thanks to percyprune

[winterbadger]

For pointing out this piece by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. My eye was caught by different bits than his, namely the passage:

The favourite line from the war on terror's military-industrial complex is that in 2001 Osama bin Laden "changed the rules of the game". (Forgotten is that he attacked the same target in 1993, his only error being one of civil engineering.) George Bush repeated the change thesis again on Wednesday in confirming his secret interrogation camps and excusing the five-year delay in bringing al-Qaida suspects to justice. Tony Blair cites the change with every curb on civil liberty. The "new" terrorism requires a new approach to public safety. The security industry cries amen.

Most of this is self-serving drivel. Nervous rulers have colluded with soldiers and businessmen throughout history to cite some ethnic or religious menace when needing more power and higher taxes. Political violence has become more promiscuous with suicide bombing and a consequent rise in kill rate per incident, but - as Matthew Carr shows in his book on terror, Unknown Soldiers - the change is one of degree.

I could not agree more. Every discussion of 9/11 seems to begin with the assertion that this day/event changed the world, changed everything. I react strongly against that notion, sometimes overreact, because it is horrific evidence of America's total and atrocious insularity and blindness. These enemies had been our enemies for decades already. They had already killed hundreds and wounded thousands of people in attacks on US. They had dedicated themselves to inflicting violent death and destruction on Americans at home and abroad and HAD ATTACKED US ALREADY on the very site of the World Trade Center. And plenty of home-grown terrorists had bombed and killed here already. The 9/11 attacks changed nothing; the turning point had been the (non)election of George Bush in 2000, after which the invasion of Iraq was bound to happen, terrorist attacks or no. And after 9/11 took place, the opportunity it afforded the Bush regime to reorganise the government, to arrogate vast unconstitutional powers, and to ignore or abrogate domestic anf international law was given an excuse.

The other part of Jenkins' article that strieks me is the observation that:

Conceding the kudos of state censorship to jihadists should be as unthinkable as conceding arrest without trial. That does not excuse the politico-media complex from any responsibility for caution, a sense of proportion and self-restraint. The gruelling re-enactment of the London bombings in July and this weekend's 9/11 horror-fest are not news. They exploit grief and horror, and in doing so give gratuitous publicity to Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Those personally affected by these outrages may have their own private memorials. But to hallow the events with repetitious publicity turns a squalid crime into a constantly revitalised political act. It grants the jihadists what they most crave, warrior status. It more than validates terrorism as a weapon of war, it glorifies it.

More harm has been done, in my opinion, to freedom and democracy and more conflict has been occasioned between the Muslim world and the West by the US and UK government actions before and since 9/11 than any gang of terrorists could hope to do. We preach democracy, but we support dictators and tyrants while undermining and threatening democratically elected governments in the region. We trumpet the struggle as one of fascism against freedom, but our governments seek more and nore to restrict and eliminate freedom and to pillory and demean those who engage in democratic debate over policy. We are told we are in a war, but no one, least of all our leaders, is asked to make any sacrifices, except those of personal freedom.

And I'm not sure I see how it's going to end. Like Hitler in his bunker, our leaders seek to deny and ignore the march of grim reality. They are less and less popular at home, but they seem quite unwilling to change direction and respond to either reality or the people who elected them.

Comments

[redactrice.livejournal.com]

Amen, brother!

And the current situation suits the interests of so many parties: politicans in power, the military/intelligence/security agencies and the contractors who feed off them, the 24-hour "news" channels that have a never-ending story with which to fill the airwaves.

My own personal reaction to it all is to ignore it as much as possible, but that's probably not a sustainable strategy for the long term. :-(