On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Hassan Nafaa looks into the war on terror and how it became a war on Arabs and Muslims Had the events of 9/11 happened under a different administration, would the US reaction have been the same, or would history have taken an alternative course? It is hard to answer a hypothetical question of this type, but it is one of those questions one cannot help bringing up. Five years have passed since 9/11 changed the face of the world and the region. But there is still a need to look into the real reason US President George W Bush took a certain line of policy towards the Middle East since then. Many would agree that the international order is suffering from unprecedented chaos because of US policies. The creative chaos Condoleezza Rice likes so much is questionable to say the least. Current turmoil must not be blamed on the perpetrators of 9/11 alone. Much of the blame lies at the doorstep of a US administration that launched an "all-out war on terror" without defining "terror" or determining the method and duration of the war. The US administration gave us the names of 19 men accused of killing almost 3,000 innocent people. The US administration told us that all 19 men belonged to one group, Al-Qaeda. One would expect that punitive action would be taken against the group in question. That would have been considered self- defence, even if it involved limited military action. Al-Qaeda is not a state; it is an underground organisation with members dispersed all over the globe. One would think that special measures would be taken to track down members of that group, uncover collaborators, and generally tighten the noose. This didn't happen. The Bush administration decided on a spectacular show of force, one befitting its inflated self-image. It went to war against Afghanistan. Although that was excessive action, the international community condoned it, perhaps because the Taliban was close to Al-Qaeda and allowed it to run training camps on its land. So the UN Security Council sanctioned war and NATO took part in the fighting as well as in post-war arrangements after the fall of Kabul. The Bush administration, however, wasn't satisfied with the demolition of Al-Qaeda, the occupation of Afghanistan, and the overthrow of the Taliban government. For the US administration, the "war on terror" was a global war with no time or geographical constraints. The US had already compiled endless lists of "terrorist" groups, countries "sponsoring terror", and "pariah" or "axis of evil" states. After Afghanistan, no one knew where the next strike would be, although everyone knew that a political agenda was in place, one that wasn't necessarily linked to the events of 9/11. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 took place against the will of the UN Security Council. Likewise did Israel's recent war on Lebanon. For the US administration, these wars were mere links in the chain, episodes in the endless "global war on terror". What has this administration been thinking exactly? The Taliban ran a fundamentalist Sunni regime. Saddam ran a secular one. Hizbullah is a Shia fundamentalist party. There is precious little in common between the wars fought so far in the name of eradicating terror. At the outset of his global campaign, President Bush talked of "crusades", then retracted the word, claiming it was a mere slip of the tongue. At the time, the US needed to build a wide- based alliance for its military effort. But lately, the US president used another emotive expression, that of "Islamic fascism". Five years of war haven't changed his mind. His "global war on terror" is simply a war to subjugate the entire Middle East to US will and crush anyone opposing US policy, whether whole countries or non-state actors. When I was researching for this article, I looked for material that may help me identify any change that may have occurred in recent US foreign policy. I found an article written by Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. What caught my eye was not just the title of his article, "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism", but that it was published first 2 October 2001, right after 9/11 and immediately before the war on Afghanistan. The article was republished 9 September 2005, on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. This says volumes about the vision of the US rightwing, and its persistence. Peikoff believes that the appeasement policies pursued by successive US administrations towards the Islamic world are responsible for the latter's belligerence, which climaxed on 9/11. Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower's abandonment of oil rights tempted the Muslim world to take its first stabs at freedom. The second stab came from Khomeini's Iran, where US diplomats were held hostage. President Carter, Peikoff goes on, wavered in his response, which encouraged the Muslim world to shed American blood. The first killers were Palestinians who hijacked planes in the late-1960s, before being joined by others eager to get in on the game, Peikoff argues. Successive US administrations saw Muslim crimes as individual crimes that call for legal action against the perpetrators. But Peikoff proposes a more radical solution: the eradication of all countries that sponsor terror. The expression of "ending" countries that sponsor terror is not one that Peikoff invented. He borrowed it from Paul Wolfowitz, currently president of the World Bank. Only reluctantly does Peikoff agree with Donald Rumsfeld that nuclear bombs cannot be used. For Peikoff, Iran is the key source of terror. Not only does he call for the destruction of Iranian military power, but he also advises "the destruction of every branch in its government". It would be inaccurate to claim that Peikoff's article encapsulates the current US administration. I understand that President Bush, in comparison with Peikoff, may look like Mother Theresa. Furthermore, the failure of US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon has given rise to opposition within the ranks of the Republican Party. There is just a slim chance the US administration may learn from its mistakes, but I am not optimistic. This administration is so steeped in its own indoctrination, it is likely to remain as intransigent as ever. The neo-cons have nothing but hatred for the Muslim world, a world of which they are ignorant. They don't see Muslims as human, but rather demonic maniacs capable of anything. The current US administration is not one to admit errors and is likely to engage in fresh acts of madness, including military action on Iran. Its war on terror began by striking weak countries -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- and then gave Israel the green light to destroy first Hamas and Islamic Jihad before waging a war on Lebanon to liquidate Hizbullah. The US has saved Iran until last because it knows it's a tough opponent. But for the US administration, Iran is the head of the serpent, and it must be cut off. Perhaps Bush understands that a strike against Iran would be risky. But then he might decide to take his chances.
