Bush's War Will Not Stop Cycle of Violence

By Frank Farkas

    The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attack on September 11th has set back the cause of peace and justice. It has produced havoc in Afghanistan, contributed to a heightening of tensions at various flash points around the world, and has imperiled democracy in this country. Another kind of response was, and is still, possible. Worldwide condemnation of the heinous crimes of September 11 created an opening for the administration to seek a truly international, non-military solution to the problem of terrorism. Instead, its actions so far have compounded the problem, and introduced some new difficulties. A review of the response will show how this has happened.

    From the beginning, the administration's response shaped the conflict in a way that increased the risk of its spiraling out of control. True, the administration gave out a mixed message at first: on the one hand, of a measured, nuanced response and, on the other hand, of maximum retaliation. The confusion reflected, in part, divisions within the administration. But the staunchest war hawks have ( at least for now ) gained the upper hand and the prevailing direction and tone of administration policy show their authorship.

    Immediately following the attack, the administration began promoting a military response disproportionate to the terrorist attacks. Its aim was not just to destroy Al Qaeda, bin Laden, and those believed to be responsible for September 11, but to root out all terrorism and, if necessary, to "take out" governments harboring terrorists. All the nations of the world were put on notice: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. The administration prepared the American people for a long drawn-out conflict of epic proportions. Nothing was ruled off-limits where the war is concerned. By the administration's reckoning, at least sixty nations are harboring terrorists; therefore, the war has no fixed theaters of operation. The targets are virtually unlimited: any organization, movement, or government anywhere that the administration defines as terrorist or supporting terrorism. There are almost no limits regarding the means of fighting the war either, since Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has not ruled out the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons and has requested the largest increase in military spending in 20 years. The amount of that increase, $48 billion, is larger than any other country?s entire military budget.

    While claiming sympathy with the people of Afghanistan, the administration began the undeclared war on October 7 with a bombing campaign against that devastated country. The air strikes have by now caused more loss of life than the original terrorist attack, according to one authority. Also, since tens of thousands of cluster bombs have been dropped, the killing and maiming of Afghanis will go on for years. In place of the Taliban, a number of different warlords, some of them notorious violators of human rights, are now violently competing for power.

    In what amounted to a second front of the war, the administration launched a withering attack on civil liberties at home. Under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration rammed the 320-page USA PATRIOT Act through Congress without any hearings, or any debate; most legislators didn?t have a clue as to what was inside this legislative Trojan horse. The act defines domestic terrorism in such fuzzy language that it can easily serve to outlaw political dissent. Already, White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer has admonished the American people to "watch what they say," and the attorney general has warned a Senate committee that criticisms of the administration were aiding the enemy. The most immediately and severely affected by the assault on civil liberties were immigrants. Ashcroft directed the nation's law enforcement agencies to detain over a thousand of them, including some Bronx residents, at undisclosed locations around the country. Congress later demanded lists of those detained, but Ashcroft stonewalled. In addition, the attorney general authorized the wiretapping of conversations between the accused and their attorneys; and the President, bypassing Congress, signed an executive order setting up military tribunals that deny alleged terrorists most of the Constitutional guarantees upon which our judicial system rests.

    Around the world, the Bush administration's military has upset delicate balances and caused or incited escalations of old antagonisms. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is raging out of control; India and Pakistan are lurching toward war. And the administration promises more to come: during his State of the Union message, President Bush threatened to unleash U.S. might against North Korea, Iran and Iraq. He accused this "axis of evil" of developing weapons of mass destruction, signaling a dramatic expansion of the never-ending and ever-evolving war.

    Over 600 American troops have already been deployed to the Philippines to assist an army whose favored method of dealing with suspected adversaries is the death squad. Other highly questionable interventions, including one in Colombia, are in the initial stages. In fact, the administration is associating all kinds of controversial and potentially unpopular measures, domestic as well as foreign, with the war on terrorism and with patriotism, in order to shield themselves from criticism. This includes tax breaks for the wealthy, a dangerous missile defense system, and various proposals to deregulate corporations.

    The administration portrays the war on terrorism as a life-and-death struggle to defend the American way of life, but its actions belie its words. Instead of a defense of democracy, what we have is an executive branch that wants a permanent war on terrorism as a rationale for intervening militarily wherever, whenever, and however it chooses.

    Perhaps never before has it been as important as it is now to bring together a large and inclusive movement for peace and justice in this country. We owe it to the victims of September 11 and of October 7. Wars have a logic of their own. The administration may unwittingly precipitate a worldwide conflagration, fueled by its increasingly rash words and deeds. One of the first tasks of such a movement is to foster public debate about the administration?s war policies. Joining with our neighbors in asking the right questions, and sifting through the evidence to find out what is really going on and why, may help to break the grip of war hawks on public opinion. We hope that, in a modest way, this newsletter will become a part of the process.

    Frank Farkas is a member of Bronx Action for Justice and Peace.

Top