"War on Terrorism" Page

If someone other than me has written an article, I'll be sure to include a byline at the bottom.

The Terror Analysis #303 was written in September-October of 2001, only one month after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America. Insights as well as media reports and a historical background of American foreign policy in the Middle East were the major components of this analysis. I also tried to show immediately the mood of the nation prior to 9-11 by including the OJ Simpson case and where the media's major emphasis was before 9-11, as well as the general public's. I hope this analysis, more than anything else, gets people to think of where the nation's leaders want to take the nation from here on in.

Terror Analysis #303

By Moondustgypsy1



        This analysis attempts to show that the American government’s response to terrorism has fallen short of an adequate response in dealing with real or imagined threats of terrorism whether inside America or on the international front. All too often, those whom are shaping the public debate and making policy fall back on age old dictums of discrimination and lack of adequate resources to understand all facets of complex issues at any legitimate common ground. In this time, the economic, political, military, and media elites often work so close and become indistinguishable from one another. Add the moral majority into the fry and one has to wonder whose morality and whose social consciousness is actually running the nation, the elite structure or the people whom they appeal to night after night in shaping the policies that Americans will ultimately benefit or feel the negative consequences thereof. With powerful lobby groups such as the AIPAC Lobby, the foreign policy of the United States has added constraints in which political leaders are unable to move without great autonomy because of this particular interest group’s demonstrative influence on the electoral process and fund raising, within all of the domestic elections across the United States, each November. As a result of these aforementioned factors, I attempt to show that the United States government relies heavily upon economic interests, special interest groups like the moral majority and a biased media in shaping the political debate as it relates to foreign policy in America. The lack of sophistication by America’s leaders in fully comprehending the people, not the official governments, in places like Iran, will be shown to have harmed the United States when the Shah was overthrown in Iran and the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism rose from the ashes that the CIA created in 1953. Therefore, the interests of the United States in a foreign policy which all too often relies upon an ad hoc or an wait-and-see approach, as one goes along, all too often leads to the Blowback effect, which the United States is often unprepared to meet. The United States has seen that a policy which all too often places interests over values, in which, heavy military artillery is relied upon to achieve the desired end can come back to harm the long-term interests of the United States and actually threaten the national security of the American people, not only in the domestic sense but also limiting the people of the United States traveling abroad. Thus, it is obvious that the foreign policy of the United States is an extension of what the domestic agenda happens to be at any given moment. The United States needs the oil which is most prevalent in the Arab world and by this external dependence, contrary to unknowing public opinion, the government has to retain diplomatic relations with nations, that the American media has been vilifying lately and the moral leaders like Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson have been calling evil, pertaining to Arab nations whom dare believe in a God as Allah whom they do not approve of and are out to discredit. By resorting to such rhetoric, these men keep the war of words going which only serves to lead to more propaganda and less truth being sought after by both sides of the cultural-ideological spectrum. In making remarks that have the tone of a patriarchal and rhetorical impunity the Christian Fundamentalists only provide those in the Muslim world to have a more negative views about the West whom they perceive, also, to be targeting their way of life, in response to the American perspective, that the Muslims were attacking the way of life of those living in the United States, after the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, all the more plausible.
    This brings the reader to Osama Bin Laden, the accused ringmaster of September 11, 2001 and previous attacks for which he is still wanted dead or alive by the United States Government. If the United States does not like Bin Laden, one must concede right now that he made it clear first that he did not like the Imperial nature of the United States and set upon a course of action to challenge the unfettered power of the United States as nobody ever did to the level he attempted, as he became disenchanted with his own Saudi government in 1990 and that he became a political dissident and the strongest and most outspoken member of the Saudi government’s opposition to relations with the United States.
     With the Gulf War buildup in 1990, with Iraq, Osama bin Laden had now the pretext needed, to implicate to the Saudi family’s role as a partner with the United States, and to persuade opposition groups to the Royal family, that the Americans military buildup, and presence in Saudi Arabia was a bad thing for all Saudis. Bin Laden saw the need to oppose this action and embrace of the Saudi government with fierce opposition, and he did so without revocation or reservation, in holding to his strict interpretation in what he perceived to be an immoral tour de force of America aggression and invasion on the most holiest shrines in civilization. Bin Laden pointed to the holy mosques at Mecca and Medina, as the reason why America, the infidel nation which was about to use military power, on other Arabs and Muslims, should leave, and show respect for the Arab world. The best way as Bin Laden saw was for America, who was perceived by radical Islamic fundamentalists as the infidel invader, would be to take their military and all of its Western decadence out of the holy lands of Mecca and Medina at once. This justification by Bin Laden would find no credible audience in the Clinton administration, as President Clinton, later, would not find any justification when it came to the most primitive yet pure violence, and mass murder of both civilian and military targets.

    Osama bin Laden has been a financier of international terrorism whose roots in Islamic fundamentalism was shaped in his formidable years, and that this has led to his present day views in justifying acts of aggression that have led to death of many, in the name of Islam duty. Bin Laden has issued several fatwas against America and her allies to justify his "holy war". In bin Laden's interview with John Miller of ABC-news, he said that after World War II the Americans started to become more "oppressive towards Muslims". He also used the mass destruction with the atom bomb by America in Japan to end World War II at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as an illustration that the US bombs does not distinguish between the military and civilians. He also pointed out that the United States' position regarding the situation in Palestine as another reason as well. In short, bin Laden condoned the "fatwa". (1) The London newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi in Arabic published on February 23, 1998, "fatwas" aimed against the United States. The signatures of the fatwa were Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri an Rifai Ahmad Taha. It was a declaration of war aimed right at America. (2) According to the three men the world situation at the time did not leave much choice other than to issue this declaration. The occupation of the United States in the Arabian Peninsula, its economic exploitation, and its use for a base in being an aggressor against Iraq was the first reason for the fatwa. The continued slaughter by the "Crusader-Zionist" alliance was another reason. And, the furthering of "the Jews" national interests, and destroying Iraq so America could protect their own interests. (3) Bin Laden was very specific and personal in his Declaration of War in the "fatwas" he issued against the United States, and here are some of the excerpts that were released to the public:

    "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying land in the holiest places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless."

    "Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded over one million...despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to reopen the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the fragmentation and devastation."
    "Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there." "The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula" "All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout history unanimously agreed that the jihadis an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries." (4)

    The mosques are a big deal to bin Laden. His family helped in the restoration work in the 1970's. He is an ardent Islamist, and the mosques are not symbols to him. The rebuilding of the mosques was the root of his rebirth into practicing his faith again. And ever since he has been on a path of holy warrior. Many in the West do not understand the context of the mosques in the historical framework it deserves, and to bin Laden this is wrong. As noted Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis points out that in the historical sense many in the West do not understand what the holy mosques represent, (Mecca and Medina), and its importance to the people who live there. In the holy land of Mecca is where the prophet Muhammed was born and Medina is where the first Muslim state was established. Muhammed lived and died in Arabia. From his deathbed, Muhammed said, "Let there not be two religions in Arabia". (5) Many in the Muslim world share bin Laden's point of view as America the "infidel" invader, in Arab lands. It was widely known in Desert Storm that most Arab states did not want the United States there. To most in the Arab world as Lewis says, "holy warriors of any faith are always right and the infidels always wrong." (6)   In looking at this point of view, the anti-Terrorism Act that the Clinton administration enacted in February of 1995, perhaps polarized the Muslim world even more.

    In January of 1995 before the President signed the now famous Omnibous Anti-Terrorism Act, he had in January of that same year had alienated the Muslim people and many of its organizations when he signed an Executive Order that read: "Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process." (7)   Many in that community thought that political Islam was the target no matter how one looked at it otherwise. When President Clinton made his statements after the bombings in Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998 he was very defensive in distinguishing between Muslims who break the law and those who obey it. (8)   But in short, the President as foreign policy indicates does not understand the Muslim world, and perhaps ought to devise a plan that would help in the understanding of diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious differences aside from the West. (9)

        By February of 1998, bin Laden's support grew as he met with several other Islamic groups who shared similar views about the United States, the West, and Israel. This new coalition was named the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders."(10) The State Department claimed that the coalition of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against The Jews and Crusaders" was really an umbrella of the al-Qaeda group. (11)
        On August 7, 1998, two bombs exploded at the same time at U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dars Es-Salaam, Tanazia, 450 miles apart. In the end, it took the lives of more than 250 people and more than five thousand were injured. Eleven Americans were killed and the majority were Africans. (12)

    Its been said that bin Laden and el-Zawahiri, acting as political leader and military leader respectively, were the ones behind the implementation of fatal attacks. (13) These bombings that occurred in East Africa, like the other bombings in Dharan and Riyadh, were low-risk in the operative sense and had the blessing of anti-West state-sponsored governments that included: Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan. It also has been widely suggested that militant Islam leader Hassan Turabi had a role in the advent of the attacks. Turabi wanted to put fear into the nations who were involved in the war-torn southern part of Sudan and further spread Islam. (14)

    As early as five days after the bombings seven of the most powerful foreign policy decision-makers in the United States got together with President William Jefferson Clinton. Among those at the meeting were Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright;   Secretary of Defense, William Cohen; National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger and, CIA Director, George Tenet. Frontline article. In the case of the Embassy bombings was great concern because the nature of the attacks were so personal and blatantly directed at the United States. It was thought to have been a direct aggression at the U.S., and almost like a war declaration. So, the United States decided to attack targets in the lands of the man it thought was directly responsible for the attacks-Osama bin Laden and his alleged base of operations for terror. (15)

    With the advice of the CIA the United States decided to attack two sites that it thought were linked to bin Laden and his alleged terrorist-network-group, al-Qaeda. On August 20, 1998, the United States launched seventy Tomahawk missile attacks against training camps that were thought to have been in the Khost region of Afghanistan and thirteen missiles at a pharmaceutical plant in North Khartoum, Sudan. The United States claimed that the pharmaceutical plant made chemical weapons, used for nerve gas.(16) The United States had now deemed Osama bin Laden as the "mastermind of world terrorism". Dunn article. After the attacks, and on his way to Martha's Vineyard after the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal that almost ruined his presidency, Clinton issued a statement on his way there. Here is an excerpt:

    "Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dars-es Salaam, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today we struck back. The United States launches an attack this morning one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It is located in Afghanistan and operated groups associated with Osama bin Laden, a network not sponsored by any state, but as dangerous as any we face. We also struck at a chemical weapons-related facility in Sudan." (17)

        The United States had deviated from its usual policy in bringing those to justice in a court of law as it usually prefers than direct attacks. But the United States record in successfully apprehending individuals is not great. Of the twenty-four related terrorist incidents waged against the U.S. since the 1979 Embassy takeover, in Iran, only eight arrests have been made in bringing people to "American justice."(18)
      When President Clinton arrived back at the White House later that same day he was again briefed upon the ensuing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan. He had the following to say about bin Laden and his perceived evil ways. Clinton’s excerpts from his speech to the press are summed up in the following passage:
"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear.-to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today." (19)

        From Martha's Vineyard, on August 22, 1998, President Clinton sent Congress a letter to freeze all of bin Laden's assets, in America's newest war on terrorists. He declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. It stated in economic terms that "these prohibitions include the blocking of all property and interests in the property of the terrorists...the prohibition of any transaction or dealing by the United States persons or within the United States." (20)

    The attack on the pharmaceutical plant has been debated already, as to whether chemical weapons existed there.(21) According to Ahazi Suleiman, the attorney for Salah Idris, the owner of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, claimed that he did not know bin Laden. And the plant only produced drugs, not chemical weapons. The officials in the United States have never been able to clarify what the plant meant as to the national security threat to America. (22)
        Where were the experts prior to September 11, 2001? They were talking about O. J. Simpson, Monica Lewinsky and her affair with President Clinton negating greater concerns, which the GOP Congress needs to be held accountable for obstructing the Office of the Presidency and leading the American into a false state of mass hysteria which culminated into a grim state of mass hysteria on that fateful tragic morning. Now the GOP and their spin doctors want to blame Clinton. I say hold it, in that no American president, not even the darling of the right-wing Ronald Reagan had adequate or rapid response answers. Remember CIA operative, William Buckley’s assassination on television? Yes, this was before the GOP propaganda machine with the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel showed up on the national scene. These types of people would blame anyone other than the failed policies of the war hawks which have shown themselves in reality, without the new coin phrase of right-wing propaganda which is called the "Hate America first" slogan, by people whom seem to be ignorant of free speech, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps, they are the ones whom are traitors to the United States Constitution.

    Lately I have listened to more commentary and analysis about the causes of last Tuesday’s tragedy, (September 11, 2001), at the World Trade Center in New York City, and the attack on the Pentagon. One commentator blamed the Clinton administration. Another blamed the Carter administration for the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran, in 1979. Another insinuated that the raid on Qadafhi by Reagan in the 1980’s has stirred the anger by the Libyan leader and he could be behind the attacks. Yet another perceived the attack on Iraq during the Gulf War had been the cause of the raid at the World Trade Center. Another commentator suggested that it was Islam extremists who were to blame.   While these suggestions may seem to the naked eye whose mind is trying to cope with this "shocking" tragedy, it is not that simplistic nor will it be so in the future.
    There is the saying is that "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter," and that interpretations of violent attacks against humanity are justified according to where one is sitting as well as a matter of perceptions. On another level it could also be said that with a successful terrorist attack, the unraveling of history, also, occurs. With the terrorist attacks made against the United States, "Thinking the Unthinkable," not only became a cold reality for those political elites whom have shaped American foreign policy, but a travesty of awful proportions on an unknowing public. These elites whom run the foreign policy of the United States all too often make ad hoc foreign policy decisions and support the interests of the United States all too often, over the values which the American public holds as traditional values. Making rapid decisions is complex but acting hastily does not equate to the formulation of a strong response nor a comprehensive answer to the spread of terrorism as seen in the latest case, which to the United States military establishment occurred on February 11, 1979. What happened on September 11, 2001, was an effort that crazed men would be unable to do. This was perhaps, done yes, by fanatics. But these fanatics, if you want to call them that were many steps ahead of our own career intelligence and government operatives. They were educated, sophisticated, and unassuming, of the typical criminal or the stereotypical picture that one associates with these types of crimes against humanity.
    The political elites who have developed American foreign policy do not always have a welcoming audience beyond the host governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or what was pre-Revolutionary Iran, in 1979. Many of the populations in these nations do not like what they perceive as American-sponsored governments or what is better known as U.S. led puppet regimes. Many of these regimes are authoritarian with a Western-flavor, but religious tolerance, or criticizing their governments are not allowed in an overt way. America is resented because on the one hand, claim that democratic values are being promoted along with a free society, which proved to be false in Iran, leading to the resurrection of Islamic fundamentalism as the result of the repressive Shah’s regime which was not tolerant of Islam and had the support of the American foreign policy establishment. This religious repression was more important to the likes of hawks like Henry Kissinger and former President Richard M. Nixon, in the name of economic and commercial interests, which lent its overwhelming support to this authoritarian and repressive regime in Iran which also led to all forms of oppression including economic, political and religious subjugation of the people from former Iran to the moderate Arab states, which the United States has great influence as in Egypt. In Iran, American made weapons that were used by the Shah to execute many mullahs in the mid-1970’s. The crux of his military might and economic assistance was provided by the Nixon-Kissinger administration. The SAVAK forces were trained by the US military and this secret police force imprisoned, tortured, and executed, many innocent civilians in Iran with the endorsement of both Nixon and Kissinger. It is our policies that have made both the U.S. government and people unwelcomed guests in these Arab nations. As a result of having no established U.S. Embassies effectively operating in nations that sponsor terrorism, the United States has to rely on other means of intelligence gathering and depends on European allies, making the notion of political rhetoric by both those Republican’s and Democrat’s in Congress sound erroneous as the lack of clear intelligence reporting is obviously greatly diminished, if not non-existent, which is a significant problem that the American people need to be cognizant of. The State Department has been consistently ignored since Kissinger became the National Security Advisor to Nixon in the 1970’s.

        Should Americans be surprised now that there was not a clear handle on the response or the tracking of these terrorists by U.S. officials in the government? Business as usual? Yes, we are told they had some knowledge about these individuals but that is still not good enough. We have been told by many government sources doing commentary nightly on the Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC, that the INS had some reports, the FBI had others, and still the CIA had other reports. But is this good enough anymore? Where was the coordination of these agencies on September 11, 2001 and before, which are vital to a cohesive strategy? How do we know so much more five or seven days later after the calamity? The answer lies somewhere between hindsight is always twenty-twenty and that in the midst of tragedy, human beings act with a sense of urgency unlike a normal and day of routine. Since there are no real operatives working on behalf the official U.S. Military or Defense Department in Iran, Iraq, pre 9-11-2001 Afghanistan, or Lebanon, it is most often complex to get a clear reading or tracking system on the cells or those networks of terror.

        The Eisenhower administration implemented the first covert operation used by the CIA when it overthrew the Mossadegh regime in Iran after he tried to nationalize the National Iranian Oil Company. The CIA re-instituted the Shah back into power, in 1953. Bin Laden views the interests of the United States in Saudi Arabia in the same way that many Iranian nationals viewed the U.S. in Iran from 1953 onward, after the successful coup d’etat. Bin Laden led the opposition movement to the Saudi government and was asked to leave by the Saudi Royal family. This is why it is a preposterous notion to link the Saudi government to the 9-11-2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Saudi government rejected the radicalism that Bin Laden displayed after American troops were given approval to use their bases. Although the population of the Saudi street might not like the involvement of the United States in Saudi Arabia, this does not mean this is the official position of the government despite what the media reports. Although the fifteen hijackers were Saudi nationals, this does not mean that these dissidents were linked to the official position of the Saudi government, either. Bin Laden would like to see the fall of the King in Saudi Arabia like Khomeini wanted to see the fall of the Shah in Iran. In August of 1978, only six months prior to the return of Khomeini from exile, the CIA released a report that stated that Iran was not in a pre-revolutionary state, although the Iranian Revolution had been in full swing since January of 1978. After the hostage crisis in 1979 and the assault on the US Embassy in Tehran, Khomeini labeled the embassy as "a nest of spies". The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism was not understood by the USA operatives whom were listening to pro-American operatives like Ardeshir Zahedi for information, who was a close aid of the Shah’s and a very close ally to both Henry Kissinger within former President’s Nixon administration along with President Carter’s NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski. Consequently, what had unfolded in 1978 in Iran, proved to show that the foreign policy analysts minus those warnings in the State Department, most notably Ambassador William Sullivan and Gary Sick, and ignoring the all too correct analysis of then Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, the ones whom were listened to in the end were the National Security team and there too often myopic analysis along with the intelligence community whom seem to have an American isolationist point-of-view on the majority of their opinions, and the clear and obvious, to even a lack of a minimal embrace of Islamic Fundamentalism or political Islam, as to a realm of understanding, in which the war hawks view to be an "enemy," no matter how they sugar coat it with diplomatic rhetoric. To the war hawks Islam is to the United States what Communism was during the Cold War. The approach taken during towards the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War might not work this time around. As the United States used Islamic Fundamentalists to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the Cold War, Reagan called these fighters whom the United States and the Pakistan ISI armed, freedom fighters. Thus, by September 11, 2001, these freedom fighters whom Bin Laden was associated with during the resistance to the Soviet Union had allegedly now committed acts against humanity in New York City and Washington, D.C. The United States government must have been sleeping when Ramzi Yousef said that the only thing that went wrong after the first World Trade Center bombing was that the entire building did not come down. Bin Laden openly declared war against America yet the response on the superpower was active, but not aggressive. The situation in Iran that unfolded in Iran showed that the political elites in the United States, did not have a formidable strategy or diplomatic effort then or now, in combating this issue. Since 1979, there has been a lack of understanding and a total underestimation by the U.S. government on the determination, resolve, strength and commitment of those living in the less developed countries to protect what sovereignty they feel is owed to them, without interference of the United States in their domestic politics.
    The spread of terrorist organizations are often seen among the poorest nations on the globe. And the real tragedy in the September 11, 2001 blast is that there are connections linked directly back to U.S. Policy. Had President George Herbert Walker Bush or Ronald Reagan decided to help the Afghani people in 1989, with economic assistance to rebuild Afghanistan, like the Marshall Plan did with Western Europe after WWII, then perhaps, the oppressive Taliban government would not have risen to power. In turn, Bin Laden would not have had a sanctuary, nor would the World Trade Center Bombing have been bombed in which the Bush administration points to the al-Qaeda network. Rarely do terrorist groups have success building their organizations where stable governments operate. Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Lebanon, Libya, and East Africa, are among some of the shakiest political regimes, and have seen the weakest political economies present in the world.

        The psychological impact that the terrorists want to send in any attack has been affirmed by the mega-media attention that the American media has given to this culture of terrorism. Although the argument could be made that this action is like no other and this is the reason coverage is warranted, in this regard, what attack has not gotten the semblance of coverage this one is not getting? Remember the O. J. Simpson trial and the media’s daily obsession? One could argue money, ratings and cheap programming and what a better way for political actors from both the Democrats and Republicans to reassure their constituents and the American public that they are still in control? One could assert that the dynamics of the media and politicians are exploiting the situation for their own economic and political gain and feeding into the psychological fear that the terrorists have as a long-term goal. The terrorists want to uproot change in any society by the way of their actions, and the passage of the Patriot Act, which alters the institutions of American society also plays into the propaganda war between the terrorists and fear of the American political elite whom allow for these changes to be made albeit telling the American public to return to life as normal, which President Bush did soon after September 11, 2001. Those responsible for terror against civilians want to make their shocking statement to not only the world, but in this case to Americans, specifically, and through the images of television this war of attrition is furthered, in what some scholars have referred to as another Theatre of Terror. The television which is another Western invention becomes, in an ironic way, another instrument used in the war of terror as witnessed by repeated images of September 11, 2001 which reached Bin Laden himself, in which the terrorists saw as a major victory but as monumental losses for Americans. Terrorists have become adept and resourceful in using the tool of American television to rally anti-American sentiments and nightly ranting by war hawks only furthers this divide. The war hawks along with emotional news anchors whose goal is better ratings and increased sponsorship at the risk of intelligent thought lessens any positive or worthwhile discussion and continues the psychological damage that the terrorists want to create in the first place.
    Contrary, to popular thought, perhaps, it seems quite perverse that the names of the terrorists have become household names to many Americans, which in another perverse manner is exactly what attention the destroyers of human life want. The media is their conduit in this long-term damage they not only attempt, but, want to produce. The American government uses the media to convey its own response to the terrorism and a cultural war is started whether it is the Fox News Channel or CNN or Chris Matthews on MSBNC making claims that the Al-Jazeera network is not as credible as their stations, or that the only Fundamentalists practicing religion are Arab nationals. Criticizing anything that is part of the American political system gets one into a lot of trouble these days. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the political elites make the decisions and most people have a better chance to become a millionaire in a state lottery than to get to sit and talk about foreign or domestic policy with an American political leader unless you are part of their inner circle, in an important political lobby, or a member of the media. The media-relationship with politicians is an oddity, but ironic non the less. Politicians view the media as an automatic adversary despite the cozy relationship that the media has with politicians, yet have spokespeople and public relations departments, and the advertisements in the very instruments they say have ruined them or misquoted them, by golly! Thus, if the media is as negative as these politicians claim they do not seem to be camera-shy talking about the war with Iraq, the continual threat of terrorism, but not addressing urban poverty and the failing economy. The politicos keep coming on these talk shows, despite the minimal awkward moments they might have from time to time and seem to be skillful and adept at manipulating one another for political and economic gain. Can a corporation like General Electric which is tied in to the elite structure and whom owns NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC really give an honest appraisal of world events, especially in the Arab world? Are the military contracts that GE has with the allies of the American government conflict with objective analysis and limit the scope of truth in reporting as placating business allied and friends of those in the defense industry and those whom are in the revolving door of business and government just might compromise what is best for the greater good of all American society in favor of what is best for the interests of the economic and media elites? Therefore can those who interview or discuss political matters actually lay claim of having an objective view when it comes to the proverbial interview, as it relates to all government actors whether it be those in the defense industry or the administration of any United States Executive officers under the President pertaining to these harsh realities but clear factors, nonetheless when it comes to influencing the overall United States policy? You have to be the judge on this one no matter what the evidence shows or does not show. In my view, however, NBC and its affiliates are biased and although they might not be as forward as the FNC, in some ways, they are more dishonest by acting objective when they are blatantly anti-Saudi Arabia and anti-anything that the Bush administration says they are against. In short, they have become part and parcel of the public relations firm of the United States government and are nothing but sensationalists. The lineup that includes Chris Matthews and Ashleigh Banfield are not credible, objective, or worth the paper that their questions are written on. Mr. Matthews ought to clean his own house and own ethical ways before he starts to bash the Al-Jazeera network which he obviously has a bias and prejudice against and lacks any moral conscience in his quest to be a destructive force. Not every opinion is worth uttering, but these networks pass themselves off to be objective and a free press tag when often they are only parroting the interests of their corporate sponsors as Ellen DeGeneres found out the difficult way after announcing she was a lesbian. The awful spin the liberal elite and elites in general, put on her, was that the show was falling in the ratings. It is not surprising that the same person who derailed Ellen DeGeneres is the same person who I refer to as a media whore, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, an avowed Christian Fundamentalist who thinks the word morality starts and stops with him. In my view Falwell, is a religious bigot whose rhetoric is allowed to continue as the media is continually called "liberal", another hyper-word propagated by the propaganda machine of the right-wing moralists of the GOP, whom are paranoid with their perceptions, that the liberals have destroyed America. My suggestion to the right-wing is that they get a new argument manual and look in their own mirrors first. When one hears Pat Robertson calling liberals evil on the FNC, does anyone respect that this man poses as a man of God and grace? If one can do this after listening to this type of juvenile talk, then yes, you should be held in contempt. These men of religion should be held more in contempt than they are and these media elite networks need to let those whom abhor what these preachers say have a chance to exercise their opposition by the exercise of equal free speech without the threat of corporate-network censorship. The mainstream electronic media is no longer credible, in my view, but they are rather, channels of hate, distortion, and conduits of the American government’s propaganda war with its enemies, at the height of terrorism, as the case of Bill Maher and "Politically Incorrect," which points to a bad direction for free thought and public discourse in America as network hosts become more aggressive and hostile to anyone who does not agree with the Bush administration and whereby guests on too many occasions since September 11, 2001 have had their allegiance to America questioned and when they disagree too much are called un-American, un-patriotic and some even traitorous by these talk show hosts, whom often are not scholars in the fields they are asking the questions of their guests. The real censors in America these days are within both newspapers and television, whose corporate brass controls the dialogue as the program’s producers seem to have a firm grip in controlling the political debate which is being shaped as theatre for an American public inundated with the continued corporate interest. The issue is not quality, but emotionalism and money, and you thought the news anchors were really concerned about this story or that poor nation, fella? No, morality is not what I view as an operative word in the media, unless money can be made, as "justice," is like a ship passing in the night, which only passes as the editor’s dictates, which too often proves what hype is compared to accuracy in new analysis.

        By using the instrument of the media the terrorists are also using an invention that they do not like against the U.S. public in a very benign way. However, at the same time the psychological damage that they crave is brought forward by a media that those in the Middle East view as American propaganda. The Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini first used the television to convey his anti-Americanism and Islamic Fundamentalist message to the West and America in 1979, while former President Carter became consumed by it. There was a formidable and known enemy at the time but no rapid response was ready in 1979. In the year 2001, despite the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the world in the past twenty-three years, no rapid response has been effectively developed to defend against militants whom use deadly force to convey their anti-American and anti-West message.

        One of the things that Carter was accused of during the 1979 hostage crisis was that he paid too much attention to the crisis which hurt him in other areas as president. Another criticism he received was that he lacked a clear plan of forcible action.

        Fast forward to the year 2001 and the United States still does not have a Rapid Response to terror, or those crimes committed against innocent civilians, like a sovereign state as the United States. Clinton did freeze Bin Laden’s assets in 1999 and he also bombed camps in Afghanistan, while hitting a Pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, in an attempt to send a message that the United States was acting in response. Clinton at the time and since has been criticized for these retaliatory strikes for not being enough to combat the terrorist threats and attacks. We should remember that when President Reagan was in office more terrorist attacks were made against his administration than any other president. Reagan criticized Carter for the 1979 hostage crisis and said he would be tough on terrorists. Reagan dealt arms to the same Iranian government that sponsored terrorism and promulgated its anti-American message in the Islamic world. He was also the same president when U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon after their barracks attacked with high explosives. He was the same President that removed the presence of the American military and the defense in Lebanon, which saw the rise of the Hizbollah and HAMAS, whom became even stronger at that time. Hizbollah held Americans hostage longer than any other time in American international political history, and held in captivity longer than the hostages under Carter were, in Iran. Like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Bin laden is also an exile, but, from Saudi Arabia, after leaving Sudan in 1996 and then going to Afghanistan, whereas Khomeini was living in Najaf, Iraq with a short stay in Paris, France, before his return to Iran on February 1, 1979. As a result of what happened in Lebanon and Somalia, the United States ground forces were not well-respected in the Middle East Region. Bin Laden called American soldiers, "Paper Tigers", and does not think the U.S. soldier could sustain themselves in a land war with his group, the al-Qaeda, (mujahideen in the 1980’s) any more than the Soviets were able to do in the 1980’s, in Afghanistan. It will remain to be seen whether the Taliban will hand Bin Laden over to the Pakistani government. Even if he is delivered, this will only culminate with a possible assault on the present government in Pakistan and a possible overthrow of that regime by Islamic Fundamentalists loyal to Bin laden. By bringing the Saudi exile to justice immediately, does not automatically rule out, significantly, assaults, from other terror cells and leaders of other groups whom are equally as strong as the al-Qaeda group. If the Pakistani government is overthrown by the extreme factions in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, then the nuclear capability falls into the hands of these extremists the defense is against, and the United States will have to confront another major national security problem. Externally, the United States would face both a military and diplomatic problem, while internally, another security and economic problem, would be among the serious challenges that the American people would have to confront..

        In short, the initiation of a Covert operation in 1953 that got the United States into trouble in Iran by 1979. As it appears now the Covert operation first undertaken by CIA Director Stansfield Turner in December of 1979, and carried on by Reagan’s CIA Director, the late William Casey in an open-operation also known as a Proxy War, has given credence to the notion of the "Blowback theory", in which you give economic, political, or military assistance to an "ally", only to have them turn on you later on. This happened in Iran by 1979. The rise of the Taliban, albeit, the withdrawal of the US in 1989, after the war, were left without American economic assistance but aid to the mujahideen during the war, in which seven different factions were involved (Bin Laden in one of those groups), has now come to produce a domino effect for the U.S. This was perhaps, an irrevocable foreign policy error by the United States that has now come back in the form of terrorism.

        Continuing, as the United States defended throughout the Cold War the spread of Communism, this new war that Bush has described may be the new version of a new Cold War. The objective to contain terrorism could be in many respects use the same methods and tactics that were used against the Soviet Union from 1948 to 1989. Securing borders both at sea and on land will be a determining factor. A more secure and re-invigorated intelligence system will also be necessary. Military readiness and an able rapid response will need to be re-invented. The United States must come to rely more on the State Department and show the respect for those dedicated career operatives whom work daily on various issues rather than just the political elites that circulate and re-circulate in both the Democratic and Republican administrations. Without an adequate tracking system of terrorist organizations and its leaders then this war against terrorism will continue to remain at ground zero. The presence of U.S. intelligence forces tracking these groups is essential and if necessary using covert operations to infiltrate any possible suspects. In addition, policymakers must devise a diplomatic strategy that allows intelligence operatives to work again in those nations that have become hostile America. The political elites must also include on a more standard basis the recommendations of those Middle East experts, the Foreign Relations Council on Terrorism, and the Foreign Affairs Council. No longer can these entities be ignored at the expense of relying solely on the expertise of the president’s inner-circle whom could be swayed by political and economic interests, which minimizes the value of the electorate whom do not have the same political influence or authority to check the action or inaction of elected officials, which, in turn does run roughshod over the general will of the people, in the United States. These new discussed initiatives are essential to the turning back of the terror cells which are now more than merely a threat passing in the night, but a reality like the darkness of a sailing ship in the dead of daylight.

        Finally, however, if the United States does not promote democratic values where unstable regimes exist, but allows for economic-torn nations to stay less developed, in the long-term this effect will produce inevitable consequences for the future, no matter how vigilant a military effort is launched, and that the "Blowback" effect will continue into other administrations, or into the next decade, and perhaps, beyond. Diplomacy failure is assured where unstable governments exist. The United States must embrace those unstable regimes by promoting democratic values and economic aid when possible so factions like the Taliban do not become the governments of the future in places like Afghanistan or even (possibility of), Pakistan. The United States must become as determined and show as much resolve as their enemies.
     If Osama bin Laden does ever get caught, and brought to justice in America, no matter what the outcome is, he will go down as a hero or martyr, in his part of the world. Unless the United States is able to find a different approach to its foreign policy objectives, in all the Middle East, than the continued threat of people like bin Laden are sure to be in the shadows waiting for its next assault on the West. In a perverse sense the United States built him up, and now they are trying to destroy him.   That is the effect of the "Blowback" theory, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In declaring War on America in the name of political Islam, Osama bin Laden brought out the vulnerable psychological state of a standing superpower, who perhaps, never faced a challenge like this before.
     In the final analysis, if U.S. policymakers and those making the rapid decisions continue to ignore the root causes of terrorism, to the United States or the West, and only concern themselves with the contributing factors, that were obvious in the WTC and Pentagon attacks, then the future problems posed by these terrorist cells which are now vigorously pursued by the United States Government and her allies, will persist no matter how many of those responsible are brought to justice, or killed on the battlefield, or tried and convicted by NBC or the Fox News Channel, and any other direct influences from those elites, within the American political system.

ENDNOTES

1. Interview with bin Laden, "Talking with Terror's Banker", with ABC News Correspondent John Miller, May 28, 1998.

2. Youssef Bodansky, Bin Laden, p. 225.
3. Youssef Bodansky, Bin Laden, p. 227.
4. Emergency NetNews Service, 1998, the EERI Daily Intelligence Report: L.A. Times Pick, "Original Report-Fatwa: Kill Americans Everywhere," April 24, 1998.
5. Bernard Lewis, "License to Kill: Usama bin Ladin's Declaration to Kill", in Foreign Affairs Journal, Nov/Dec., 1998, Vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 14-19.
6. Ibid, pp. 14-19.
7. El-Haji Mauri Saalakhan, "Islam and Terrorism" in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, pp. 87-88
8. El-Haji Mauri Saalakhan, "Islam and Terrorism" in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, pp. 87-88
9. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "The Bombings of U.S. Embassies and U.S. Rocket Attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan", October/November, 1998, Vol.XVII, no. 7. pp. 12-16.
10. Simon Reeve, The New Jackals, p. 193.
11. U. S. State Department Internet source released on October 8, 1999: "Background on Terrorist Organizations."
12. Time.com Time: "Terror in Africa," August 17, 1998, Volume 152, No. 7.13. Youssef Bodansky, Bin Laden, p. 231.
14. Youssef Bodansky, Bin Laden, p. 231
15. PBS Internet source, "Frontline: Hunting bin Laden: the Embassy bombings and the U.S. Retaliation", 1999.
16. Michael Collins Dunn, "Usama Bin Laden: The
Nature of the Challenge," in Middle East Policy, Vol. VI, no. 2, October, 1998, pp. 23-28.
17. Time.com Internet Source, "Raid On Afghanistan, Sudan: August 20, 1998: Clinton's Washington Speech
18. Time.com Internet Source, "Terror in Africa."
19. Time.com Internet Source, "Raid on Afghanistan, Sudan: August 20, 1998: Clinton's Washington Speech, Statement by President Clinton"
20. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Monday July 12, 1999, Volume 35, Number 27, Pages 1281-1285.
21. Michael Collins Dunn, "Usama Bin Laden" in Middle East Policy, pp. 23-27.
22. ICT Internet Source, Yael Shahar, "Osama Bin Laden: Marketing Terrorism."