USA National Security Doctrine: 'Successes and Challenges'

The document, page 8. I am continuing to dissect the US propaganda. I don't know if I am doing well but all I know is that this is a necessary task. Any suggestion other bloggers may have or any one would like to join me and post on his, her blog or on this blog ? You are welcome.

'The war against terror is not over. America is safer, but not yet safe. As the enemy adjusts to our successes, so too must we adjust. '

The US is promoting a Prolonged War on terrorrism. The document on National Security explains that the ennemy is adjusting to the successes of the war on terrorrism. It does not explain How and Why. With one word (adjustment) and no justification as to the How and Why of this adjustment, the US wants to build an Atlantic Alliance for a Prolonged War on Terrorrism. Does this means that the US is anticipating that terrorrism will be adjusting for a long period of time and how do they know that ?

'The successes are many:'
• Al-Qaida has lost its safe haven in Afghanistan.
• A multinational coalition joined by the Iraqis is aggressively prosecuting the war against the terrorists in Iraq.

This means that the center of operations of Al-Qaida has moved from Afghanistan to Iraq. I am not sure we can call that a success. I am mad when I hear that Iraq is a success, a success for breading terrorrism !

• The al-Qaida network has been significantly degraded. Most of those in the al-Qaida network responsible for the September 11 attacks, including the plot’s mastermind Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, have been captured or killed.

This statement must be substantiated. Because what counts is the prosecution of these people. Anybody can tell any story about those who were killed and the stories can be false. As for those captured, we need facts and only neutral prosecutions can bring about the facts. No wonder why septembre 11th victims families are unhappy with the way facts about 9/11 seem to be evanescent. The only face of Al-Qaida shown to the public until now is Al-Moussaoui, a disturbed man who wants to become a martyr and who was not even able to gain the trust of minor Al-Qaida operatives.

'• There is a broad and growing global consensus that the deliberate killing of innocents is never justified by any calling or cause.'

Yes and if applied fairly this principle could be a real progress for humanity. However the' killing of innocents' is not a universal definition. Look at what is happening in Palestine and Iraq, when killed by the Israeli army or the US army, the definition changes. Innocents become in fact 'terrorrists' disguised. And the definition changes again when innocents are killed by suicide bombers or militia which are on the US and the EU terrorrist list. Innocence is on one side and terror is on the other. Do you believe in such a simplistic and relativist defintion of such important issues ?

'• Many nations have rallied to fight terrorism, with unprecedented cooperation on law enforcement, intelligence, military, and diplomatic activity.'

Reluctantly I must say and with little results since everybody now knows how military and intelligence cooperation is being distorted and exploited by the US. The diplomatic activity is mainly focused on making countries more submissive to US policies. And the law enforcement to fight terrorrism is a gift given by the US to those ruling politicians in our democratic countries who hate democracy and who must deal with it, in order to justify secrecy, distorsion of information and arbitrary treatment of citizens resulting in the absence of accountability (something every ruling politician without morals dreads the most) and the increase of the power of the few individuals in the ruling party.

'• Numerous countries that were part of the problem before September 11 are now increasingly becoming part of the solution – and this transformation has occurred without destabilizing friendly regimes in key regions.'

Of course, Lybia was part of the problem. Saudi Arabia was and still part of the problem. But as long as they are on their knees they can continue breeding discontent and terrorrism. Here also, the definition of countries that were part of the problem and are no more can change depending on US interests and its ally's interests, Israel. Syria for example is on its knees, the Baath party became very weak after the concerted Hariri-Jumblatt-neo-con campaign against it in Lebanon. However, the weakness of the syrian regime is not enough for Israel and the US. They want the regime to renounce definitely on reclaiming the Golan heights occupied by israel in the 1967 and 1973 Israeli-Arab wars. This is a very unpopular move to do for the regime and Syria will continue its agony until it renounces the Golan heights. So the submission of Syria has nothing to do with terrorrism because this country, hostile to Saddam's regime, was against Saddam in the first gulf war and has given valuable information to the US during the first two years of the second Iraq war. It has even imported individuals from US rendition flights to torture in its prisons to 'extract information' for the US intelligence.

'• The Administration has worked with Congress to adopt and implement key reforms like the Patriot Act which promote our security while also protecting our fundamental liberties.'

This is a total lie, like everything else in the document. Since its inception, the Patriot Act was seen as a menace to fundamental liberties by all human rights organizations.

'The enemy is determined, however, and we face some old and new challenges:
• Terrorist networks today are more dispersed and less centralized. They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure.'

'The Ennemy': Who is the ennemy ? It is not a state, it is not a person (if they can claim that it is a person it can be ridiculous, the US versus who ? Bin Laden...) The Ennemy is fictional because it is not centralised, and it is an ideology. The US and the world are fighting an ideology, a cultural meme that can infect at its will everybody on the planet... This is exactly the definition of a fiction: a product of the mind. However, this ideology/belief /fiction is related to the US domination of the middle east, of muslim countries in the middle east. And US actions in these countries are feeding those same ideologies and beliefs.

The US is then fighting a fiction which is its own creation.

'• While the United States Government and its allies have thwarted many attacks, we have not been able to stop them all. The terrorists have struck in many places, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. And they continue to seek WMD in order to inflict even more catastrophic attacks on us and our friends and allies.'

Means nobody is safe because the fiction is international. I mean who can stop people believing what they believe ? And who can stop people fighting for what they believe in ? Since the beginning of time people have done that. However, never before, people's beliefs for what they should fight for were unified. The US, by its actions in the middle east and against Islam is radicalising Islam and creating a unified belief for which the only soltuion is an international or a unified war.

'• The ongoing fight in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry.'

Because the international fiction needs a rallying cry, so here it is. they don't only fabricate the fiction but they also fabricate the rallying cry ! And each fabrication needs a war on its own.

'• Some states, such as Syria and Iran, continue to harbor terrorists at home and sponsor terrorist activity abroad.'

Means there still work to be done and Wars to be waged in these two countries.

The more I read the document and the more I realize that this is a nightmare ! When citizens in the US, Canada and the EU will wake up on a rallying cry to fire their representatives who adhere to this nightmarish vision of our Brave New World and adress the real problems of their people ?


Gert said...

In a nutshell: "Global Islamic Terrorism" is the US's newfound meme which will be used to justify more American interventionism. To instil in the collective American psyche fear of an all-encompassing International Bogeyman is always easy and has been done successfully with Communism.

In effect, "Global Terrorism" to the average American is the new Communism. And while the average American never directly felt the effects of Communism (thereby remaining a rather abstract and poorly understood concept), 9/11 has made terrorism tangible to those same Americans. Seen in that light, the "Global terrorism meme" is all the more infectious and dangerous.

This works very well and on several levels: it allows the Administration to lump together all kinds of perceived enemies including of course Palestinian armed resistance.

On some Repugnik blogs I found the notion for example that Hugo Chavez is allied with bin Laden! Hello??? Chavez, with all that oil is a potential "threat" to US interests, create a link to al-Qaeda, however non-existent, and bingo, they're ready to send in the boys...

Despite this, there are also some signs that the US may have learnt something from Iraq. The approach to Iran smacks more of multilateralism than unbridled interventionist unilateralism, as Fukuyama recently pointed out.

But I'm no optimist.

Sophia said...

Thanks Gert for the comment. I am not optimist either. The communist menace lasted 50 years until the collapse of communism but there is no comparison between communism and Islamism, communism was a belief held by very few in authoritarian states. If the objective of the US is the collapse of Islamism, I don't see them attaining this objectif. When it comes to religious beliefs, people tend to rally around those beliefs in times of threat.
I think there should be a different resistance to the US miltary industrial ambitions. Civil resistance. Hamas should reform itself and align on more progressive movements. The world should take the example of latin America and elect people outside the political elite. A new left must be the alternative, not an ideological and dogmatic left and not a center left like Tony Blair's but a left built on few principles, social justice, fundamental liberties and the most important, human dignity and rights for a prosperous life.

Gert said...

Agreed, apart from one point.

Blair and Zanu Labor aren't centre left: they are centre right. The fact that the Cons are slightly to the right of them, doesn't make Labour left.

Dissapointment with Labour's hard turn to the right is rife amongst progressives. We even have a few blogger coalitions on how to remove Bliar and accomplices...

Since March 29th 2006