The bombing of Afghanistan, while resulting in disorder and widespread civilian death in the country, has also produced the following international repercussions.
1. It has produced further destabilization from the Middle East to Central Asia. The bombing has confirmed many Muslims' perception of the US as anti-Muslim, while encouraging leaders engaged in conflict with movements rooted among Muslim populations (Sharon, Vajpayee, Putin, Jiang etc.) to depict their agendas as part of the "global war on terrorism." Governments of Muslim countries closely associated with the US are becoming increasingly concerned by the level of outrage towards US actions evident among their populations. The recent Washington Post story, indicating that Saudi Arabia's rulers feel the US has "overstayed its welcome" in the country since the Gulf War, suggests that even this most intimate of US allies is concerned that the US presence at Prince Sultan Air Base might lead to its own downfall in an Iran-style Islamic revolution. Meanwhile the Israeli government feels it has the green light to go to war on the Palestinian Authority (as a "terrorist" organ), and the Indian government to attack Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism. The world seems a more, rather than less, dangerous place now than before the bombing began Oct. 7.
2. The success of the bombing, and accompanying (cheerleading) press reports, in sustaining widespread popular war support, have emboldened the administration to carry the war into a second reckless phase, with no end of targets in sight. Bush announced last year that 2002 will be a "war year;" Cheney has stated that he anticipates a long war beyond our lifetimes. Rumsfeld has stated that the war is about "a lot more than just al-Qaeda." The administration plainly hopes that an "America United" will enthusiastically endorse whatever expansion of the amorphous "war on terrorism" it announces. The early favorite for Target Number Two seems to have been Iraq. Allies may have vetoed that, and there are problems with attacking Iran, Lebanon, Somalia and Yemen as well. Oddly, it became the fate of the Philippines, a close US ally, to become the second venue for US action.
In mid-January the US began dispatching over 600 Green Berets and other US forces to the Philippines to assist the Armed Forced of the Philippines (AFP) in crushing the Abu Sayyaf group of Islamic separatists in the southern Philippines. The Abu Sayyaf group is supposedly a component of al-Qaeda and its destruction a next natural step in the "war on terrorism." But consider the following.
The State Department's website on international terrorist groups puts Abu Sayyaf's fighting strength at only about 200. The AFP has 107,000 troops, about 7000 deployed in the area where Abu Sayyaf is active. President Arroyo has stated that the AFP is perfectly capable of handling Abu Sayyaf and other counterinsurgency matters in the Philippines.
But when Arroyo met President Bush last fall, he offered her US ground troops to fight Abu Sayyaf insurgents. Arroyo declined; the constitution of the Philippines prohibits the deployment of foreign combat troops, and acceptance of such an offer would mean political suicide. This offer rebuffed, Bush offered US Special Forces to "train" Philippines' troops. Arroyo (for whatever reasons) agreed. This produced a political crisis in the Philippines, particularly when it was announced that the US forces would be deployed in a combat zone in the southern Philippines, where they would necessarily exercise the right to self-defense.
That crisis forced the Arroyo government to reverse its earlier statement that the US troops would join AFP in combat areas and announce that they will train Filipino troops on bases only. But it's not clear that the US will accept that. The US government appears to be pressuring an uneasy, unenthusiastic host to accept a greater degree of US involvement in counterinsurgency than the host requires or desires. The presence of US troops can become a major political liability, in the Philippines as in Saudi Arabia.
It is obvious that Arroyo did not go to Washington eager to invite US soldiers to her country, nor does she believe that the Philippines has a big al-Qaeda problem that can only be solved with US help. Indeed, she told Agence Press-France in January that there is no evidence for Abu Sayyaf contacts with al-Qaeda since 1995, and that there is no al-Qaeda operation in the Philippines.
On Jan. 25 CNN aired a half-hour special "Live from the Philippines" that gave the US public its first "in-depth" view of the "second phase of the war on terrorism." This was highly sympathetic to the deployment of US forces (this was, after all, CNN: there was an invitation at the bottom of the screen to go online and "vote" on "which country should be the next target in the war on terrorism?") But it also noted the existence of widespread opposition to US military presence, especially among "nationalists" and "leftists."
The most surprising revelation in the report was that in the late 1980s bin Laden visited the Philippines and primarily assisted a group called the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, rather than Abu Sayyaf. This is a much larger group centered on Mindanao. The CNN report sought to link them closely with al-Qaeda, as if to assure anyone questioning the legitimacy of this "second phase" that this is, indeed, still all about Sept. 11 and over 2,800 dead.
How arrogant US action must seem to many Filipinos! The Philippines was a US colony from 1898 to 1946. The US bought the Philippines from Spain following the Spanish-American War, and refused to accept the independent republic announced by Emilio Eguinaldo. In the "Philippines Insurrection" (1898- 1902) and aftermath, one-tenth of the Filipino population was killed by US occupation forces. In the postwar period the US has assisted unpopular Philippine governments in anti-communist counterinsurgency campaigns, notably under the martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos overthrown by the "People Power" revolution of 1986. (The notoriously corrupt Marcos found comfortable exile after that in Hawai'i, having stashed away hundreds of millions in foreign banks.) The US was obliged to withdraw all troops in 1992, and their return is not welcome.
There is a well-organized political left in the Philippines, including a Maoist guerrilla force, estimated by the US State Department at six or seven thousand, engaged in on-and-off peace negotiations with the government. These guerrillas (like so many other disparate groups, like the African National Congress at one time) are regarded as "terrorists" by the State Department, and the media is already beginning to conflate all listed groups as an ubiquitous threat to Americans. Given the extreme vagueness of the objectives of the current "war," who knows what new targets it may choose? "A lot more than just al-Qaeda," said Secretary Rumsfeld. When does the net widen to include the radical left, like Maoists in Nepal, the Philippines and India? Will it really make any difference a year from now whether the target of US rage has anything at all to do with September 11?
3. The bombing campaign has resulted in the projection of US military power even further around the world. There has never been a more ubiquitous imperialist power than the USA. Now US bases designed for indefinite operation have been established in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan, and the Pakistanis have turned over at least one base to exclusive US use. Although the US government has assigned "peacekeeping operations" in Afghanistan to European allies, the US commander of "Operation Enduring Freedom" will oversee all foreign troops in the country. While the US has not colonized Afghanistan, and is probably incapable of controlling the many armed groups and factions in the country, it will undoubtedly be in a position to control Afghanistan's future in the near term, as new rulers negotiate lucrative contracts for the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Is this unbridled imperialist power really a good thing for the people of the planet?
The "war on terrorism" has, in fact, itself unleashed much terror on the world (while failing to apprehend Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar). Its planners, drawing political support from the feelings of grief and outrage, have carefully manipulated patriotic sentiment, seeking to win from the American public a blank check to bomb anywhere, anytime, and to fight any source of what they label "terrorism." Public opinion polls showing widespread US support for an attack on Iraq (which seems to have had no connection to the September 11 events) confirm their success so far, but I think that will change. I am proud in this context to be part of the "weak link" of thinking people opposed to this unconscionable war, and urge my colleagues and everyone in the Tufts community to question it and speak out against it.
Gary Leupp is a history professor at Tufts University. Part II of his viewpoint "Why the war was, and is, utterly wrong" will be printed in tomorrow's Daily
