If the Bush administration appears aloof to the latest upsurge in global militancy it is simply because winning the “war on terror” amounts to little more than the public relations façade, albeit an effective one at that, to a far more significant geopolitical objective. US foreign policy over the past two years reflects a pivotal transformation from a “threat-based strategy” to a “capabilities-based approach” in order to guarantee a unipolar world in which the United States has permanent military supremacy.¹⁰

The radical reversion to a neo-Reaganite foreign policy that lies behind the “war on terror” can be found theoretically set forth in a 1992 strategy report for the US Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz and drafted by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. In it, policy makers are urged to pursue an aggressive military posture around the globe which includes pre-emptive attacks and the right to unilateralism in order to “establish and protect a new order.” Military intervention in Iraq is a must, as “access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil” remains crucial to US hegemony.

When news of the draft leaked to the public, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va) observed, “The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so.”¹¹ Eleven years later, we are beginning the see the insight of Sen. Byrd’s warning.

In 1997, a faction of marginalized Reaganites assembled the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank. After issuing its Statement of Principles manifesto, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to unilaterally remove Saddam Hussein from power even if he could not win UN Security Council backing, stating, “We can no longer depend upon our partners in the Gulf War coalition.” In September of 2000, PNAC issued its now-infamous Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for the New Century in which it argued for the imminent Republican administration to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars” in order to project power and thereby maintain Pax-Americana well into the next century. It furthermore states, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Incidentally, the Bush administration’s 2002 policy paper National Security Strategy of the United States of America echoes Rebuilding America’s Defenses extensively in its call for unilateralism, preemptive attacks, and the proliferation of US military bases and troop deployments around the world.¹²

The Crusade

Education Secretary William J. Bennett

And we can’t deny the religious undertones of the Bush administration’s war of “good vs. evil.” Of the 18 original PNAC signatories of the Clinton letter in 1998, 10 are currently serving in the Bush administration. Among them is Elliott Abrams, who worked for several years as an associate for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an organization which seeks “to clarify and reinforce the bond between Judeo-Christian moral tradition and public policy debate over domestic and foreign policy issues.”

Meanwhile, Education Secretary William J. Bennett co-founded with Jack Kemp Empower America, the right-wing policy group that has played an indispensable role in proselytizing the Bush administration’s mantra of a moral crusade against evil (read: Islam).

In a similar vein, PNAC’s diehard Zionist influence on the current US foreign policy is hard to overlook. Richard Pearle of the Bush Administration’s Defense Planning Board teamed with Douglas Feith in the 1990s to write position papers for ex-Israeli Prime Minister and avid hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu. Pearle is currently a prominent member of the staunchly Likudian American Enterprise Institute, which has crucially shaped the Bush administration’s Middle East agenda and has made the support of Israel against the “implacable hatred” of Muslims one of its mission parameters.¹³ Arguably the most outspoken supporter of the neo-conservative foreign agenda has been the Christian Right, particularly in regards to Zionism. It itches to hasten its long-anticipated Armageddon, which naturally requires the establishment of a viable Jewish state among a list of other eschatological goodies.

The Complot  

9/11 is the result of America’s whitewashing of religious and cultural values in the name of free markets.

PNAC’s white paper of 2000 predicts that the proposed transformation of US foreign posture would come about gradually unless, as it states, there were “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.” Despite advanced warnings from over 11 countries of the September 11^th attacks, the United States did nothing to preempt a possible terrorist strike.¹⁴

Furthermore, two senior Mossad agents visited Washington in August 2001 with a list of terrorist suspects that included the names of four of the 9/11 highjackers and the advanced warning of an imminent terrorist operation.¹⁵ Nothing came of the information.

Newsweek reports that five of the highjackers received flight training at high-security US military bases in the 1990s,¹⁶ while one US federal agent wrote in August 2001 that Zacarias Moussaoui, a recent terrorist suspect at the time, might be part of a plot to crash a plane into the twin towers.¹⁷ Former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus states, “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”¹⁸

In this new game, weak and strong states play equally threatening roles.

Could US agents have been ordered from above to stand down from their terrorist investigations in order to accelerate a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda? “Absurd!” will surely scoff the cynics, but why were fighter jets not sent to investigate the highjacked planes that had veered off course for over an hour as FAA intercept procedures had dictated they do 67 times the year before?¹⁹ Then again, perhaps it was simply a pandemic outbreak of heedlessness on the part of the world’s most technically advanced nation. The attacks of September 11^th symbolize the dénouement of America’s global whitewashing of religious and cultural values in the name of free markets. Its recent wave of neo-colonialist campaigns has stirred a visceral anger within the Muslim world that cannot be cooled by Hobbesian might. Quid pro quo is the very language that terrorism understands. In this new game, weak and strong states play equally threatening roles. Weapons of mass destruction pale in comparison to single mindedness and a willingness to die. If America wants a ceasefire, she’s going to have to lay down her arms.

Noor ad-Deen Theodore is editor and staff writer for IslamOnline. He is an International Relations graduate from Tufts University and is currently pursuing an MA in Arabic Language and Literature in Cairo, Egypt. Born in the United States, he embraced Islam in 1994. He hopes to return to America and teach Arabic and Islamic studies. You can reach him at jonnycakes@islam-online.net

---

1- Booth, Ken and Tim Dunne (ed.), “Upholding International Legality Against Islamic and American Jihad,” Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (New York: Palgrave, 2002).

2- Chomsky, Noam, “A Modest Proposal,” CounterPunch.org, December 3, 2002.

3- Chomsky, Noam, “Wars of Terror,” Zmag.org, April 30, 2003.

4- Elworthy, Scilla and Paul Rogers, “A Never-Ending War,” Oxford Research Group. As appears on Reportingtheworld.org, March, 2002.

5- Obadina, Tunde, “Is the World Safer from Terrorism after the Fall of Saddam?” Vanguardngr.com, May 28, 2003.

6- Stern, Jessica, “Iraq was Not a Terrorist Threat, but America has Turned it into One,” Scotsman.com, August 21, 2003.

7- MacFarquhar, Neil, “Rising Tide of Islamic Militants See Iraq as Ultimate Battlefield,” The New York Times, August 13, 2003.

8- Elworthy, Scilla and Paul Rogers, “A Never-Ending War,” Oxford Research Group. As appears on Reportingtheworld.org, March, 2002.

9- Burke, Jason, “Terror’s Myriad Faces,” Observer, May 18, 2003.

10- Klare, Michael, “Endless Military Supremacy,” The Nation, July 15, 2002.

11- For more details on the document, see Barton Gellman’s “Keeping the US First,” The Washington Post, March 11, 1992.

12- Weiner, Bernard, "How We Got into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer," Crisispapers.org, May 26, 2003.

13- Barry, Tom and Jim Lobe, "The Men Who Stole the Show," Foreign Policy in Focus.org, October, 2002.

14- Meacher, Michael, "This War on Terror is Bogus," The Guardian, September 6, 2003.

15- Jacobson, Philip and David Wastrell, "Israeli Security Issued Urgent Warning to CIA of Large-Scale Terror Attacks," The Daily Telegraph, September 16, 2001.

16- Barry, John, Catharine Skipp, and George Wehrfritz, "Alleged Highjackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases," Newsweek, September 15, 2001.

17- Isikoff, Michael, "Unheeded Warnings," Newsweek, May 20, 2002.

18- Meacher, Michael, "This War on Terror is Bogus," The Guardian, September 6, 2003.

19- "Use of Military Jets Jumps Since 9-11," Associated Press, August 13, 2002.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses