MATTHEWGOODONLINE

They tried it here on the home continent and didn’t get too far. Fears that North Korean missiles might reign down on North Battleford, Saskatchewan, weren’t enough to convince the government that all out Canadian participation in the proposed defense shield was warranted. As many of you are aware, I was very much opposed to Canada’s participation in the BMD program, and was proud to stand with Steve Staples and others involved in the Ceasefire initiative against it.

Unfortunately, and despite the fact the most Czechs want nothing to do with it, the government of the Czech Republic today signed a deal with the United States to base part of its missile defense system in the country. As of yet, the United States has failed to reach an agreement with the Polish to play host to the remaining part of the system. Another positive at this point is that Czech opposition parties are calling for a national referendum on the issue, especially pertaining to US personnel being based in the country.

Of course, and perhaps rightly so, the Russians have raised stringent objections to the implementation of the system in their backyard, and it should not be overlooked that its introduction is a power play on the part of the Bush Administration with regards to shoring up influence in the region. The United States has played quintessential roles behind the scenes with regards to supporting various pro-Western political parties in numerous Eastern European nations in recent years, such as Ukraine, in an attempt to influence outcomes in their favour – primarily to do with the potential acquisition of lucrative defense contracts and other economic opportunities. The introduction of a missile defense shield in the region only strengthens their position and will no doubt provide them other opportunities, primarily with regards to placating the US defense sector.

The fear mongering involved in the implementation of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe is that Iran could attain nuclear weapons that possess long-range capabilities. Of course, the logical question has to be asked – why would the Iranians employ intercontinental nuclear weapons against anyone in that region? Would it be to target US bases located throughout it, or because the Iranians simply really despise the Poles?

Logic, in this instance, must not be disregarded. The implementation of the system so close to Russia sends a very clear message. It would be absolutely no different than the Russians implementing a ballistic missile defense system in Central America or northern South America. The US response to such a move would be one of utter outrage, and the reaction of the current Canadian government would be no different.

Of course, at that point we would be asking realistic questions, such as – why are the Russians implementing the system? What threat is it protecting the region from, and does the threat have a viable nuclear capability that constitutes a serious threat? And if the answers to those questions are vague at best, then we must also ask them of the US backed missile defense system being implemented in Eastern Europe.

When it comes to the Middle East and the possession of nuclear weapons, Western xenophobia immediately rears its head. Unlike most, Muslim nations* are viewed as being viable nuclear threats were they to possess nuclear weapons because, in the simplest of terms, we think them largely ignorant and immoral. Many believe they lack any capacity of conscience with regards to truly understanding the ramifications of actually employing nuclear weapons, which betrays our hypocrisy all the more.

* It should be pointed out that Pakistan is a nuclear power and is also a Muslim nation.

This is right about the point when some like to point out the fact that a questionable government governs Iran and that it supports Hezbollah. I have, in the past, addressed the realities of what would occur were Iran to either gift a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group for use against, for example, Israel, or if the Iranians themselves were to employ one directly. The truth of the matter is that, in either scenario, Iran would be the recipient of an overwhelming nuclear response, one that would decimate the nation, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Now, you can apply whatever xenophobic malaise that you’d like at this point, but to actually believe the government of Iran, or those within its military infrastructure, would risk the lives of that many of their countrymen, including their own lives and those of their families, is, as far as I am concerned, simply ridiculous. What purpose would it ultimately serve? That Iran was able to use, at best, a handful of weapons (when they actually acquire them, as they have none now) against a nation like Israel that can respond with hundreds of its own? And that’s not even taking into account the American nuclear response that would no doubt be included. It is, in a word, suicide.

Iran’s entire political infrastructure would be wiped out. Its military would be largely decimated, and its people would be left in a wilderness replete with burning ruins and fallout that would make Hiroshima look like Dinseyland. And for what? The off chance that they were able to launch maybe two or three missiles at Israel? The math is madness, but it is a madness that we have come to believe them capable of.

Why? Because as far as most are concerned the entire nation of Iran is home to millions of terrorist sympathizers. And the Iranians are not alone in that distinction either. Most view the majority of the Arab and Persian world to be sympathetic to terrorist actions. Ironically, following 9/11, one million Palestinian students in the Palestinian Territory and East Jerusalem expressed their solidarity with the hundreds of American children that lost family that day by observing five minutes of silence. These are the same children that are commonly cast as ‘terrorists in training’ by many in the West. In Tehran, an immense vigil was held after 9/11, though went completely unreported.

Of course, the Iranian government is definitely guilty of suspect practices. I’ll not deny that. Then again, so is the Saudi government, a nation in which no vigils were held for the victims of 9/11. Mind you, none of the hijackers that day were Iranian, while fifteen of them were Saudis. This ultimately begs the question – why is Saudi Arabia, along with a host of other Arab nations, being gifted some $20 billion dollars in military aid by the United States over the next decade? Why has next to nothing been said about the fact that while the Saudis are routinely promoted as a staunch US ally they have been complicit in covertly funding Sunni groups in Iraq, the very same thing that the Iranians have been routinely condemned for regarding Shi’ite militias? And lastly, what about the fact that the majority of foreign Mujahideen, better known to most Western television audiences as ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq’, are Saudi nationals?

One has to ask a basic question at this point – what if the Saudis wanted to possess a nuclear capability? Given their influence over OPEC and the fact that they have trillions invested in the US, do you honestly believe that the United States would employ threats against them, let alone attempt to have the UN institute economic sanctions? Given that the two holiest places in Islam are located in Saudi Arabia, were the nation invaded, the Muslim world would truly rise up, and not in some wholly propagandized sense as has been promoted these past seven years. It would be no different were Italy invaded by some foreign power and the Vatican occupied.

In the end, how we view the Arab and Persian world is quintessential. As it stands now, and despite our own histories of monumental transgressions, the truth is that many view them as morally inferior, the results of confusing the actions of a zealous and radical handful with an entire faith and the people who follow it. The proliferation of this phenomenon only serves to further alienate those that would seek to find and share common ground, ultimately resulting in widening a gulf that ‘moral people’ should never have allowed to develop in the first place.

If you can actually believe it, there are those that still cling to the belief that the regime of Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda and was complicit in the attacks of September 11th. That should come as no surprise given how forcefully the Bush administration, with the help of much of the American media, promoted that falsehood. And even though a Pentagon sponsored study that reviewed more than 600,000 documents captured after the 2003 invasion has found absolutely no link, not a single realistic measure has been taken to hold the administration accountable for repeatedly promoting that entirely baseless connection in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

While sitting in the airport in San Francisco yesterday, I sat and watched CNN’s coverage of the democratic primary. There were televisions throughout the terminal, and most waiting for the flight to board were watching them. At one point in the broadcast, even though Wolf Blitzer was talking about something completely different, the bottom of the screen was suddenly filled with - Terrorists Support Obama Campaign, or something to that effect. And you know, in today’s split-second world of information, that’s all it takes - one simple little blurb at the bottom of a television screen.

I sat in my seat in that terminal in utter amazement, looking around in an attempt to gauge the reaction of those close to me. All of them were passive, as if they were being presented hard, cold fact. And then, probably out of frustration, I blurted out – “where’s Edward Murrow when you need him?”. A few people turned and looked at me. Most didn’t.

Every time I’m down here the detritus that is American mainstream media always astounds me. The fact that individuals such as Glen Beck and Sean Hannity are actually taken seriously, that any of them are actually considered journalists, completely shocks me.

At the end of the day, no matter how free you believe a society to be, propaganda is propaganda. And in a country in which journalism has, in many ways, been transformed into something akin to the Jerry Springer show, it’s not difficult to see how, in the quest for ratings, the fourth estate can be so utterly abused to the point that it is no longer serves its base purpose, but rather a purpose that is wholly dedicated to protecting its own interests by placating government and corporate entities to ensure financial growth.

Don’t get me wrong; there are a lot of journalists in the United States, primarily in print media, that still believe in the unspotted purpose of the fourth estate. But over the last seven years their voices have been pushed to the periphery of the medium, making it more difficult for average Americans to access information and views that aren’t restricted by corporate media interests. And that is a very dangerous reality to confront, especially in a nation at war, especially in post 9/11 America.

I have said it before and I will say it again. On that September morning in 2001 the gravity of history, its complexities, and the importance of questioning the motives of government were rendered moot in many ways. And even though conservative voices in American media still defer to it as an example of why, for example, it’s acceptable for the administration to abuse the Constitution, or for the United States to employ torture or hold individuals in legal limbo, it shouldn’t be overlooked that what happened that day was responsible for spring boarding many of their careers.

Drive

Some hold that the best way to affect change, to confront an injustice, is to employ force. Of course, I disagree with that entirely. As Wajeha Huwaider has demonstrated in a video posted to YouTube, sometimes the first step is as simple as getting behind the wheel of a car…

“Saudi women’s rights activists have posted on the web a video of a woman at the wheel of her car, in protest at the ban on female drivers in the kingdom.
Wajeha Huwaider talks of the injustice of the ban and calls for its abolition as she drives calmly along a highway.

She says the film was posted to mark International Women’s Day. Thousands have viewed it on the YouTube website.

The last such public show of dissent was in 1990 when dozens of women were arrested for circling Riyadh in cars.

Last year, Ms Huwaider and other activists circulated a petition which was sent to King Abdullah urging him to lift the ban.

In the three-minute clip, she at first drives around a residential compound where she notes that women are allowed to drive because it is not a public road.

But about halfway through, without comment, she executes a left turn onto the main highway and proceeds to drive along it in defiance of Saudi law.

“Many women in this society are able to drive cars, and many of our male relatives don’t mind us driving,” she says in Arabic.

“I hope that by next year’s International Woman’s Day, this ban on us will be lifted,” she concludes.

In February, two leading Islamic scholars said there was no reason to continue the ban.”

Call me suspicious, but I find it hard to believe that the Gulf Cooperation Council is suddenly willing to provide enriched uranium to Iran without the covert involvement of the United States. To me it smacks of a MERLIN redeux, an attempt to sabotage the process from within using Gulf State allies. At the very least, it would provide a glimpse at the state of Iran’s program.

“Prince Saud said the GCC had developed the proposal to stave off a nuclear arms race in the Gulf.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes, but the US claims Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.

Prince Saud is reported to have said: “They [the Iranians] have responded that it is an interesting idea and they will come back to us.

“The US is not involved, but I don’t think it would be hostile to this, and it would resolve a main area of tension between the West and Iran.”

Given that President Bush recently employed the term ‘World War Three’ with regards to Iran’s nuclear potential, I find it highly unlikely that the United States would welcome this without some promise of an intelligence conduit being instituted that allowed them inside the deal’s particulars and, more importantly, if it happens, information gleaned from it. Given that the Gulf States involved are all US allies - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - it seems a stretch to believe that there isn’t a man behind the proverbial curtain.

You can’t throw a stone these days without hitting something that makes mention of the threat posed by Iran. The United States has started the process of building forward operating bases along the Iran-Iraq border so that it can conduct cross-border operations in an attempt to strike militia training camps and bomb factories. Iranian influence and interference in Iraq has become one of the leading justifications for confronting Iran next to its nuclear ambitions, and is an issue that is widely reported on.

My reason for mentioning this? As Dahr Jamail pointed out two days ago, the actions of others are being entirely overlooked…

“Reporting on Iraqi benchmarks in mid-September, Bush and his team of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker sought to pin some of the blame on Iran. Eschewing diplomatic language during his testimony, Crocker boldly said, “Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq.” Gen. David Petraeus added that Iran is fighting a “proxy war” in Iraq by aiding Shi’ite extremists and providing weapons that are killing American troops.

Anyone doubting that Bush is not serious about taking on Tehran should note his words from last month: “We will confront this danger before it is too late.” On September 17 the Telegraph reported that the Pentagon has already drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 2,000 targets across Iran.

The great irony is that while these accusations towards Tehran are supported by thin evidence, plenty of evidence does exist that another of Iraq’s neighbors, U.S.-ally Saudi Arabia, is supporting resistance groups in Iraq, and intends to continue to do so.”

Didn’t the US just include them in a lucrative ten year, $20 billion dollar arms deal, you ask? Why yes, yes they did.

Funny that.

Home…finally. There is something to be said for sleeping in your own bed with your own dogs laying on your head. Empty fridges, on the other hand, are not so fun to come home to. Puts things in perspective.

I did a recent interview with CBC Radio that appeared on The House, but there is little point in checking it out. I spoke with them for more than a half hour and it was edited down to sound bites that completely make my comments sound trite. Everything I said in support of what they used with regards to information explaining my position in an in-depth manner was edited out. Personally, I’m getting a little tired of it, and such is the reason why blogging is far better. There is no editorial oversight that is out of your control, your arguments are presented in full.

Looking back over the last few days there are a few things that I wanted to touch upon.

The first is the fact that flooding in South Asia has displaced some 20 million people. That’s 10 million people shy of the population of Canada. Oxfam has information on how you can help.

It seems that Weapon is being used on a website called Caledonia Wake Up Call, with which I have absolutely no affiliation whatsoever. In truth, I am massively offended that any of my work would be used by a website such as that without my permission, and the proper steps will be taken to ensure that it is removed.

Last, The International News recently ran a frightening story about comments made by Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo…

“Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the US is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.

The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in the state of Iowa that he believes such a terrorist attack could be imminent and that the US needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

You simply can’t cut an arms deal with certain nations in one of the world’s most conflict ridden regions without cutting another to counterbalance it. So that is precisely what the United States is in the midst of doing.

The US is currently preparing an arms deal with the Saudis and other Gulf states worth $20 billion dollars over the next decade. But as expected, the Israelis aren’t entirely too happy about the prospect of it, so the United States plans to extend to them a package that will total $30 billion dollars over the next decade.

As it stands now, the United States gives Israel some $2.4 billion dollars in military aid a year, thus the new deal would constitute a 25% increase.

“The BBC’s Bethany Bell in Jerusalem says the package is seen as an attempt to allay Israeli concerns over the planned arms deal with Saudi Arabia, reportedly worth $20bn (£9.8bn) over the next decade.

Defence officials quoted by US media said the sales would include advanced weaponry, missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships.

Mr Olmert said the increased support was a sign of US commitment to maintain Israel’s military “advantage over the Arab states”.”

In total, the United States is committing $50 billion dollars over the next decade to the military capabilities of foreign countries that will, in no small way, ensure that a heightened state of arms proliferation remains prevalent in a region of the world which should, in truth, be the focus of moderation, not proliferation.

Of course, this is all fantastic news for US military contractors, their employees, and those innumerable Congressional districts that rely on the defense sector.

Two stories out of Afghanistan of note. First, air strikes in a recent clash in Afghanistan have reportedly killed some 50 civilians. Wali Jan Sabri, a parliamentarian from Helmand, claimed that the reports given journalists were credible.

The second is about a recent surface to air missile attack on a C-130 Hercules aircraft. The article obviously points the finger at Iran as the source for the shoulder mounted weapon, which is believed to be a Soviet era SA7 – which is, in truth, quite antiquated. Given that caches of Soviet weapons aren’t unheard of in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or the border regions where black marketers often operate, the probability that it came directly from the Iranian government, or military, seems somewhat ‘convenient’. There is also the possibility that a US Stinger missile could have been used, having been provided the Northern Alliance and Mujahideen in the 80’s by the United States. As recently as the late 90’s, the CIA were actively attempting to buy back random Stingers that had not been used.

In Iraq, the government is reportedly in its ‘deepest crisis’, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asking President Bush directly to remove US General David Petraeus – a request that was, obviously, denied. According to The Telegraph…

“Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general’s moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa’eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general’s signature strategy to be scrapped. “He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias,” said the official. “Bush told Maliki to calm down.”

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: “I can’t deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you.”

Now isn’t it interesting that a man such as George Bush can champion Iraqi democracy domestically as a way to promote the purpose of the war itself, and yet, at the same time, completely overrule the requests of its elected leader?

There is no democracy in Iraq, nor has there been in any true sense since the US began promoting the creation of a central Iraqi government when Bremer was still at the helm. Iraq is a militarily occupied country, one in which various reactions to that occupation have occurred. Iraqi democracy is a fallacy, a creation to assuage US domestic support for a disastrous foreign policy doctrine, its lynch pin being 9/11.

Lastly, ironies with regards to Saudi Arabia continue unabated. While some view Saudi Arabia’s role with regards to Iraq as counterproductive - and why shouldn’t they being that a fair share of foreign fighters in Iraq are, in fact, Saudis – the Bush administration is on the verge of asking Congress to approve a $20 billion dollar arms package for the Saudis and their neighbours. This, of course, had to be countered by offering the Israelis a ten-year, $30.4 billion dollar, military aid deal.

Surprises all ‘round.

Lebanon is fighting a War on many fronts. There is the War on Terror in Naher Al Bared Refugee camp, which continues on its 4th week of fighting. The army today released that they have made considerable progress in the fight and that they are close to an end. What is “close” no one really knows. We keep on hearing “in the next few days” but then weeks pass and the fighting continues. Many of the Palestinians in the camp have been displaced, their homes taking over by terrorists and then bombed by the military. Saudi Arabia has pledged $12 Million to aid those displaced.

Another act of terror was the assassination of MP Eido on Wednesday. The government supporters blamed Syria, while Syria blamed them. All while a news anchor, Sawsan Darwish, for NBN TV station, which is a pro-Syrian/anti- government station, commented by accident on air “Why were they late in killing him [Eido]?,” She then said “they’re [anti-Syrian Politicians] driving us crazy,” “Ahmed Fatfat [Anti-Syrian MP] is left. I’m counting them,” she said as she and the sound engineer laughed. The comments caused a huge stir. How could this woman be so insensitive, just because this man had an opposing political view, was his death justified? How could she go on and gloat about who will be next as if this death comes as no surprise, it seemed as if what had just happened was amusing. How could I ever support anti government politics, when it’s people like this that represent it.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Brotherly War that continues to draw blood from Hamas and Fatah fighters in Gaza has spilled over into some of Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camps. Tensions were highest at El Bedawi Refugee camp, where Fatah and Hamas supporters clashed. Later in Ain El Halweh refugee camp a Hamas representative was attacked. Of course both Hamas and Fatah leaders in the camps deny that they are promoting violence between their different factions. And so though it looks like most Palestinians in the camps are supporting Palestinian unity, the tensions will not disappear until the problems in Gaza are resolved, a feat that will not be easily accomplished from the looks of things. For a good opinion peace check this article out.

And as if this was not enough for Lebanon to deal with, today a Palestinian militant group launched 3 rockets at Northern Israel followed by Israel launching 5 of its own at Southern Lebanon. Do these people not learn? And why the hell are Palestinians shooting rockets at Israel when they continue to fight amongst themselves in Gaza. Do they really believe that launching a few rockets will free their land? I can’t help but think this is another ploy by Syria to try and draw Lebanon into another war with Israel.

With every passing day I think this is it, it can’t get worse. But it does get worse. I still feel numb to it all. I still don’t feel threatened by what is going on around me. I still wonder if what I feel is normal and it makes me question myself more when I hear my friends’ concerns about their own safety. My mother arrived last night, and as soon as she saw an army check point she wept, remembering all the soldiers that have been killed in that last month. She told me how she really wanted my brother and I to visit them instead but convinced her self that all will be well. My brother and his family arrive on Wednesday, my dad the following Wednesday, and I continue to be optimistic that this will be a good a summer. Am I delusional? I really don’t know.

If freedom is worth fighting for, then surely peace is its greatest vice.

Since the end of the Second World War, every conflict that the West has involved itself in has been justified by claiming it necessary to safeguard freedom and liberty. Of them, how many have?

It could be argued that the Cold War was fought in numerous ways to protect the free world from the ravages of Communism. Interestingly, there are only a handful of examples that the West can point to as actual successes in that regard, Afghanistan being one of them. But even then, one must examine the aftermath of that victory with regards to current global events.

The Korean War failed in its purpose, as did Vietnam. In fact, during the Cold War, not one hot war resulted in what could be considered a victory against what the West perceived as their global enemy. On the other hand, covert operations, employing unethical methods and pay-rolling murderers and radicals, tended to produce far better results. Afghanistan falls into that category being that those who supported the Mujahideen and The Northern Alliance in their struggle against the Soviets never involved themselves militarily. They acted as financiers, advisors, and gunrunners - nothing more. And, of course, Afghanistan is not the only example of this method being employed. Western powers have colluded with a variety of groups and individuals whose ideologies were, and are, entirely counter to the principles of freedom and liberty. In the context of covert operations, the goal is not to promote an ideology, rather to ensure that those you oppose are dealt with by whatever means necessary, and that you protect your interests no matter who happens to be willing to secure them.

In truth, that is the global legacy of the West in the latter half of the 20th century. Those conflicts that have involved sacrificial lambs of our own are not what are commonly referred to by others abroad when they attack Western complicity, or, for that matter, Soviet complicity. Their primary source of animosity lay in what the general public knows little of, the secret actions undertaken by their own governments and the ramifications that they have had abroad.

While there are numerous examples that can be sited, Chile provides an adequate demonstration.

The Nixon administration worked diligently to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende, their reasons being the usual – he threatened to nationalize aspects of Chilean industry. The result was, of course, the eventual seizure of power by General Augusto Pinochet, whose regime was responsible for mass human rights violations during his tenure as the head of the country’s military junta. Thousands disappeared during the Pinochet era, tens of thousands were jailed and tortured, others were simply disposed of, and all of it was overlooked by the United States who supported Pinochet’s economic reforms (see: Chicago Boys) and enjoyed continued access to Chilean markets. Of course, Allende was a member of Chile’s Socialist Party, and therefore provided ample cause for alarm.

All of that said, who is Chile’s current President? Well, it so just so happens that it’s Michelle Bachelet, the leader of - you guessed it - Chile’s Socialist Party.

Many Chileans have not forgotten Pinochet’s silent partner, nor their hypocrisy. Because while 30,000 Chileans were forced to flee Chile for their lives after the coup that placed the junta in power, the American people, even disenfranchised by the Vietnam War, still believed that theirs was a country that stood for something other than aiding and abetting murderers. It is also very important to remember that Allende’s government was, by no means, a pawn of the USSR. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was, prior to their invasion of it in 1979.

Pin The Tail On The Donkey

What do we possess that compels us to think it applicable the world over? If it’s the perceived enjoyment of living in free societies then, I’m afraid, it’s time we saw an optometrist. The truth is that our own freedoms aren’t even of serious import to us. Were they, we would be far more vigilant than we are, far more critical of government, and even more critical of the use of military force, let alone our own apathy. Any society that claims itself free and possesses the ability to influence government, because the citizenry represents the true base of power, does not offer up excuses as to why it cannot be vigilant. Because that is only the freedom to be ignorant, a liberty that has come to supercede all others in our society.

In the struggle to maintain that which we claim to hold dearest, our freedom, we have only exercised our right to embrace ignorance on unprecedented levels while turning our backs on the very rights that we possess to ensure that our freedoms cannot be diminished. We are, in a sentence, the authors of our own undoing. Reason, it seems, has no place with us.

On September 10th, 2001, how many Canadians cared about Afghanistan, the plight of its people, its government, or how much Naan bread was going for in the typical Afghan market? Who even really cared about poppy production?

Be honest with yourself – very few.

And yet, by the 1st of October, 2001, it became a target the size of the sun itself, the lean-to of international terrorism, a country tyrannically governed by the very same radical despotic regime that a month earlier few even knew about, let alone cared about. But because of the trauma caused us by the attacks of 9/11, reason was thrown out the window in favour of something far more comfortable – vengeance, which, not surprisingly, is steeped in the ease of ignorance.

On that terrible day in 2001, not one Afghan national took part in the attacks. That didn’t matter, mind you, because the author of the attacks had been a guest of the country’s government since his expulsion from Sudan, and therefore it seemed only logical that military action against Afghanistan was warranted. On the 12th of September, 2001, President Bush declared that the attacks themselves represented an act of war, even though no nation, and I emphasize ‘nation’, had declared war on the United States following them.

Of the 19 hijackers, 15 of them were Saudi. Of the remaining four, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. None of the men were members of the Taliban, none of them were Afghans, and in no way did the attacks that day constitute an act of war on Afghanistan’s behalf because only three countries in the world even recognized the Taliban as the country’s legitimate government, all three of which – The United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia – also supplied them aid.

Given that, a few contradictions should be noted:

Saudi Arabia, during the reign of the Taliban, afforded the United States military bases and purchased arms from them. This, of course, was the same government that exiled Osama Bin Laden for his views, but would eventually recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the very regime that Bin Laden helped finance.

Following the attacks of 9/11, Pakistan conveniently became an ally in the new War On Terror, their past support for the Taliban quickly fading from memory. The United States was afforded military accommodations in Pakistan from which to launch operations against Afghanistan while it’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, lied to the Pakistani people about the financial costs incurred during Operation Enduring Freedom.

The United Arab Emirates is home to the USAF’s Al Dhafra Air Base, from which U-2 and Global Hawk flights operated during OEF.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Afghanistan was the perfect target - one of the poorest countries in the world, little to no conventional military might to speak of, and politically fractured. Of course, the author of the attacks, who would initially deny involvement only to be contradicted by video tapes found in a house by US troops on which he displayed foreknowledge of them, was also there and had colluded with the country’s radical regime – one which the United States itself did not recognize as the official government of the country, though that would not stop them from taking the position that 9/11 constituted an act of war against the United States and that Afghanistan could be held responsible because of the Taliban’s relationship with al-Qaeda’s leadership.

It is here that the disconnect occurs.

How does one hold a nation responsible for the actions of a radical group within it? In the eyes of the United States, and many others, Afghanistan was a nation still in the midst of civil war, as the Northern Alliance was still resisting the Taliban. Thus, if one faction within a nation has benefited from the financial assistance of a radical organization, as the Taliban did, how do the attacks of 9/11 constitute an act of war against the United States by the nation of Afghanistan? Further to that, if a nation such as Saudi Arabia, from which most of the hijackers came, and who recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government, can’t be viewed as suspect, then how could Afghanistan, as a whole, be?

The answer is – it couldn’t.

The reality is that we did nothing to sort out the puzzle pieces, nor did we bother trying to entertain the fact that there might exist complexities that would make the matter less direct. The enemy was in Afghanistan, a little under 3,000 people had just perished in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, so Afghanistan would be made to pay.

And pay it has.

Price Tags And Body Bags

As I write this, combat operations in Afghanistan have taken the lives of 55 of our countrymen. Their sacrifice has been spun to legendary proportions by those that would use their deaths for the purpose of justifying our presence there. It is not wrong to honour them, nor their commitment to our country, but it falls to those left behind to look beyond their singular role at the larger picture. Because if we fail to do so, if we’re to simply buy into the solemnity of their sacrifice, then we dishonour not only them, but that for which they perceived to fight – freedom.

Canadians should make no mistake, we are a country at war. And in doing so must also realize that the war in which we are involved does not deter those that might seek to attack us using unconventional means. If anything, it provides them justification and heightened motivation. When dealing with terrorism, as the British can well attest, containment is not something that works with regards to deterring terrorist attacks. Were that the case, their presence in Northern Ireland would have resulted in decreasing IRA bombings in England, something that it did not do. If anything, it only increased operations outside of Northern Ireland.

The simplicity given the face of the enemy in Afghanistan is a weapon, not a fact. While Canadian forces face a revitalized Taliban bolstered by newcomers that have hitched their wagons to the Taliban’s horse because of their desire to see their country rid of foreign occupation, they do not represent those that planned or carried out the attacks of September 11th. In all probability, those of that ilk that remain have long since fled into Pakistan where they are most likely being sheltered by the likes of the Pakistani ISI and those sympathetic to their cause. Thus, we are not fighting in Afghanistan to disenthrall those responsible for 9/11, only what remains of the largely unrecognized governing regime that existed prior to the invasion. And even though that regime was supported by Osama Bin Laden, along with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (now both allies in the War On Terror), it has been able to sustain itself despite the presence of Western forces and the continued operations of their Northern Alliance allies. That is not to say that theirs is an ideology that isn’t irreprehensible, only that the realities of that ideology are often overlooked by those struggling against what they perceive as foreign invaders, and that that fact should not be disregarded. There is a reason why Hamid Karzai is referred to as ‘The Mayor of Kabul’, and it has everything to do with the ineffectuality of his government and the process that led to its formation, a process hurriedly undertaken to gratify our own sense of accomplishment rather than one that took into account the long-term effects that it might have on the Afghan psyche regarding the virtues of the democratic process.

Freedom, you see, is not something definable by a single people’s view, despite the definition available in your dictionary. It is, like most things, a complicated matter that involves a myriad of factors dependant on culture, religion, and history. To force the world to conform to a single understanding of the term will only produce resistance, not magically open eyes that will suddenly see the relevance of having a McDonald’s on every second corner. Freedom, in the context of a national movement, has to be something sought by those that would have a government created to represent its application. It is not something that can be forced on a people who have had no populist stake in the struggle for it. Ironic as it may seem, most would fight for the right to retain their own bad government than see a foreign power instill one, no matter how it is packaged and sold them. NATO’s current struggle against the Taliban is representative of this in that it has attracted support from amongst those that view their struggle not entirely as a radically religious one, but one of self determination.

Layer Cake

As Jim Miles recently pointed out in an article about Linda McQuaig’s book Holding the Bully’s Coat – Canada and the U.S. Empire…

“The first chapter covers a series of mini-themes that exposes the American empire at the same time implicating Canada in its complicity with American actions. Familiar topics arise with Canada as they do with America abroad in the world: Canada’s recent implicit support of torture in Afghanistan by ‘rendering’ prisoners to Afghanis bases; military plans of attack, in this case against Canadian the 1930’s, such that it would cause “devastation” and include “chemical warfare”; a view of American “exceptionalism”, another word for ignoring international norms, laws and institutions (illegal wars, torture, nuclear weapons double standards, UN, ICC, Kyoto, ICJ, Biological weapons); in other words a generalized withdrawal from international law and conventions.

McQuaig recognizes the incongruity of the U.S. “defending” itself against many created foes, focussing her arguments on the Persian Gulf, reiterating the American tale of woe about “vulnerability”, of America being under attack. While the majority of Canadians do not want to be a part of this militaristic exceptionalism, the “media, academic and corporate worlds – pander to Washington.” The elite see Canada as a renewed power, as an energy superpower, but what sort of superpower would give all its energy resources to another country before its own needs are guaranteed, leading to the author’s conclusion that Canada would not be viewed “with anything but contempt, as the bully’s unctuous [great choice of word – “simulation of affected enthusiasm” based on the root meaning of anointed with oil] little sidekick.”

Oil and free market economics flow via the Canadian elites “fiercely resisting such [social] planning in the Canadian national interest.” As Canada’s social services diminish and its resources are sold off liberally and cheaply, the reality is that “there is little connection between a country’s level of social spending and its ability to compete in the global economy.” Examples are evident for this, with Norway being the most successful, and with the countries of Latin America slowly turning away from the disastrously imposed free market policies.

In the second chapter, “No More Girlie-Man for Peacekeeping” the Canadian popular view of peacekeeping is explored, again exposing the elites, in this case Canada’s own copycat military-industrial-political he-man alliance, as manipulating events towards the American pre-emptive war attitude that searches out strategic control of oil and gas resources, hidden behind the hunt for terrorism, as “America’s vigilance against terrorism…just happens to coincide with its need for oil.” Once again the media come into the picture, a poorly defined picture of “distortion” that has “rendered the suffering of the Arab world invisible to us.” What is viewed in the west is far different than the view seen by others, “the ultimate horror of occupation: the powerlessness of an occupied people against an all-powerful foreign army.”

The argument then turns fully to Afghanistan where Canada is an invading army (and for those Canadian politicians ignorant of the role of oil in Afghanistan, it is a focal point for oil trans-shipment as well as having significant reserves of gas in its north-western provinces in the Caspian Basin), that has committed war crimes by “rendition” and the “collateral damage” of killed citizens. She concludes the section posing the question of security, “Because we realize our security is not actually at stake, and we sense that there is no compelling purpose to this mission….We’re not aggressors [arguable, but perhaps only semantic]. We’re just helping out the aggressor in order to protect our trade balance.”

In summary, McQuaig concludes that “Powerful forces inside the Canadian elite want to move Canada not only away from peacekeeping – as they’ve already succeeding in doing- but also away from an allegiance to the United Nations and the rule of law.” This is a strong statement that Canadians and the world need to be fully aware of.”

No Canadian should ever overlook the importance of those factors that have shaped Canadian foreign policy over the last six years with regards to our cooperation with US foreign policy objectives and the reasons for it. Nor should they take at face value the simplest of explanations regarding our collusion. It has become far too easy to manipulate public opinion, and if one need proof of just how easy it is, look no further than the removal of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 and our role in it…

“Many of the supporters of the Famni Lavalas party and Aristide, as well as progressive and independent observers worldwide, denounced the rebellion as a foreign controlled coup d’etat orchestrated by Canada, France and the United States (Goodman, et al, 2004) to remove a publicly elected President.

The argument is that the governments of the United States, France and Canada were interested in the removal of Aristide from power because of his populist tendencies. For example, in 2003, Canada hosted a meeting of Haïtian opposition leaders called the Ottawa Initiative which concluded that “Aristide must go”. At the same time, the United States, France and Canada were funding the rebel groups, via opposition NGOs and the International Republican Institute, and provided the necessary military and logistic support for the rebellion. Rebel leader Guy Philippe has been trained by U.S. forces and had been on the CIA payroll. Other prominent rebel figures had also been previously trained by the U.S. despite their participation in previous rebellions and terrorist acts with some living in the U.S” (Wikipedia)

As far as The Ottawa Initiative is concerned, you might be surprised to discover…

“The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti or simply the Ottawa Initiative, was a conference that took place in Montreal on 31 January and 1 February 2003, to decide the future of Haiti’s government, though no Haitian government officials were invited. The conference was attended by Canadian, French, and U.S. and Latin American officials. What exactly transpired is difficult to say, since Canada is keeping the documents that came out of this conference secret.” (Wikipedia)

When asked during an interview with Naomi Klein for The Nation why he was removed from power, Aristide responded - privatization, privatization, and privatization.

We were, of course, sold a different story. An age old story that involved freedom fighters and an emerging despot that threatened freedom itself. And most Canadians, those who even knew about it, bought that version of events.

This, of course, exemplifies our right to be freely ignorant rather than employing vigilance with regards to the principles that we are so often eager to champion at the drop of a hat. In such cases, we do not examine our own complicity as citizens of a nation whose government would act illegally, and in doing so have helped create a reality in which government doesn’t hope to succeed in avoiding condemnation but relies on public apathy to ensure that those undertakings that are suspect are never widely examined. And those that do bother to point fingers are easily dismissed as a variety of things, from radicals to hippies and so forth.

Afghanistan is, of course, no different. With regards to the recent scandal involving the rendition of detainees to Afghan authorities known for their use of torture, the public was diverted away from two very important truths – that members within our government and military were aware of it, and that despite knowing did nothing serious to deter it until it became news. Of course, when it did become news, it was challenged by claims that by debating the issue Canadians were somehow undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy, that to attempt to critically examine what had occurred and who knew about it was entirely counter to our military efforts.

Now I ask you, is it not our democratic duty to debate this topic? Is it not the right of every Canadian from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland to look at the realities of this issue without it being impressed upon them that to do so for more than five minutes is somehow detrimental those fighting in Afghanistan to supposedly ensure that Afghans have that very right?

Furthermore, for the sake of the integrity of our democracy, is it not our responsibility to hold those responsible accountable and have them removed from their various offices and commands? Unfortunately, as long as our love affair with the right to be freely ignorant continues, we remain a reliable horse on which to bet.

In all probability, Canadian troops, under the same make-shift banner of half-assed legitimacy, will remain in Afghanistan for years to come. Public opinion will, of course, only be swayed once the body count reaches a significant enough level to cause alarm, and by then who knows whether the showcase democracy gifted it will still be around, or whether, like the Russians and the British before us, we will find ourselves trapped in a foreign land fighting a determined enemy that has always been willing to give up more for their cause than those that have always arrogantly believed otherwise.

The lesson of 9/11 will never be learned because to admit that it was a lesson is to admit something that we simply never will. That what we do for our own benefit, projected in the diminishing light of our own freedom, has been responsible for creating monsters. In the shadow of The Second World War and the predominance we have placed on its victorious resolution, we have, in many ways, fallen prey to that which we sacrificed to deter. And the most overwhelmingly important aspect of that is our continued belief that our way of life not only represents the pinnacle of civilized society, but that to refuse it is to entertain perfidy.

We were supposed to shoot the Carmelina video that day or the next. Dale Junior was flying in from North Carolina to be in it when his plane was forced to make an unscheduled stop in Kansas. The phone kept ringing, I remember that very well, and when I turned on the television and saw what was transpiring in New York, my mind was flooded with innumerable questions. The three most predominant were: premeditation, impact, and response.

It’s ironic, of course, that the video for Carmelina features torture as its central theme; a clinical, detached, sterilized torture that is presented as entirely routine. It was, in truth, an idea that I took from my favourite film, Brazil, but when I watch it now it seems almost uncanny to me given the course taken with regards to the use of torture and rendition to known torturers by those nations who have claimed to hold the moral high ground since 9/11.

I remember thinking to myself that the response would be, in a word, immense, and at the time thought that the US intelligence community must surely have some significant insight into the impetus of the attacks, one that was far more clearly defined than would later be revealed. In fact, I thought that they would have been far more astute about labeling it blowback.

In Blowback, published prior to 9/11, Chalmers Johnson explores the realities of covert operations abroad and their implications on the United States. The term itself, coined by the CIA, is defined as:

“The unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears as a surprise, apparently random and without cause, because the public generally is unaware of the secret operations that caused it. In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informational only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts.”.

There is little question that what occurred on September 11th had roots, and that the attacks themselves were not engineered without the consideration of US Middle East foreign policy history in mind, even if such context seems ridiculous to us, primarily because we were detached from its realities. The world public, which rallied behind the American people following that terrible day, as well as Americans themselves, got lost in a singular explanation, one which would lead to their support of operations and initiatives that have seriously undermined our most sacred principles and exposed the realities of what some of the world’s foremost military powers are both capable of and willing to do.

That, in itself, I believe, was one of the key purposes behind the attacks. To expose the hypocrisy of those that commonly play games with others abroad for their own benefit, and with little consideration for those used, while the general public knows little or nothing of it. There were, of course, other objectives involved, such as the immediate psychological ramifications it would have on the American public, the crippling of world markets, the damage and disarray it would cause the American military and political infrastructures, and the domestic fear that it would cause for years to come. But beneath all of that was something far more brilliant, and I do not mean to use that word to imply that the attacks were anything but murderous, rather to simply demonstrate that by undertaking them the government of the United States would be placed in a position to react as would be expected of them, and that much of the American people, rather than bothering to investigate possibilities, willingly allowed the curtailment of their liberties to occur and got onboard with the administration’s numerous initiatives, even those that had nothing to do with the events of that day whatsoever. In short, it exposed the prevalence of American militarism and how it has been used to affect people throughout the world for decades, be it half way around the world or within the United States itself. To believe that such goals were not a part of the reason for the attacks of 9/11 is to refuse to confront one very important thing: that those who planned the attacks were not fools by any means, and knew well enough what would occur following them, both domestically and internationally.

In truth, it is always easier to view such terrible occurrences in black and white while disregarding motive. But, like any premeditated crime, and 9/11 was surely that to the utmost degree, there is always a reason, even if those reasons are steeped in the psychotic or have historical relevancies that we are not able to put into proper context.

All of this is not meant to excuse or even justify the events of September 11th, but to ignore context is a very slippery slope. No sooner had the attacks taken place than two engines began to turn. One focused on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the other, behind closed doors at the Pentagon, focused on Iraq. With regards to the former, it was something the world could get behind, a face and a group that, because of the images of that day, represented an immense evil, one that instantly galvanized world support for the United States, a global solidarity that the Bush administration would utterly squander to the point where the very same populations that had once held vigils for the victims of 9/11, including some 1 million Iranians in Tehran, would take to the streets in historically unprecedented numbers to protest the wholly engineered Anglo-American invasion of Iraq – before it even happened.

Six years on, the events of September 11th have been used to justify numerous things, from the unilateral invasion of Iraq to the use of illegal detention and torture – both of which were supported by the American public initially based not on factual realities, but rather the endless wheel of propaganda that 9/11 has afforded the American government. And like the attacks of 9/11, such undertakings have been both illegal in many respects and a very real threat to the reliability and conscience of our political infrastructures.

Coming Face To Face With Cause And Effect

In the sticky world of foreign interventionism and covert operations, it is always important to remember that most of what occurs within the cloud of the unknown often, if not always, has repercussions, even if such repercussions do not materialize for decades. Case in point, the engineered removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister Of Iran in 1953, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq…

One has to wonder, had Mossadeq not been removed from power, would Iran have developed into the Middle East’s foremost democracy? And if that did occur, what impact would it have had on the region in general regarding the spread of democracy?

Unfortunately, Mossadeq’s removal led to decades of autocratic rule by a monarch and, ultimately, his removal by a movement steeped in the theocratic, one that was not about to overlook decades of Western complicity.

The removal of Mossadeq is a rather straightforward example, in truth. Where lines become blurred is when one begins to examine the support of various groups and regimes in the region depending on how that support coincided with Western foreign policy objectives. And in saying that, the blatant hypocrisy displayed by Western powers cannot be disregarded when examining cause and effect.

For example…

While aiding the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the United States was also involved in aiding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. In fact, after the Israelis captured Soviet made tanks in Lebanon, the CIA worked to transfer them to the Mujahideen by way of the Pakistani ISI. Of course, the majority of the fighters in Afghanistan had long since held Israel in contempt for their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, so the obvious question has to be asked – did they know that those tanks and arms that had come via ISI were, in fact, part of a greater transfer from the Israelis to the CIA and then to the ISI?

This sort of convolution is nothing new in the annals of covert Western operations. With regards to Afghanistan, it should not be lost on anyone that the point of supporting the Mujahideen was to have them drive the Soviets out of the country and, in turn, exhaust as much of the Soviet’s military resources as possible. That being the case, it is also of paramount importance to realize that once that goal was accomplished the country would be in the hands of religiously motivated guerrillas, the majority of which were entirely sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

At the time, backing both the Israelis and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan served US ends. But the duality of that sort of mindset is not something that remains cloaked in secrecy forever. Obviously those involved in helping liberate Afghanistan had ties to, or even came from, Lebanon and Palestine. And eventually the realization that both ends of the candle were being burned by those that had helped support them would be revealed. So too is it important to remember that while the Saudis were involved in aiding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, they were also US allies and worked closely with them. And yet, being a Muslim country, not to mention one in which Islam’s two most holy sites reside, they had allied themselves with a Western power that had extremely strong military ties with Israel.

While not the whole story, such realizations were obviously not lost on the likes of Osama Bin Laden, nor should they have been on the CIA. In the after-action report filed regarding Operation AJAX, CIA analysts conceded that the operation could, at some point, produce blowback. One wonders what the thoughts of CIA analysts were during the 1980’s when the United States was engaged in not only aiding the Mujahideen and what we now refer to as The Northern Alliance, but also the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all the while, in the background, military assistance to Israel continued unabated. That’s not even taking into account other covert operations in other parts of the world, such as in Latin America where the CIA was getting its hands dirty in El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua – just to name a few. Nor does it take into account operations in Africa, Europe, or Asia.

As the Iran-Contra scandal would expose, the US was involved in playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict, though the CIA’s assistance was primarily focused on Saddam Hussein’s efforts. His use of gas against the Iranians was aided by the CIA, who provided him satellite coverage of Iranian positions and troop movements, allowing his forces to better target them. And, as is to be expected, the crimes perpetrated by his regime were, at the time, largely overlooked. Even after he gassed Halabja and the House passed a resolution calling for the suspension of aid to Iraq, the Reagan White House vetoed it stating that it was unclear if Hussein had been responsible or the Iranians had been. And while they did issue a weak statement of condemnation, their support for his regime did not end.

Again, these are historical realities that are not exclusively available to us, but to those that would use them to formulate policies of their own, ones that, after years of either doing business with the United States covertly, or being used as unwitting proxies in the ‘global war against Communism’, might take offense.

Traditionally, we have explained away our evils by evoking the Cold War as justification for our actions. We tell ourselves that it was all necessary and played an integral role in the eventual demise of the Soviet Union, which is a rather skewed perspective when one refuses to take into account the part played by the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and others that worked to help dismantle what they, themselves, viewed as a corrupt entity that was, quite obviously, in its last throes.

So how are we to explain away those actions that have led others to formulate policies, be they steeped in religious fanaticism or not, that are steeped in the recognition of our usury and interference? Because to them the Cold War was never the foremost justification for their actions, even though our reasons for covert support or intervention primarily was. And when the Soviet block fell, and we proclaimed ourselves the victors of the Cold War, what then became of our relationships with those that we had coddled and used in that struggle, even though to them the defeat of global Communism was never their aim?

Pax Americana

During the Gulf War, coalition forces staged air and ground operations from bases within Saudi Arabia. At the end of the war, US military presences in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait remained, something that displeased a great many Saudis, Osama Bin Laden among them, given that Islam’s two most holy sites are located in that country. The United States would continue to have a military presence in Saudi Arabia until 2003, after which they were forced to relocate after the Saudis finnaly refused to allow them to launch air strikes against Iraq from Saudi bases.

The displeasure created by the US military’s presence in Saudi Arabia for more than a decade should not be disregarded or considered of little import. It is, in fact, a point of real importance with regards to the motivations of men like Osama Bin Laden and others that, to this day, remain in Saudi Arabia and hold drastically anti-Western views, not to mention unfavourable ones regarding the Saudi regime. To us it might not seem that big a deal, but it is not our perspective that matters, something that we all too often disregard when doing the math behind questions such as “why do they hate us?”.

“After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government. Bin Laden publicly denounced his government’s dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in the country. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War upset Muslims because the Saudi government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War cease-fire agreement left Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq, the ongoing presence of long-term bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi rulers’ perceived legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden.” – [Link]

More often than not, we tend to look at our actions and positions from a wholly selfish standpoint rather than attempting to empathize with others. In doing so, especially given the mindset created during the Cold War era, we often fail to realize the magnitude of our external influencing.

There are currently some 2,500,000 US personnel serving in the Armed Forces around the world. They man, in total, 737 military bases, making the Pentagon one of the planet’s foremost landlords. To put into perspective just how enormous the US global military presence is, at the height of its dominance, the Romans policed from Britannia in the north to Egypt in the south, from Hispania in the west to Armenia in the east, with a total of 37 major military bases.

To think that such military arrogance should simply be tolerated by the world’s population without question or, in extreme cases, even retaliation, is a stretch. In the face of such an overwhelming global power, and its manipulative undertakings, primarily in the latter half of the 20th century, one seriously wonders why it should come as a shock that someone, somewhere, that has taken offense to the actions or abuses of such a power, might act.

The point is not whether you agree with their cause or not, it’s whether you understand the ramifications of a global imperialism that is routinely cast in a positive light so to detract from the fact that it is, in fact, a global power that, despite its denials to the contrary, acts without impunity with regards to its own objectives.

One ultimately must wonder – if “freedom” is so very contagious and sought after then why does it require 737 military bases to safeguard its survival? And if, by way of examining that question, you come to the conclusion that it isn’t really about freedom, then you must ultimately ask yourself – what is it about?

In the early 1990’s, while Paul Wolfowitz was penning the guidelines for US dominance over the post Cold War world, flames were beginning to spread in various pockets that had once been provinces of US covert assistance. And Afghanistan was one of them.

Forgotten Afghanistan

After being forced to leave Sudan in the spring of 1996, Osama Bin Laden returned to the place of his greatest triumph, a triumph made possible because of the assistance of external forces that aided him and others like him. It would be there that he would help fund the Taliban’s rise to power, a movement in which he would find refuge until the invasion in 2001.

After the attacks of September 11th, despite immediately being linked to them by the United States and then Great Britain, Bin Laden initially denied involvement and released a statement that praised the attackers but claimed that the attacks had been carried out by “individuals with their own motivation”. Of course, after the invasion of Afghanistan, video tapes would be found on which Bin Laden displayed foreknowledge of the attacks and his reasoning behind them, contradicting his initial statement.

The reality is that we may never know the actual truth behind the plot. Being that Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan, and may even be secretly protected by the Pakistani ISI or others, it isn’t likely that his apprehension is going to occur any time soon. And, of course, that suits the likes of the Bush administration immensely. The longer they can use Bin Laden as their ghost, the more ambiguous and convoluted the War On Terror can become. And that, as we’ve seen demonstrated in Iraq, includes unilateral action against those that had nothing to do with 9/11 but can provide the United States opportunities – as ill conceived as they might be.

But despite that, the war in Afghanistan remains the forgotten war, one that has been largely neglected by the United States in favour of Iraqi operations. In all, there are some 51,000 NATO forces currently in Afghanistan, which was invaded in 2001 directly in response to the attacks of September 11th. Compared to that, there are currently 145,000 US troops alone in Iraq, with 250,000 US troops participating in its initial invasion.

So which is the priority? The apprehension of the man suspected of plotting the devastating attacks on September 11th and the ability to ensure that Afghanistan is secure? Or the implementation of the Bush doctrine in as many locations as will allow before it’s replaced by a new foreign policy platform that will have to struggle to overcome what it has set into motion? Besides Afghanistan, the United States is not only embroiled in a bloody and costly war in Iraq that has completely overshadowed the war in Afghanistan, but have also been active in Somalia, where US air and special forces were used to help remove the ICU from power.

In response to the attacks of September 11th, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien pledged Canada’s support for US efforts to remove the Taliban from power and capture Osama Bin Laden. Neither objective has been wholly accomplished since 2001, and Canadian involvement in the war has only escalated. There are those that claim that our role in Afghanistan is a vital national security measure, and that by being there we are somehow preventing terrorism from rearing its ugly head on Canadian soil. To this day I struggle to even comprehend such logic, and the attacks in London only further prove that just because we act militarily elsewhere that terrorism is not deterred abroad. If anything, it is encouraged.

The irony is that those we now fight in Afghanistan were once aided by the very country that initially invaded it in 2001 in response to 9/11. And by way of association, we have inexorably linked ourselves to their legacy.