FLASH: Bush's Speech Promises to Expand the War, not Rebuild the P eace

FLASH 17: Bush's Speech Promises to Expand the War, not Rebuild the Peace

The President's State of the Union address has produced one sharply negative reaction abroad from the Guardian (London), 1/30/02. Under the headline, "Hate of the union," the article's summary reads, "Bush's startling state of the union speech proclaimed an escalation of the US war on terror that has more to do with justifying national missile defence than with September 11, says Julian Borger." The article itself comments: "The `axis of evil,' as described by the president, may have little to do with September 11. It has a lot more to do with the Pentagon's long term plans, and for a $50bn increase in defence spending, the biggest leap in two decades."

By contrast, David Corn's commentary in The Nation ("Bush's Untouchable State of the Union") is almost complimentary, at least with respect to the speech's shrewd domestic politics ("Karl Rove and Company could be proud of the speech, for it provided few openings to the opposition.") The phrase "axis of evil" is passed over, and its contents treated almost jocularly. From this we may anticipate that the Democrats will not oppose the President's expansion of the war on terrorism.

My own reaction is that the President's passing reference to Afghanistan ("We will be partners in rebuilding that country") is grossly disappointing, especially after his rejection one day earlier of Hamid Karzai's urgent request for US peacekeepers in Afghanistan. It seems clear that expanding the war is a much higher priority than rebuilding the peace.

(Is there any other case where the US has invaded a country and toppled its government, and then declined to join in the urgent task of restoring order?)

Without further commentary, the Sydney Morning Herald paired its report on the State of the Union speech with the following report from Afghanistan:

"'Local Americans' claim US mandate for bitter campaign"

"Rival warlords in southern Afghanistan have begun a campaign of reprisals in the countryside, beating villagers, stealing cars, and looting houses under the pretext of helping the United States root out Taliban leaders.

"The commanders call themselves dakhili Amrikiyan, or "local Americans", and warn villagers or rivals that they can call in air strikes if their orders are not heeded - although the Pentagon denies this."

I am not an incorrigible nay-sayer. In general I still believe, as I asserted early on in this website, that the campaign against al-Qaida was necessary. My criticisms have focused on what I still believe to have been excessive emphasis on air power after the initial stages.

Although of course I regret the civilian casualties, and their under-reporting in the US press, I believe that to be fair these casualties have to be considered in the context of earlier Afghan massacres, especially (though not uniquely) those of the Taliban. In Mazar-i-Sharif and Bamian alone in August-September 1998, the Taliban is estimated to have systematically massacred between 6000 and 8000 Shia civilians (Rashid, Taliban, 73-74; cf. Larry Goodson, 79-80; Griffin, 190-93). The highest estimate of casualties from US bombing I have seen (about 5000) comes in at less than that, and these killings were not deliberate.

Thus in general I would agree with the reluctant appraisal of David Aaronovitch in the London Independent (12/27/01) that the US campaign, in general, can be summed up as "Necessary bloodshed." ('What would have happened,' he asks, `had the knowledge of unpunished terrorism spread?')

But I predict that the ultimate verdict of the President's "war on terror" will depend on what happens now in Afghanistan. Will order and security be established in that country? Or will the current symptoms of warlordism continue to flourish?

(For my earler report on warlordism, go to my FLASH 13: Many Signs Warlordism Returning to Afghanistan , 1/5/02.)