kind is perceived by the U.S.

This is not “exporting Democracy” as we know and believe Democracy to be. This is most definitely a Jihad in it’s own right.

1 Comment »

  1. nirvanaflats.com said,

    March 1, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    […] Of course by the time I do this, I am already lamenting the fact that I can’t write like that anymore. And it’s not a self-pity- it is a truth; I can’t write “walls” again or “I want a girlfriend” or “The American Jihad“. […]

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Leave a Comment