The
United States declared a 'global war on terrorism'
within days of the attacks of September 11, 2001
on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. In-stantly,
terrorism was elevated by the US establishment
and media into the greatest, most ominous threat
the 'civilized world' had faced since the collapse
of communism.
Why did the United States choose to frame its
imperialist posture af-ter 9-11 as a 'global war
on terrorism?' Not a few have been puzzled by
this way of justifying the new projection of American
power. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country; it
is tool, not an ideology or an end. How does one
wage war against a tactic or a tool?
Nevertheless, the frame was cleverly chosen. It
was and remains a most effective tool for mobilizing
the American public behind the neo-conservative
project of using wars - multiple and endless,
if necessary - to deepen America's global dominance
and to make it irreversible.
On September 11, 2001 nineteen terrorists tragically
brought death to Americans on their own soil.
Barring the attacks of Pearl Harbor, this was
unprecedented in American history. The terrorists
had demon-strated that Americans were vulnerable
to attacks inside their own shores. It now appeared
that the blowback from US policies in the Mid-dle
East could reach across the Atlantic to hit the
US itself. To say the least, this was disconcerting.
American policy makers chose to magnify this new
vulnerability to advance their imperialist goals.
By constantly harping on terrorism, by hyping
the threat of terrorist attacks, fearful Americans
would both en-dorse curbs on liberties at home
and endless wars abroad - anything that would
prevent 'Islamic' terrorists from crossing American
shores. The 'global war against terrorism' looked
like the perfect tool for producing these twin
results.
The rhetoric of terrorism had other uses too.
Terrorists operate with-out a return address,
are ready to strike anywhere, and sometimes die
with their victims. Instead of tracking them down
through surveillance and police work, the United
States has used the elusiveness of terrorists
to justify pre-emptive strikes and wars. In addition,
since terrorists may be hiding anywhere, the war
against terrorism must be global.
Just as importantly, the United States has used
its rhetoric of terror-ism to delegitimize all
forms of resistance. This occurs in two stages.
First, US agencies employ a definition of terrorism
that covers all groups that use violence as a
means to achieve political ends, even legitimate
political ends. Thus, Hamas and Hizbullah are
'terrorists.' Next, indi-viduals or groups who
provide 'material assistance' to 'terrorists'
are also 'terrorists.' The United States has stretched
this logic to delegitimize all resistance movements
that it views as contrary to US interests.
Although the United States has almost exclusively
targeted Muslims in recent years, it continues
to insist that Muslims per se are not the en-emy.
They only target those who are 'terrorists' and
those who support 'terrorist.' It is a clever
distinction that empowers the 'good' Muslims who
are on our side - mostly corrupt and despotic
rulers - to fight the 'bad' Muslims, who are 'terrorists.'
In other words, the 'global war against terrorism'
is a powerful rhe-torical device that mobilized
overwhelming domestic support - at least, before
the Iraq war became a quagmire - behind America's
imperialist posture that depended on endless,
pre-emptive and illegal wars.
It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that 'terrorism'
- as the new cover for a more invasive imperialism
- has quickly come to dominate the global public
discourse. A Google search for 'terrorism' turned
up 72 million hits, not too far behind the 97
million hits for 'democracy.' Taken together,
the related terms 'terror,' 'terrorism,' and 'terrorists'
generated 236 million hits, which exceed the 210
million hits for 'freedom.'
A Google search also reveals that the 'global
war on terrorism' is di-rected primarily at Muslims.
A search for exact phrases that combined 'Islamic,'
'Muslim,' 'Moslem,' and 'Islam and,' with 'terrorism,'
'terror-ists,' and 'terror' yielded a total of
3.3 million hits. On the other hand, exact phrases
that combined 'Tamil' with 'terrorism,' 'terrorists,'
and 'terror' turned up only 26,000 hits. Substituting
'Jewish' for 'Tamil' pro-duced 211,000 hits.
Why is the talk of terrorism directed overwhelmingly
at Muslims? Despite the rhetoric of a 'global
war on terrorism,' by now we know all too well
that this war is aimed at Muslims, mainly at Muslims
in the Middle East. This is a war of 'colonial
pacification' of Islamic lands: the Muslims must
be 'pacified' to secure 'our' oil wells in the
Persian Gulf, and to entrench Israeli hegemony
over the Middle East. This is also a religious
war for the radical core of American evangelicals;
it fits into their theology of end times. We ignore
this only at our peril.
M.
Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern
University. He is author of Challenging
the New Orientalism (IPI Publications: 2007).
Visit his website at http://aslama.org.
© M. Shahid Alam
