From Noam Chomsky's thoughtful piece reflecting on 9/11.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020702.htm

<quote>
Let's return to the question of the proper response to acts of terror,
specifically 9-11. 

It is commonly alleged that the US-UK reaction was undertaken with wide
international support. That is tenable, however, only if one keeps to elite
opinion. An international Gallup poll found only minority support for
military attack rather than diplomatic means.[32] In Europe, figures ranged
from 8% in Greece to 29% in France. In Latin America, support was even
lower: from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama. Support for strikes that
included civilian targets was very slight. Even in the two countries polled
that strongly supported the use of military force, India and Israel (where
the reasons were parochial), considerable majorities opposed such attacks.
There was, then, overwhelming opposition to the actual policies, which
turned major urban concentrations into "ghost towns" from the first moment,
the press reported. 

Omitted from the poll, as from most commentary, was the anticipated effect
of US policy on Afghans, millions of whom were on the brink of starvation
even before 9-11. Unasked, for example, is whether a proper response to
9-11 was to demand that Pakistan eliminate "truck convoys that provide much
of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population," and
to cause the withdrawal of aid workers and a severe reduction in food
supplies that left "millions of Afghans...at grave risk of starvation,"
eliciting sharp protests from aid organizations and warnings of severe
humanitarian crisis, judgments reiterated at the war's end.[33] 

It is, of course, the assumptions of planning that are relevant to
evaluating the actions taken; that too should be transparent. The actual
outcome, a separate matter, is unlikely to be known, even roughly; crimes
of others are carefully investigated, but not one's own. Some indication is
perhaps suggested by the occasional reports on numbers needing food aid: 5
million before 9-11, 7.5 million at the end of September under the threat
of bombing, 9 million six months later, not because of lack of food, which
was readily available throughout, but because of distribution problems as
the country reverted to warlordism.[34] 

There are no reliable studies of Afghan opinion, but information is not
entirely lacking. At the outset, President Bush warned Afghans that they
would be bombed until they handed over people the US suspected of
terrorism. Three weeks later, war aims shifted to overthrow of the regime:
the bombing would continue, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce announced, "until the
people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on
until they get the leadership changed."[35] Note that the question whether
overthrow of the miserable Taliban regime justifies the bombing does not
arise, because that did not become a war aim until well after the fact. We
can, however, ask about the opinions of Afghans within reach of Western
observers about these choices -- which, in both cases, clearly fall within
the official definition of international terrorism. 

As war aims shifted to regime replacement in late October, 1000 Afghan
leaders gathered in Peshawar, some exiles, some coming from within
Afghanistan, all committed to overthrowing the Taliban regime. It was "a
rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious
politicians, and former guerrilla commanders," the press reported. They
unanimously "urged the US to stop the air raids," appealed to the
international media to call for an end to the "bombing of innocent people,"
and "demanded an end to the US bombing of Afghanistan." They urged that
other means be adopted to overthrow the hated Taliban regime, a goal they
believed could be achieved without death and destruction.[36] 

A similar message was conveyed by Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who
was highly regarded in Washington. Just before he entered Afghanistan,
apparently without US support, and was then captured and killed, he
condemned the bombing and criticized the US for refusing to support efforts
of his and of others "to create a revolt within the Taliban." The bombing
was "a big setback for these efforts," he said. He reported contacts with
second-level Taliban commanders and ex-Mujahiddin tribal elders, and
discussed how such efforts could proceed, calling on the US to assist them
with funding and other support instead of undermining them with bombs. But
the US, he said, "is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare
everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans
or how many people we will lose."[37] 

The plight of Afghan women elicited some belated concern after 9-11. After
the war, there was even some recognition of the courageous women who have
been in the forefront of the struggle to defend women's rights for 25
years, RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). A week
after the bombing began, RAWA issued a public statement (Oct. 11) that
would have been front-page news wherever concern for Afghan women was real,
not a matter of mere expediency. They condemned the resort to "the monster
of a vast war and destruction" as the US "launched a vast aggression on our
country," that will cause great harm to innocent Afghans. They called
instead for "the eradication of the plague of Taliban and Al Qieda" by "an
overall uprising" of the Afghan people themselves, which alone "can prevent
the repetition and recurrence of the catastrophe that has befallen our
country...." 

All of this was ignored. It is, perhaps, less than obvious that those with
the guns are entitled to ignore the judgment of Afghans who have been
struggling for freedom and women's rights for many years, and to dismiss
with apparent contempt their desire to overthrow the fragile and hated
Taliban regime from within without the inevitable crimes of war. 

In brief, review of global opinion, including what is known about Afghans,
lends little support to the consensus among Western intellectuals on the
justice of their cause. 

One elite reaction, however, is certainly correct: it is necessary to
inquire into the reasons for the crimes of 9-11. That much is beyond
question, at least among those who hope to reduce the likelihood of further
terrorist atrocities. 

A narrow question is the motives of the perpetrators. On this matter, there
is little disagreement. Serious analysts are in accord that after the US
established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, "Bin Laden became preoccupied
with the need to expel U.S. forces from the sacred soil of Arabia" and to
rid the Muslim world of the "liars and hypocrites" who do not accept his
extremist version of Islam.[38] 

There is also wide, and justified, agreement that "Unless the social,
political, and economic conditions that spawned Al Qaeda and other
associated groups are addressed, the United States and its allies in
Western Europe and elsewhere will continue to be targeted by Islamist
terrorists."[39] These conditions are doubtless complex, but some factors
have long been recognized. In 1958, a crucial year in postwar history,
President Eisenhower advised his staff that in the Arab world, "the problem
is that we have a campaign of hatred against us, not by the governments but
by the people," who are "on Nasser's side," supporting independent secular
nationalism. The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" had been outlined by
the National Security Council a few months earlier: "In the eyes of the
majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the
realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United
States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting
the _status quo_ and opposing political or economic progress...."
Furthermore, the perception is accurate: "our economic and cultural
interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close U.S. relations with
elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance
of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries...."[40] 

The perceptions persist. Immediately after 9-11, the _Wall Street Journal_,
later others, began to investigate opinions of "moneyed Muslims": bankers,
professionals, managers of multinationals, and so on. They strongly support
US policies in general, but are bitter about the US role in the region:
about US support for corrupt and repressive regimes that undermine
democracy and development, and about specific policies, particularly
regarding Palestine and Iraq. Though they are not surveyed, attitudes in
the slums and villages are probably similar, but harsher; unlike
the "moneyed Muslims," the mass of the population have never agreed that
the wealth of the region should be drained to the West and local
collaborators, rather than serving domestic needs. The "moneyed Muslims"
recognize, ruefully, that Bin Laden's angry rhetoric has considerable
resonance, in their own circles as well, even though they hate and fear
him, if only because they are among his primary targets.[41] 

It is doubtless more comforting to believe that the answer to George Bush's
plaintive query, "Why do they hate us?," lies in their resentment of our
freedom and love of democracy, or their cultural failings tracing back many
centuries, or their inability to take part in the form of "globalization"
in which they happily participate. Comforting, perhaps, but not wise. 

Though shocking, the atrocities of 9-11 could not have been entirely
unexpected. Related organizations planned very serious terrorist acts
through the 1990s, and in 1993 came perilously close to blowing up the
World Trade Center, with much more ambitious plans. Their thinking was well
understood, certainly by the US intelligence agencies that had helped to
recruit, train, and arm them from 1980 and continued to work with them even
as they were attacking the US. The Dutch government inquiry into the
Srebrenica massacre revealed that while they were attempting to blow up the
World Trade Center, radical Islamists from the CIA-formed networks were
being flown by the US from Afghanistan to Bosnia, along with Iranian-backed
Hizbollah fighters and a huge flow of arms, through Croatia, which took a
substantial cut. They were being brought to support the US side in the
Balkan wars, while Israel (along with Ukraine and Greece) was arming the
Serbs (possibly with US-supplied arms), which explains why "unexploded
mortar bombs landing in Sarajevo sometimes had Hebrew markings," British
political scientist Richard Aldrich observes, reviewing the Dutch
government report.[42] 

More generally, the atrocities of 9-11 serve as a dramatic reminder of what
has long been understood: with contemporary technology, the rich and
powerful no longer are assured the near monopoly of violence that has
largely prevailed throughout history. Though terrorism is rightly feared
everywhere, and is indeed an intolerable "return to barbarism," it is not
surprising that perceptions about its nature differ rather sharply in the
light of sharply differing experiences, facts that will be ignored at their
peril by those whom history has accustomed to immunity while they
perpetrate terrible crimes.
</quote>

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free