For Security Oppose The Bombing.


Supporters of the American/British offensive in Afghanistan do not seem to feel the need to explain a number of things.

Firstly how it will prevent persons from Saudi Arabia and Egypt resident in Germany and the United States from carrying out acts of violence, which is what happened on September the 11th. Can anyone explain to me how "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were a factor in the S-11 atrocities. The hijackers were trained to fly in the United States and they didn't use any weapons other than scissors and "box cutters" so where do camps in Afghanistan enter the picture?

Secondly given that a considerable degree of anti-Western resentment exists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (as both the Arab and British press have reported), and this is increasing in the wake of the bombing of Afghanistan; can anyone explain to me why, if the popular American reaction to S-11 has been to want 'payback', or at least removal of the organisations thought to responsible for inflicting violence in New York, Muslims are so different from Westerners that they will not want 'payback'?

Thus is not the course of action embarked on by the British and American governments likely to increase not decrease the threat of anti-Western violence?

Furthermore can we not assume that the British and American governments are aware of this?

Which brings us to the question, why, if security is not their goal, they are intervening in Afghanistan?

In the words of the now vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian". That was in 1998, when Cheney was in the oil business not in government. In the mid 90ies there were efforts on the part of American energy corporations, most notably Unocal, to build oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan to feed the South Asian market. These efforts were supposedly given up, either because of instability in Afghanistan (if we can believe Unocal) or because of a campaign against their negotiations with the Taliban regime (if we can believe Unocal's opponents). It was reported in the business press last year that their attempts were still alive.

The proverbial dogs on the street know why there is the American presence in the Middle East (military bases, subsidy for Israel, sanctions on Iraq). Bin Laden has stated that it is his goal to remove that presence. He doesn't mention American democracy or American secularism, presumably they cannot be high on his list of priorities as neither exists in the Middle East.

Why should we think that American intervention in Central Asia will not have the same purpose as American intervention in the Middle East? Why should we assume that some of the local opposition to intervention in Central Asia, will not be as murderous as some of the local opposition to intervention in the Middle East?

In short if we want security we ought to oppose, not support, the current Anglo-American campaign.


To the Free Earth web site

This page provided as part of the Struggle collection

[Main Index][What's New][Other Campaigns]
[Email lists] [Irish Labour history]