EVEN BEFORE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH approved covert support for the factions opposing the Taliban regime, pundits began warning us about "blowback," in which we are engulfed by the unintended consequences of our actions. Time and again, we are told, American support for Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s "blew back" on us as Afghanistan came to harbor Osama bin Laden, the chief perpetrator in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. This bad history could potentially lead to bad policy at a time when more American lives--civilian and military--are on the line.
Like other accepted myths--Paul Kennedy's American "imperial overstretch," CIA knowledge of a contra-drug dealers connection, the "accidental presidency" of George W. Bush--the blowback story has taken on a life of its own. A putative CIA term, "blowback" is now a staple of pundits' pontifications. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times recently invoked the Law of Unintended Consequences and declared that misdirected "quick strikes" by U.S. aircraft on targets in Afghanistan would likely kill many civilians. According to Lewis's version of the law, this would produce "an opposite and totally disproportionate reaction"--just as, allegedly, America's arming of the anti-Soviet forces led to Afghanistan's ending up "in the hands of anti-Western Islamic extremists."
Lewis & Co. are recycling and popularizing the arguments made by Chalmers Johnson in his 2000 book "Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire." A proponent of the late 1980s flim-flam about the superiority of Japan's model of "guided capitalism," Johnson has
now taken up the banner of a backlash to U.S. global hegemony. He describes bin Laden as "a former protege of the United States," without mentioning that the terrorist mastermind brought his own financial resources to the anti-Soviet struggle. To Johnson, America's imperial structure, made up of military and economic power, invites a host of eventual, if unspecified, paybacks.
If Johnson paints with a broad brush, attributing every global wrong to U.S. policy, John K. Cooley focuses on Afghanistan as the genesis of political Islam's anti-Americanism in his 1999 book "Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism." A journalist and author, Cooley reduces the debate on the U.S. role in Afghanistan to a new low by seeing it through a mono-causal lens: The CIA caused terrorism and drugs to flow from Afghanistan. Never mind that Kabul was a hippie drug mecca in the sixties.
Then there are the rejuvenated "peace activists" left over from Vietnam War protests, such as Noam Chomsky. In a recent interview, Chomsky referred to bin Laden as a "graduate" of the "terrorist network set up by the CIA and its associates 20 years ago to fight a Holy War against the Russians." Coming out of the hate-America woodwork for the first time since the Gulf War, such activists are certain to protest any Bush administration effort to help the Afghan people displace the Taliban. The mounting evidence of the Taliban's more-than-passive support of the horrific assault on the United States cannot extinguish their insane belief that some 6,000 people--Americans and others from around the world--deserved their fate because of a "blowback" legacy.
Val:Y
|
