Those who do not obey shall be destroyed

Bush declares the Newest World Order.
----
Newest version. It's live. Thanks to Kendall for much help. I hope this strikes the right balance (for mtx too! :))

Cheers,
Bijan.


Those who do not obey shall be destroyed
URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
By Bijan Parsia


   After listening to Bush's big war speech on Thursday, I had a few
   immediate concerns and questions.
   
     Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end
     there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global
     reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
     
   What group doesn't have global reach, especially in this day and
   age? Does Bush mean reach or intention?
   
   Of course (as others have pointed out), declaring or waging war on a
   tactic doesn't quite make sense, especially a tactic, like
   terrorism, which is cheap, flexible, and (relatively) easy to adopt.
   Totalitarian states have trouble supressing groups using such
   tactics. That should worry us.
   
     They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim
     countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to
     drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive
     Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
     
   Saudi Arabia and Jordan are antidemocratic monarchies, Egypt is
   hardly an ideal democracy, and Israel unquestionably has many
   problematic and violent policies (to say the least). What all these
   states have in common is that they (the states, the governments) are
   essentially U.S. client states and they are not generally committed
   to the benefit of (large chunks of) their populations.
   
   There are deep and clear reasons to condemn all entities which
   engage in terrorist acts, whether or not they are States. That
   Israel seems committed to retaliation based on collective
   responsibility is one. That the U.S. seems likewise committed is
   another. That a group is seriously committed to driving Jewish
   Israelis out of the Middle East, or Christians and Jews out of "vast
   regions of Asia and Africa", is an excellentreason to condemn that
   group. But it's not at all clear which groups are committed to the
   latter two as serious goals, and of those who are so comitted, it's
   not clear how much power they have to enact their goals.
   
   Even if bin Laden's group is seriously committed to such a wretched
   goal, and has the wherewithal to achieve it, what sense does it make
   to tar other groups with the same brush? If the U.S. has now
   declared a new war on every Israeli-opposition group, because bin
   Laden's group seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, doesn't
   that simply mean that the U.S. is taking over responsibility for
   crushing Israel's opposition for it? It further seems clear --
   judging by what Al Qaeda does, not by what bin Laden has said in
   some fatwa or other -- that bin Laden's group opposes neither Jews
   nor Christians per se but, rather, Israel and the U.S. as States,
   the latter as an imperial State. Bush's conflation of these distinct
   things only serves propaganda ends.
   
   That Israeli policies inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric and feeling is
   unquestionable. That many conflate opposition to Israeli policy and
   action with anti-Semitism (on both pro- and anti-Israeli policy
   sides), or use anti-Semitism to rouse people to (often violent)
   action, is unfortunate and deplorable. But opposing the terroristic
   actions of our client states, including Israeli, is not, itself,
   something the U.S. can comfortably condemn out of hand. After all,
   it's a bedrock principle of U.S. political society that violent
   opposition is not only permissible but commendable, indeed,
   something which the U.S. should encourage.
   
   Has policy changed, then? Of course not. It's a similarly bedrock
   principle of U.S. political society that properly obedient client
   states of ours are to be supported against their opposition.
   
   So the new kind of war on terrorism is, in fact, a rather old sort
   of war against the sorts of terrorism we do not like.
   
   And, to be clear, I do not suggest that "the answer" is to start
   liking more terrorism, whether the U.S.'s own, that of U.S. client
   states, or that of the opponents of the U.S. or of U.S. client
   states.
   
   Just before this passage, Bush said of the terrorist groups:
   
     They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a
     democratically elected government. Their leaders are
     self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of
     religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble
     and disagree with each other.
     
   This juxtaposition is not accidental. Bush suggests, but does not
   say, that their alleged hatred of our freedoms -- which we deny to
   our client states, which also include the freedom to bomb whom we
   please, whenever we please, as often as we please -- is a hatred of
   freedom itself. Putting this next to their desire to overthrow
   certain governments, Bush suggests, but does not say, that the
   reason people want to overthrow those governments is the
   (non-existent) free and democratic nature of those governments.
   
   This is a rather stunning, if standard, bit of propaganda.
   
     Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and
     isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a
     lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may
     include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations,
     secret even in success.
     
   Secret even in success? Bush has already shrugged off congressional
   and popular oversight, not to mention any place for the U.N. or even
   a superficial concern for international law, with regard to
   authorization of international force. But now he plainly says that
   we can forget about post facto oversight as well.
   
   He's declared himself top thug of the world. At his discretion and
   desire he can send teams to kill whomever he "determines" to have
   supported terrorism; and we, the people in whose name he acts, may
   never know.
   
     We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against
     another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge
     or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe
     haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a
     decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
     terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that
     continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the
     United States as a hostile regime.
     
   One might assume that this only applies if the terrorism is "of
   global reach", but who can know for sure?
   
   In other words, the U.S. insists that there is no permitted
   neutrality or opposition anywhere in the world. You are either with
   whatever the U.S. wants or you are with the terrorists. Since that's
   nonsensical, since it's perfectly possible to be against terrorism
   and not be with the U.S., and perfectly possible to be against
   terrorism and against some U.S. policies, Bush can only mean that if
   one is not with all U.S. policies -- or rather, not with all his
   policies -- then one will be treated as if one were a terrorist.
   
   Secret squads might break down your door and kill you, and no one
   will ever admit it.
   
   And Bush, and Bush alone, gets to determine what being "with" him
   means.
   
   Welcome to the Newest World Order.


--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/785