Parlaying tragedy into empire. (Watch On The Right).

The events of September 11, 2001, are said to have changed everything. George W. Bush announced that the United States would declare war against any nation harboring terrorists and sent U.S. armed forces into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, eliminate al-Qaeda, and catch Osama bin Laden. Not only did a sense of foreboding pervade the U.S. population but it was fostered by the media. Following the attacks in New York and Washington, Dan Rather, anchor of CBS Evening News, said, "George Bush is the president. He makes the decisions. Whenever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call."

The U.S. Catholic bishops as a body announced publicly their vote--267 to 4--to support the war in Afghanistan. As reported in the Jesus Journal, "Most of the heads of the other monotheistic religions in the United States," from Billy Graham on down, didn't mince words "about their desire to give spiritual and conscience comfort to the American war effort."

Throughout the ensuing war, Americans have received no official reports of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, accompanied by men in uniform, brief the press and the population. Only Extra!--the magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting--reported that there may be over 3,500 civilian deaths and that "both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have voiced strong concern about the loss of civilian lives and separately called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs."

Agence France Presse noted on December 6, 2001, that refugees from Kandahar "spoke of tremendous civilian casualties" when wave after wave of U.S. bombers targeted the city. It further reported that "two months of relentless bombardment have reduced the city of Kandahar to a ghost town," with no water or electricity, scarce food, and "housing only [for] the famished who were too poor to leave."

What has the war accomplished? It hasn't led to the capture of Osama bin Laden, who as recently as July 10, 2002, is reported alive and well. It liberated Afghanistan from Taliban rule, but it hasn't stopped terrorism--as evidenced by the assassination of the interim government's vice-president. It hasn't eliminated the al-Qaeda, pockets of which continue to mount armed resistance and to issue threats of future violence against the American people. In fact, if the frequent Bush administration alerts about impending terrorist attacks aren't simply psychological ploys to maintain citizen support for Bush's war policies, the war in Afghanistan has increased rather than decreased threats of terrorism.

While the war in Afghanistan and the attacks of September 11 dominated television, radio, and print media, it is important to view these events in a wider context. Bruce Cumings of the University of Chicago has written, "Despite the mainstream media's verdict on the great success of the war, it will lead to an even greater U.S. military occupation of the world and hence to a U.S. `garrison state.'" Cumings notes in the March 4, 2002, Nation the Pentagon's announcement of a new commitment to bases in Central Asia--"an air base near Bishtek, the capital of Kyrgzstan, that would hold up to 3,000 troops; massive upgrading of existing military bases and facilities in Uzbekistan ... and Pakistan" where several bases now house U.S. forces with next-to-no media access or scrutiny; creation and expansion of remaining military bases in Afghanistan and other "airfields in locations on the perimeter of Afghanistan."

Uri Averney, former member of the Israeli Knesset and activist for peace and international affairs, wrote in the Israeli journal Ma'ariv in February 2002:

   If one looks at the map for the big American bases created for the war, one
   is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of
   the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.

He is evidently referring to a projected oil line planned by a Texas oil company prior to the September attacks.

When Cumings referred to the "garrison state" he was pointing to the fact that the United States has already left troops and bases in every country in which it has ever fought: 37,000 in South Korea after the war in 1953; armed forces in Germany, Japan, and Okinawa since World War II; and 5,000 in Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War. In addition, the United States maintains virtual control over the Pacific Ocean, with bases stretching from Australia to Alaska, and a major sphere of influence in Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The United States also has other bases in the Middle East, such as Bahrain.

One could almost say that the United States rules the world--if, in addition to being the world's military superpower, we add its financial dominance worldwide. According to an analysis by James Petras in the June 2002 Z Magazine: "Almost 48 percent of the largest companies and banks are U.S., 30 percent from the European Union and 10 percent are Japanese." Moreover, he adds, U.S. companies are

   the dominant force in finance, pharmaceutical, biotech, information,
   software and retail trade. The concentration of U.S. economic power is even
   more evident if we look at the top 10 companies in the world. 90 percent
   are U.S.-owned. Of the top 25, 75 percent and of the top 100, 57 percent
   are U.S.-owned.

It is even more significant that Africa, China, and Latin American countries aren't among the major owners. And Asia is virtually absent, with only "three companies among the top 500, less than one percent."

There are liabilities to this economic empire--such as the increased cost of military supremacy; arrogance and irresponsibility of, even fraud by, corporate executives; tax cuts for the rich which have stimulated overseas investments and added to the budget deficit. A major result, according to Petras, is that this huge overseas empire has caused "a trade deficit this year approaching the unsustainable level of one-half trillion dollars."

Petras points out that the Bush administration's solution to this "contradiction of imperial growth and domestic decay is to conquer overseas countries with vital resources." These countries--including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and some former Soviet republics which either border on the oil-rich Caspian Sea or have other oil potential--are one explanation of the Bush-Cheney reference to Iraq and Iran as part of their "axis of evil."

In fact, a document leaked to the New York Times outlines the logistics of a possible all-out invasion of Iraq. According to Jonathan Marcus of the BBC:

   The U.S. Central Command document cited in [the New York Times] is not a
   final war plan--rather a concept of operations. It sets out in broad terms
   what the battle to topple Saddam Hussein might look like.... The U.S.
   military seem to be envisaging a sort of Desert Storm fl--similar in some
   ways to the original Gulf War.... This would be a vast operation involving
   a concerted air, sea, and land assault from the north, the south, and the
   west.

However, Stephanie Reich points out in the spring 2002 issue of the Covert Action Quarterly (founded more than twenty-two years ago to document U.S. intelligence activities both at home and abroad) that outgoing Secretary of Defense William Cohen advised the Bush administration that "Saddam Hussein's forces are in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors." And Scott Ritter, an outspoken former marine and a United Nations weapons inspector, affirmed Cohen's assessment. But, as Reich also notes, "There are more than seventy known oil fields in Iraq, only fifteen of which have been developed."

The Covert Action Quarterly also contains a six-page discussion of Israeli and U.S. allegations that Iraq's weapons pose a serious military threat. It points out that it was Israel, not Iraq, that introduced nuclear and chemical weapons into the region and further argues that Saddam Hussein had "advanced an alternative: the transformation of the entire Middle East into a nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons-free zone." Iraq also signed a Non-Proliferation Treaty--information not widely known. The Quarterly notes, "According to several UN inspectors, Iraq no longer has any weapons of mass destruction; nor could Iraq purchase the components of these weapons under the present sanctions."

In view of these facts, it is surprising that so many independent newspapers and even such leading journals as the New Yorker (March 25, 2002), the Atlantic Monthly (May 2002), Vanity Fair (April 2002), and Time (May 13, 2002) are encouraging the Bush administration to carry out its threat of a bloody assault on the people of Iraq.

Finally, there has been little alarm or opposition expressed to Bush's advocacy of first-strike war. As discussed on June 1 on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and reported on June 2 by numerous media across the country, Bush told graduating cadets at West Point:

   New threats require new thinking. Deterrence ... means nothing against
   shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.
   Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass
   destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them
   to terrorists' allies.... We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his
   plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. And our security
   will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready
   for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend
   our lives.... We are in a conflict between good and evil and America will
   call evil by its name.

Yet, to date, none of Bush's "axis of evil" states has threatened attacks against the United States. And nothing in Bush's speech acknowledges that the U.S. Constitution requires that war must be declared by Congress. Indeed, in late July Rumsfeld asserted emphatically that congressional action isn't required, adding that involving Congress would foolishly tip off the enemy.

According to Fleischer, Bush's press spokesperson, the administration is drafting a policy that would allow preemptive strikes against any country the president believes might engage in nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks. The policy probably will include the option of using nuclear weapons ourselves. The June 11, 2002, USA Today reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney spoke of using such weapons.

Hasn't the time come to challenge such a warped response to the events of September 11 and the assumption that threats--real or imagined--should lead to war against entire nations? Should we let such threats undermine our Constitution and destroy the liberties we have always cherished and our relatives have fought and died to preserve--and in the process murder thousands of innocent and powerless people in the countries we attack?

John M. Swomley has a Ph.D. in political science and international affairs from the University of Colorado and is professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri.