What is a war against terrorism?

?


Communism List:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Workers of the world unite!
_______________________________________
The role and character of what is known as the mainstream media must be 
subjected to
serious examination. It is clear that it has played a pivotal role in both 
whipping
up hysteria and shaping public opinion. The predominant reporting, analysis and
commentary has been quintessentially pro-imperialist. It prove  a useful 
exercise to
complete a study of  of the  mainstream papers, both broadsheet and tabloid, to 
work
out a specific position on the character of the print media. A similar exercise 
in
relation to radio and television would be of value too. In Ireland radio seemed 
to be
less hysterical and less overtly pro US imperialism than the papers.  Perhaps it
reflects  more west European bourgeois concerns.
It is also surprising to see the Iranian regime adopting such an apparently
pro-western approach. I am surprised that it wants to see Washington, next-door 
to
it, on the other side of the border. The supportive role of Putin is another
surprise. I would not have anticipated that he would adopt such an cravenly
supportive role to Washington. Given that central Asia has a special 
relationship to
Russia --especially when it was the USSR -- I would have expected Russia to 
adopt a
less conciliatory role. Given that it is prepared to encourage Washington to 
occupy
Russia's soft underbelly it then makes no sense that it should have been 
opposing the
eastward drive of NATO. Clearly Russia's role is an indication as to how weak 
it is
and that it is in fact no longer a world or even a regional power.
Perhaps both Iran and Russia hope for a similar relationship to Washington that
exists between Washington and West European governments. If so  both countries 
fail
to realise  that the  West European regimes can pursue this path because of 
their
economic and political strength as imperialist powers --a strength which has 
been
growing. On the other hand Russia and Iran don't possess this kind of strength.
Consequently the US is hardly prepared to form this kind of relationship with 
them.
After all the revolutions that occurred in both countries in the past were the 
result
of the very oppressive character of the relationship between these two 
countries and
imperialism. The only way they may stand a chance of developing a diplomatic and
political relationship resembling Western Europe's is if they are prepared to
entirely subject their countries to the interests of imperialism. This will mean
these countries can have no independent foreign policy and will be  available to
imperialist capital for rampant exploitation at all levels. Indeed at the 
moment both
countries have no foreign policy. Their foreign policy is imperialism's and
particular Washington's.

The entire call for a war against terrorism is completely farcical and 
senseless.
Terrorism is a tactic and a most a strategy. To declare a war on terrorism is
analogous to declaring a war on a tactic or strategy. Again even then it makes 
little
sense since terrorism is a very ambiguous term. It has been chosen as a 
rhetorical
device by the Bush regime for precisely that reason. It can mean anything and
nothing. There exist very different kinds of terrorism including individual and 
state
terrorism. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan is considered by many as 
an act
of terrorism. The Indonesian assault on East Timor in which thousands of people 
were
brutally murdered is another form of terrorism. Indeed the establishment of 
soviet of
workers in Russian in 1917 could be considered to be a terrorist action by the
Russian working class since it filled the Russian bourgeoisie with terror. A 
general
strike by workers could be considered a form of terror too.

The fight against Muslim fundamentalism or extremism is another questionable 
war. Is
the Northern Alliance deployed in Afghanistan not in the main Muslim too. What 
is the
difference between they and the Taliban? Can the northern alliance then not be 
deemed
terrorist too? The very Taliban and what is called the Bin Laden network has 
been
recently used, and had been used, by Washington in the  struggle between Bosnian
Muslim and Serbia and its satraps.
This war against terrorism can be used to undermine any armed struggle against 
the
capitalist class by rhetorically declaring it as terrorist. Washington has the 
papal
power to declare what is and what is not terrorist. At heart this war against
terrorism is a war against the working class. It is a war designed to prevent 
the
working class from resisting and challenging imperialist capital.
Right now Washington is apparently prepared to negotiate with Al Fatah. This
organisation led by Arafat has an armed wing that has engaged in what might be 
termed
terrorist usinm --Washington's ambiguous rhetoric. Equally the British 
government
has negotiated with the IRA, a blatantly terrorist organisation, in relation 
the so
called peace process. The contras, the child of Washington, was largely created 
and
funded by the CIA in its terrorist activities against the Nicaraguan people. The
funds were linked to the negotiations between the CIA and the Iranian regime 
that had
held American hostages from its embassy. Surely those responsible would be 
regarded
as terrorists by Washington. Lets be frank. Washington is going to continue to 
engage
in terrorism and support and fund terrorist groups (ever bit as much as ever) 
that
serve its bourgeois interests. This means that the war against terrorism is a 
farce.
It is no more than an imperialist war ranged against forces that obstruct US
imperialism's interests.

Regards
Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group)
Be free to join our communism mailing list
at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/



Communism List _______________________________________________
Communism@lists.econ.utah.edu