Commentary: Paul Lubeck

September 9, 2002

Hidden casualties of the war on terrorism

A year after the terrorist attacks of September 11th shattered America's tranquility, it's time to inquire about how our security, freedoms and democracy have fared since President Bush launched his unlimited war on terrorism.

COMMENTARY

Paul Lubeck is a professor of Sociology.

In a democracy, an informed citizenry requires information--sunlight rather than secrecy is the ideal incubator of democratic governance. If this is true, what are informed citizens entitled to know about this extraordinary security failure?

If America is to rise above the maxim, " Truth is the first casualty of war", then informed citizens must know what exactly happened, why it happened and what foreign policies will prevent future attacks.

More pointedly, if September 11th is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, why has the Bush administration resisted appointing eminent Americans to an independent commission of inquiry, as Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor and Johnson after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? Is it not preposterous that the same elites managing national security agencies on September 10th are charged with investigating this catastrophe, effectively conducting an "in-house" investigation of their own performance?

To avoid truth becoming the first casualty of war, an independent "9-11" commission should probe not only the superficial causes--bureaucratic incompetence, interagency rivalry, analytical weakness about the Muslim world--but also the antecedent political and economic policies that may have contributed to this catastrophe.

Preventing future attacks means Americans must understand the root causes of the widespread hostility directed against the United States by friends and foes alike. Simplistic questions like, "Why do they hate us?" or belligerent cowboy slogans like "you are either with us or against us" will not guarantee America's security, freedom or democracy.

An independent commission must ask painful questions about the effects of American policies such as globalization. What is the relationship between the relentless American pressure on Muslim majority states to implement austerity programs increasing competitive market forces and social inequality and the recruitment of unemployed youths into extremist Islamist groups?

Sorting out rampant rumors about covert deals, complicit allies and cover-ups is also critical for re-establishing confidence. Americans require coherent explanations regarding the consequences of the CIA's training and arming of al-Quaida as mujahidin soldiers in the Soviet-Afghanistan war. An independent commission must muster the courage to investigate whether unqualified support for client states--Saudi Arabia and Israel in particular--have, in different ways, disconnected American policy from its long-standing mooring on principles of liberal internationalism and self-determination. Americans must know whether powerful lobbies aggressively promoting their particular national interests have not become the proverbial tails wagging the complacent American dog.

Defending personal freedom, national security and democracy at home and abroad, we are told by President Bush, are the noble objectives of the permanent war on terrorism. Yet Attorney General John Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act legitimates the opposite. American citizens are now detained without access to lawyers or judges, encouraged to spy on each other (TIPS), immigrants are imprisoned indefinitely or deported without a hearing, and security agencies are empowered to conduct secret searches, wiretaps, and access citizens' personal records. Before "9-11" an informed debate over the legality of racial profiling grabbed the headlines, today citizens judged to be "Arab-looking" are detained, many fearing to use public transportation. Personal freedom is the primary casualty of the war on terrorism.

What is the state of democracy and American security relations in the wider world? True, no new terrorist attacks have occurred, Al Qaeda has been dislodged from Afghanistan, but instability permeates the American-installed central government. Sadly, a major casualty of the war on terrorism is the "new diplomacy"--enlightened and universally admired policies promoting grassroots democracy, human rights, gender equality, and the rule of international law. In contrast to multilateralism, Bush advocates unilateralism, the militarization of foreign policy and indifference to international treaties despite the protests of our democratic allies. America's bloated military budgets ($379 billion proposed for 2003) fund pariah regimes like Uzbekistan and support militaries with horrible human rights records in Indonesia, Nigeria and Columbia. How can these policies possibly improve our security?

It is a dangerous illusion to believe that unilateral militarism will guarantee our security, freedoms and democracy. Globalization has eliminated the "fortress America" option. Like it or not, the 21st century will witness the rise of new economic and political powers and the certain proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Security therefore can only be achieved by international law and collective security arrangements. For all of these reasons, any preemptive attack on Iraq will only reduce American security by alienating our Muslim allies and bolstering the recruitment of Islamist militants, only risking more casualties at home and abroad.

Return to Front Page