Jack A. Smith, New York
The 9/11 commission hearings in Washington, for all their members' cacophony and fury, and front-page headlines, seem to have been constructed to avoid the real reason why the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York City and Washington took place.
Of course, being an election year, the commission's members, evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, take partisan shots at each other. Explosive testimony from retired anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke provided the Democrats with the opportunity to charge that US President George Bush's administration was so intent upon invading Iraq that it paid insufficient attention to al Qaeda, thus endangering people in the US.
Some interesting revelations have emerged, such as the text of the August 6 memo to Bush a month before 9/11, which informed him that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organisation was active in the US and may be planning an attack, perhaps with hijacked planes.
It is clear, however, that the hearings will conclude that the reason for that 9/11 attacks was "intelligence failure" by the CIA and FBI. "Reforms" will ensue, civil liberties will be further abridged in the name of "homeland security" and hundreds of billions of dollars more will be invested in a long "war", ostensibly against a few underground organisations that may have a total of 1000 committed members.
Unfortunately, the most relevant question of all regarding 9/11 and its aftermath will not be addressed in the hearings or during the November presidential election:
Why was a small group of fanatics willing to commit suicide to destroy three symbols of US power in the world — the World Trade Center (financial power), the Pentagon (military power) and the White House (political power), which was spared because the final hijacked aircraft crashed before reaching its target?
The primary reason is US policy and actions in the Middle East since the end of World War II, a policy based on exercising control over the world's greatest known reserves of petroleum. This has led Washington to continuously intervene in the region to support backward feudal monarchies and repressive, undemocratic regimes at the expense of social and political progress.
Until the implosion of the USSR in 1990, the US was in a frenzy to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining influence in the region. Since 1990, Washington has sought to secure total hegemony throughout the entire Middle East, by force if necessary, beginning with Iraq.
In some cases, the White House made deals with reactionary regimes, such as with the royal family in Saudi Arabia after World War II. In return for guaranteed access to oil and for keeping the USSR at bay, Washington has extended its military and political protection to the House of Saud in Riyadh to this day.
In other instances, the White House ordered the CIA to overthrow democratically elected progressive governments, such as in Iran in 1953. The result was a quarter-century of repressive rule by the Shah of Iran, a US puppet finally overthrown in 1979. One reason that Iran's religious faction was in a position to seize power was that Iran's sizable left and democratic forces had been killed, imprisoned or exiled by the Shah with US approval.
The CIA repeatedly intervened in Iraq from 1958, when progressive General Abdul Karim Kassem overthrew the British-installed monarchy. In 1963, Kassem was overthrown with US help. Many thousands of leftists and communists were killed along with Kassem. This ultimately led to rule by the Baath regime.
More than 50 years of constant US intervention have led to a plethora of ill fortune in the region. This includes weak, reactionary regimes dependent on the US; poverty amidst great wealth; the violent destruction of left and progressive forces; the stultification of social progress; the rise of extreme religious fundamentalism; Arab disunity; and a deep sense of frustration and anger.
Three more factors must be added to the mixture that produced 9/11.
The Afghan civil war, 1978-1995 — During this period, extremist Islamic fundamentalism became a serious military force, in large part because the US invested billions of dollars to train and equip it. Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden played an important role in the CIA's schemes.
In April 1978, left forces including progressive military officers took power. The new government began to enact major social and political reforms, and established close relations with the neighbouring Soviet Union.
The reformers were in Kabul only a few months before US President Jimmy Carter ordered the CIA to support the reactionary opposition forces, including fundamentalists. The USSR sent thousands of troops to defend the progressive forces, withdrawing them in 1988.
The left government continued in power until it was smashed in 1992, leading to a horrendous civil war between rival reactionary factions, which was finally won by the Taliban, a force deeply indebted to bin Laden.
The first US-Iraq war, 1990-2003 — Iraq invaded the tiny, oil-rich principality of Kuwait in August 1990. Rejecting repeated Iraqi offers of a negotiated withdrawal, the regime of George Bush the First gradually built up a huge invasion force and massively retaliated in January 1990.
Iraq's entire civilian infrastructure was destroyed, along with its retreating army and many thousands of civilians. Extensive sanctions, which killed up to 1.5 million people, along with frequent air attacks, continued until 2003.
In the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims, including those critical of Hussein, the first US war turned into a nightmare of genocide and humiliation for the Iraqi people.
In addition, bin Laden was outraged that"infidel" Americans established a military base on Arab soil in Saudi Arabia to attack another Arab country. At around this time, he dedicated himself to two goals: pushing the US out of the region and getting rid of the House of Saud.
US support for Israel, 1967-2004 — The US has been devoted to Israel as a surrogate for US military power in the region since the June 1967 war, though it has generally supported the Zionist state since its inception in 1948.
Every time Washington vetoes a UN Security Council resolution seeking justice for the Palestinians, Arab anger mounts against the US. Every time Israeli tanks and soldiers fire at stone-throwing children, the anger mounts further.
Washington's imperial deportment in the Middle East for more than half a century has unintentionally conspired to create an extreme fringe of Islamic fundamentalism dedicated to visiting retribution upon the US.
It is a rebellion, however distorted by religion and the tactic of small-group terrorism, spawned in desperation against continuing US intervention and manipulation in the Middle East. It's not going to be halted by the "war on terrorism", which is much more focused on extending US hegemony than it is on crushing this small but potent rebellion.
What will make America more secure? The answer is clear enough to be an activist slogan: "Bush says stay the course, we say reverse the course! Treat the people of the Middle East with respect and dignity."
Stop manipulating the politics and economy of the region. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the "war on terrorism", or on propping up reactionary regimes, invest that money in repairing the damage caused by more than 50 years of US intervention. Get out of Iraq now and permit these beleaguered people to solve their own problems. Stop military interventions and close down the Pentagon's many military bases in the region. Adopt a balanced stance vis-a-vis the Palestine-Israel question, starting with the demand — backed by the threat of withdrawing Washington's massive annual subsidy, if necessary — that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw all troops and settlements from the occupied territories.
This seems the surest way of protecting Americans from terrorism and of creating a more positive image for the US. Of course, those who rule America have no intention of doing anything approaching this. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are dedicated to continuing the policies that have allowed the US to exercise hegemony over the region and the world.
Such policies resulted in 9/11, but despite the official hand-wringing about terrorism the US ruling class apparently considers it well worth the inconvenience to continue US domination over the Middle East and the liquid gold under its burning sands.
[A version of this article first appeared in the April 21 issue of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter, published in New Paltz, New York.]
From Green Left Weekly, April 29, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.