The 11th of September (1)

I waited til George Bush spoke to the UN to confirm what I thought. And it was confirmed. The media of the United States is at one with the government. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s more low key than it. It’s an understanding. We show as little of Osama as we can (because he was never caught), show a lot of two skyscrapers falling (to stir up emotion), a lot of personal testimonies of the horrific events of the day (more emotion, solidarity). And then we personify it all in Saddam Hussein, despite him being no more or no less of a dictator now than he was before Al Qaeda became a household name. In doing that, The Great American Public will subconsciously associate Saddam with Islamic fundamentalism, despite him being interested only in his own survival at the expense of everything else. I’m no saying Saddam is a man who deserves sympathy, but to suddenly decide he’s the 21st century’s Hitler is a little suspicious.

George Bush needs to explain a few things to people like me who can almost see sense in getting rid of Saddam but wonder about the motives. If it’s morally ok to go in and overthrow a government hostile to the West who’s existence threatens world peace, then surely action is imminent against North Korea. If it’s morally ok to start a war in order to get rid of a dictator, does that mean we can expect an invasion of Egypt next year too? After all, the title “President Mubarak” doesn’t mean he was elected. He’s a dictator. So’s President Assad of Syria and to a lesser extent King Abdullah of Jordan (but then he’s got an English accent so he’s fine). And if it’s morally ok to start a war in order to get rid of a ruthless, fundamentalist, undemocratic regime that harbours terrorists (as with the Taliban in Afghanistan), I suppose the B52’s will start pounding Riyadh soon then. After all, most of the terrorists on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia and fundamentalism there is actually part of the legal system. Beheadings, torturing and stoning are all as commonplace in Saudi Arabia as they were in Afghanistan. If I, a citizen of the world, am to go by the logic of the current US administration, then Ferrari-driving, sunglasses-clad Saudi Arabian regime is in fact more deserving of a US-sponsored overthrowing than the Toyota pick-up and sandals Taliban regime. Because I think both need to go.

And this is where the dilemma is for me. You see, I was happy to see the Taliban being ousted. I viewed the relative liberation of Afghanistan as a good thing. Who wouldn’t? I mean, the Northern Alliance and their brand of hilltop justice are far from appetizing but at least it’s a start. It’s not like there’s a bunch of Armani-suited intellectuals waiting in the mountains to stroll into Kabul, open up their laptops and start administrating one of the wildest and most lawless countries in the world. Afghanistan were dealt a bad hand in world history, and maybe from now on they might be able to rectify this. So yes, the removal of the Taliban is a good thing. Trouble is, it was done for the wrong reasons.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan since the mid 90’s. Al Qaeda came there around then too after being kicked out of Sudan. The dates are a little unclear, but you could be fairly certain that the situation that existed until last winter was in place for at least four years. That’s four years of the Taliban stoning women and hanging homosexuals from cranes in a stadium, while entertaining their rich and slightly mad guests, Al Qaeda. September 11 happened and the US decided to go to war against a regime that harboured terrorists, in this case the evil Taliban regime of Afghanistan. “Prove it”, said the Taliban. “Prove that Osama is behind this and we’ll hand him over”. There’s a precedent for this; Yugoslavia handed over Slobadon Milosevic to be tried for war crimes. Now I’m not saying that it would have ran as smoothly as that, but in this case the US should have given the Taliban the benefit of the doubt. But no, the US simply wanted the Taliban out of there and this was a good excuse. So while the biggest army in the world invaded one of the poorest, it managed to overthrow an entire government but not find that one man. Perhaps that wasn’t their priority.

After all, if catching Al Qaeda and all who dwell in her was the Number 1 priority for the US outside it’s own borders, why wasn’t Saudi Arabia forced to join this “War on Terrorism”? Why has the native country of most of the hijackers been given such an easy ride? Why has Saudi Arabia, an indigenous Muslim country known for it’s fundamentalism and the extreme anti-American views of it’s citizens, only made a fraction of the amount of arrests Britain or Germany have in the pursuit of Al Qaeda operatives? It’s not too far-fetched to suggest that Al Qaeda, “The Base”, has a huge base of support, ideologically and financially in Saudi Arabia. And yet nothing even remotely close to the level of hostility towards Taliban-ruled Afghanistan has been shown by the US government towards Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t add up. It’s not all about good and evil, and it’s definitely not about morality.