September 4, 2003
WOT THE?:
A Deadly Franchise (Naomi Klein, September 3, 2003, AlterNet)
The Marriott hotel in Jakarta was still burning when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia's security minister, explained the implications of the day's attack: "Those who criticise about human rights being breached must understand that all the bombing victims are more important than any human rights issue."In a sentence, we got the best summary yet of the philosophy underlying Bush's so-called War on Terror (WOT). Terrorism doesn't just blow up buildings; it blasts every other issue off the political map. The spectre of terrorism -- real and exaggerated -- has become a shield of impunity, protecting governments around the world from scrutiny for their human rights abuses.
Many have argued that the War on Terror is the US government's thinly veiled excuse for constructing a classic empire, in the model of Rome or Britain. Two years into the crusade, it's clear this is a mistake: the Bush gang doesn't have the stick-to-it-ness to successfully occupy one country, let alone a dozen. Bush and the gang do, however, have the hustle of good marketers, and they know how to contract out. What Bush has created in the WOT is less a "doctrine" for world domination than an easy-to-assemble toolkit for any mini-empire looking to get rid of the opposition and expand its power.
The War on Terror was never a war in the traditional sense. It is, instead, a kind of brand, an idea that can be easily franchised by any government in the market for an all-purpose opposition cleanser. We already know that the WOT works on domestic groups that use terrorist tactics such as Hamas or the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (Farc). But that's only its most basic application.
One wonders if Ms Klein has any idea her argument sounds: sure, the War on Terror has been effective against terror groups domestically--here and abroad--and no the fascist fist has not descended on America, but that's not because George W. Bush isn't a fascist, but because he's incompetent. Posted by orrinj at September 4, 2003 9:35 PM
Many have argued that the War on Terror is the US government's thinly veiled excuse for constructing a classic empire, in the model of Rome or Britain. Two years into the crusade...
Sheesh. Flatliner Alert!
Posted by: Ransom Danegeld at September 5, 2003 2:43 AMWhat's the difference between "domestic groups that use terrorist tactics", and plain ol' terrorists ?
Ms. Klein's affection for said groups ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 5, 2003 6:29 AMMichael:
I think the point is you can destroy al Qaeda's infrastructure in your country, but not necessarily elsewhere.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 8:02 AMGotta hand it to those leftists-- maybe they'd love him if he were a competent Fascist. After all, they do love Fidel.
It hardly took Bush to give the greenlight to Indonesian imperialism.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 5, 2003 3:00 PM