Living in Infamy (Part I)

On this, the 8th anniversary of 9-11, we are expected to, once again, put up with a supersized dose of the propaganda that has been ground out by the Regime day in and day out since that fateful day – that all of our foreign policy and military exertions from then to now have been about "combatting terror", “national security”, “keeping America safe”, “preserving our freedoms”, and “preserving our way of life”, and nothing more. Well, throw in “spreading democracy” if you like, and “protecting America's interests abroad”... and, for the rare honest (but terribly misled) politician, “protecting Israel's right to exist”. Some will even admit that it's all about keeping the flow of Mideast oil uninterrupted. But no matter what the excuses and expressed priorities are, the one unquestioned fact of existence is that we are “living in a post-9/11 world”, and that “nothing will ever be the same”, etc. etc. And of course this “world” that we are all hunkered down in, afraid of our own shadows and suspicious of everyone (including each other), was not of our own making but was created for us, out of whole cloth, by a bunch of Saudi religious fanatics with the help of a bunch of Afghan goatherds. Who knew that people of that low estate could ever have that much power – to not only radically alter the American way of life, but our military strategy, foreign policy, economy, and the world economy to boot?

But of course, the answer is that they didn't have that much power; they didn't have 1%, or .01%, of that much power. Their leverage came not from their cleverness and viciousness, but from our own folly – our “choice” (or actually the government's) of how to react. To begin with, there wasn't anything the slightest bit surprising about the attacks – or, at least, there shouldn't have been. As Ron Paul so eloquently put it (much to Rudy Giuliani's indignation), “They're over here because we're over there.” And we have been “over there” ever since the first drop of oil was discovered in the Saudi desert; that's the economic side. And on the political side, the fact that we have been Israel's sole, and guaranteed, means of support ever since its establishment has only added decades of insult to decades of injury. We take their oil, with the cooperation of their corrupt and degenerate “leaders”, then return the favor by plopping a very militant, aggressive group of the people they hate most in the world right in their midst. The first mystery about 9-11 is why it didn't happen decades sooner. But I guess that we first had to help Pakistan create the Taliban in order to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. (There's a “patter song” in there somewhere... )

And of course the attacks were literal, in that they really wanted to hurt us militarily and economically – but they were also symbolic, in that they saw the American military as the arm of our benighted foreign policy as well as our avaricious economic policies... and they saw “world trade” as, basically, a cover for those same economic policies, that could also have been termed “economic imperialism”. But really, how much of a bump did “world trade” suffer as a result of the attacks on the WTC? Some companies suffered severe setbacks, no doubt – but world trade in general? It rolled on with nary a moment's hesitation. And as to attacking the Pentagon hobbling, or even slowing down, the military? Anyone who has worked in the defense area can tell you that the less meddling they get from the Pentagon, the more effective our troops are. I worked a mile from the Pentagon and the only change I noticed post 9-11 was a slight drop in required paperwork – which was good! So... in the literal sense, the attacks made very little difference. And the symbolic sense was lost on all but a very few clear-eyed Americans; the rest thought it was all random nonsense. It was that very lack of comprehension that, in a way, defeated the symbolic intent of the attacks. If the enemy doesn't understand what you're talking about, all the propaganda and “psy ops” in the world aren't going to do any good. And most Americans don't associate “world trade” with anything but everyday low prices.

But enough about failure. Let's talk about the ways in which the attacks were a spectacular success. To begin with, they turned the U.S. into a police state – at least potentially. By which I mean, the mechanisms, hastily concocted on the heels of the attacks (and, some would say, “shovel ready” even before the attacks) are now firmly in place, should any administration care to make full use of them; certainly partial uses have already been made, and Americans are starting to see what living under a totalitarian system really is like – the gray dullness is setting in. So the terrorists robbed us of many of our freedoms – not directly, but by stimulating a gross overreaction on the part of the government – or, some would say, presenting a gift on a silver platter to those with totalitarian intent.

Secondly, the attacks were the last straw in what had been a – let's say -- “tense” relationship between us and the Arab and/or Islamic world for many decades (based on oil and Israel, as stated previously). Now we had an excuse to go in and blow those damn rag-heads sky high! (I would have said “back to the Stone Age”, except the people we're fighting never left.) Suddenly we had license to do anything to anyone as long as we could attach the label “terrorist” to them... and that label automatically attaches to anyone in the Moslem world. But why is this such good news for the jihadists? Simply because their vision is that of an all-out war between the faithful and the infidel – and the sooner, and more violent, and more widespread that war is, the better it serves their interests. This, in turn, is based on a number of considerations. For one, they don't take martyrdom as defeat – they relish it. So if a jihadist kills you, he wins... and if you kill him, he still wins. (How you gonna work with an enemy like that? It's as bad as the Japanese!) Secondly, they fully expect to win – and I mean total victory, over Christendom (or whatever is left of it) and Judaism – one of these days; it is only a matter of time. So they are ever pushing for the ultimate showdown – for Armageddon, the very same way Evangelicals of the “end times” bent are pushing, and for the same reasons. Their motto is “Apocalypse now”. They are sure of victory, and that victory will have ultimate and eternal spiritual significance. (Am I saying that the jihadists and the Evangelicals are, kind of like, mirror images of each other? You betcha.)

And as a sidebar comment, I should mention that the Israelis, and the Jews in general, unlike the Christian Zionists, have long since given up claiming that there is any particular spiritual or “salvation” significance to the State of Israel or its preservation. Their self-valuation these days is basically a “just so” story – the Jews are special not because they are a “chosen race” but just because they believe themselves to be special. So it follows that Israel is exceptional, and doesn't have to follow any of the rules, simply because it claims specialness (and the U.S., of course, officially agrees). Very simple, if a bit unimaginative, since virtually every racial/ethnic group and nation in history has made the same sorts of claims. But the problem is that they are dealing with people, i.e. the jihadists, who really do believe that there is a spiritual basis for what they are doing.... so that gives them another whole level of zeal, and energy, and power that is lacking on the part of the secular Jews and Israelis. Not to mention their willingness to die for their cause... and when's the last time you heard of an Israeli suicide bomber? Whether this will ultimately make a difference is another matter, but it is an interesting issue.

So, getting back to 9-11 – the attackers won by getting us to erode our own freedoms, and by getting us to attack the entire Moslem world (because that is how it is perceived in that world, and that perception is all that counts). An additional benefit of the wars that we felt obligated to start based on 9-11 is that our economy has gone into intensive care... our self-confidence as a nation is down to a Vietnam-era low... and – most importantly, perhaps – we have shown the world that “we're no better”... that what we have to offer in the way of “democracy” and “freedom” is mere propaganda compared to the realities of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and all the rest of the vast gulag of secret CIA-run prisons that encircles the globe. So as a propaganda coup, the long-term impact of 9-11 is a spectacular success as well. In fact, it's hard to imagine any aspect of all that has happened since 9-11 that does not put a plus mark in the “jihadist” column or a minus mark in ours. We have become alienated from all of our former allies because of our gross stupidity in Iraq... the Iraqis themselves, and the Afghans, are living in a permanent war zone, and getting damn sick of it... other countries are talking seriously about tossing out the dollar as the primary world currency... we are in debt to nearly everyone on earth... dozens of places formerly open to American trade and tourism are now no man's lands... and this is all because of a handful of guys with box cutters? Please. If it hadn't been 9-11, it would have been 10-12, or 11-13. It was big-time pushback waiting to happen... and our reaction to it was, in turn, a massive folly waiting to happen. Might as well say “if only it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor”... or the Gulf of Tonkin. We were going to get into World War II by hook or crook... and ditto Vietnam... and we were going to wind up making war on Islam one way or the other. The rest is detail, as they say.

So really, rather than “commemorating” 9-11 today, we should take a look at all that happened up to that point, and all that has happened since, and start asking some serious questions. Like, “cui bono?” -- who benefits from all this? Certainly not the American people. Again, I cite the “four horsemen of the Apocalypse” -- the arms makers, the Neocons, the Evangelicals/Christian Zionists, and Israel. They are all happy as pigs in stuff; everyone else is miserable. Did we really want to turn the fate of the nation, and of its people, over to this motley crew? Let's have a referendum on this very issue! I'd love to see how it turned out. And we should not let the current economic crisis blind us to one of its primary causes. Then, even given the “necessity”, or inevitability, of the 9-11 attacks, did they really require us to go to war with two fairly large countries? Let me be simplistic for a moment. Since the attackers were, by and large, Saudi Wahhabists, why didn't we just nuke Mecca and Medina, hmmm? Or let's say the Taliban in Afghanistan was involved – go in, more or less the way we did, throw them out, and then leave, rather than hanging around – with assurances that, should they ever regain power, we would nuke Kabul from our offshore submarines. Simple, right? Yeah... too simple, I'm afraid. By the time of the 9-11 attacks, the eggs were already scrambled. The only way to even begin to make things whole would have been to get out of the Near East completely, which means, I suppose, giving up all that nice cheap oil, and cutting Israel off. And neither of those things was going to happen – not then, not ever – so we had to go to war instead, to prove our manhood... oops, I mean for “Iraqi freedom” and to – at all costs! -- catch Osama bin Laden. (He's going to die of old age first – and if the jihadists are smart, they'll keep it a secret.) And yeah, it's hard to fight against people who don't live anywhere, don't wear uniforms, and don't fight fair; we found this out in Vietnam. It's very frustrating... but it's the wave of the future, and the main reason is that it works so well... for them. America is all about fighting wars the old-fashioned way, like Napoleon -- troops on the battlefield, in formation... flags waving... bugles blaring... guys waving swords and yelling “charge!!” People like the Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda laugh at all this – they consider it a neurosis, which, in this day and age, it is. There is no longer such a thing as “clean” vs. “dirty” fighting – and let's admit that the CIA realizes this, even if no one else does. There is nothing most Americans would not do to defend home and hearth – but unfortunately, “home and hearth” are not what we're talking about, and haven't been since... well, probably the War of 1812 (or the Civil War if you lived in the Confederacy). We're talking about, basically, a bunch of abstractions that have been planted in our pea brains by a bunch of scheming, cynical politicians, greedy businessmen, and our own home-grown religious fanatics... all of whom get “intellectual” facilitation by the Neocons, who are basically a bunch of power-crazed nerds. (And, in fact, “Neoconservatism” could just as readily be termed “Neoliberalism” or “Neofascism”. The term was coined primarily to dupe people who were naturally conservative into supporting a Wilsonian/Zionist foreign policy.)

So these wars – a full 8 years after 9-11 – are, more clearly than ever, not worth fighting even if we were winning, which we're not... the regimes involved are not worth defending... and we have long since passed the point of diminishing returns when it comes to “payback”. In fact, as I've already pointed out, there really is no way of paying back for 9-11; it's impossible. And I suppose it's that very feeling of frustration and futility that is driving us to ever-greater follies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rule seems to be, if you're fighting an unwinnable war, you have to lose as completely and spectacularly as possible – again, with Vietnam as the example we all strive to emulate. Until we learn to fight the way the rest of the world fights... or until we learn to leave the rest of the world alone... we're going to be caught in these traps time and time again. Many people will profit, but many more will lose... but as long as they don't realize they're losing, or realize it but feel that it's, somehow, worth it anyway, the wars will go on.