Justice Gets Its Victory Ruthless Criticism

Justice Gets Its Victory

[Translation of a broadcast by GegenStandpunkt -- Kein Kommentar on May 17, 2011]

After almost 10 years, a U.S. elite unit has finally offed Osama Bin Laden. The President and his closest associates go live with the final showdown. Afterwards, Obama explains to his nation and the whole world how this action must be understood: as a victory for justice and as an expression of the moral superiority of the American nation. According to Obama, the war against America's enemies is taking place because "the victims" demanded it. "Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

The victims of Bin Laden are of course only the justification, not the reason for the decade-long hunt for the 9/11mastermind -- they themselves are dead and any private thoughts of revenge by their loved ones are their thing and not a stipulation for the state. By referring to the victims as commissioners, the American President very deliberately sweeps under the rug the fact that his Arab opponent of course didn't simply bump off "innocent men, women and children," but that his planned attack targeted the relevant symbols of the world power of the United States. It's for this that Bin Laden wanted the deaths of as many as possible American citizens, all of whom he held guilty of allowing the criminal activities of their nation around the world and especially in the Middle East. The American President now de-politicizes the attacks on the U.S. buildings with its human inventory -- they turn into a mass murder of innocent people. Reasons for them (in the sense of comprehensible calculations) can not and must not exist, because then America's policies in the Arab world would possibly come into play. In this respect, it was simply "evil" that was at work -- and quite vehemently.

"Nearly 3,000 citizens were taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts."

In terms of pure numbers, the United States of course topped its arch-enemy in the wake of 9-11 with no problem. In Afghanistan and Iraq alone, they put to death more "humans" or "innocent civilians" in two months (according to estimates by American institutes, up to 30,000 in Afghanistan and 190,000 in Iraq, without counting the house to house conquest of Falluja, about which no figures are apparently available. Sources: Wikipedia/Wikileaks). The tremendous difference that forbids any such comparison a priori is that America is always at work with its army on behalf of "good", which is why the corpses that pave its way speak not against it, but only testify to how much evil and anti-Americanism there really is in this world.

Because this is after all the core of the whole matter: the difference between outlaw terrorists and recognized legitimate state power. Neither side is distinguishable solely in the use of force, even less so in the reasons they claim for themselves: both are fighting for a world order that in their eyes is just, both refer to the respective highest values of their nations, and both even sanctify their actions with a God or an Allah. The difference is: Osama Bin Laden wants to win his righteous cause because it does not yet exist. What he envisions as the overcoming of the present situation -- a powerful and widely respected conglomerate of Arab or also non-Arab "caliphates" with a well-established economic and moral-islamic interior life -- is a pure dream, a political idealism. He therefore does not lead his campaign from the position of a recognized state with economic and corresponding political means, but with a handful of kindred spirits; not on the basis of reliable tax revenues, but with donations; not with a regular army, but with bomb attacks; not with UN resolutions, but with video messages. That's why the force exerted by him is "terror", ie: legitimated neither by a loyal people nor by the international community's recognized authority -- remember that world history is full of examples where "terrorism" preceded the creation of states. Just think of the Maoists in China, the Zionist terrorists who fought for the state of Israel, the Albanian KLA that wrested Kosovo from the Serbs, and not least the U.S. itself, whose independence from its mother country England and the occupation of Indian territories were not negotiated over tea.

By contrast, Obama rules a state -- and not just any state, but the most powerful state in the world. He sees (like his predecessor) his country's "safety" threatened by 9/11 -- that's the truth of the "pain" that the 3,000 victims signifies for the nation. America after all demands from the rest of the world that its interests have free reign and the world order of freedom is in force everywhere after the abdication of the communist Eastern bloc. Everyone should accept the not always pleasant consequences this has for people as well as whole nations and bow to the superior force of the world power. That's "the order" that the terrorists attacked in the U.S. itself -- even if only symbolically, because of course the USA's power does not hang on two towers and a building complex. The U.S. government sees its power called into question, the inviolability of the homeland wounded and the nation humiliated. It quickly responds to defend itself and its position with war. Obama now says, 10 years later: "We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama Bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against Al-Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies." Because America is the greatest power on the globe, it is completely self-evident that it has this right on its side as a matter of course: the world of states and the UN gives the US its certificate that its war against terrorism is legitimate, meaning: the violent acts committed by Americans are in order.

The death of its Most Wanted enemy is thereby the unconditional war aim. The fact that this has taken so long, even though the superpower has done all it could for this, has long been regarded as a disgrace. Now it has showed everyone that an enemy of the USA can never be safe from its death squads, nowhere in the world.

While it wants to broadcast this great triumph to the whole world, America's President also wants to reassure the Muslims. They have no reason to get excited, because the U.S. is modern and considerate enough to distinguish its death squads from a war against "Islam": "We must also reaffirm that the United States is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam." Obama, as he points out several times, has of course personally ordered the death of Osama, who fought in the name of Islam against America. And of course the Americans also in other respects wage a war against Islam -- that is, against the politicized Islam which is not willing to fit into the American world order and satisfy the American dictate on the correct relation between state and religion.

Pakistan's sovereignty and international law stood somewhat in the way of the American action. Because (not only) in the search for the terrorist leader had it become clear that the state which it had chosen as a major ally and funded accordingly is quite a refuge for militant political Islam. America's conclusion from this is: we do not dispute Pakistan's sovereignty, but we do not intend to let any consideration for that slow us down. Drone attacks and American commando actions in Waziristan are the order of the day.

The fact that the U.S. flies its helicopters from Pakistani soil, shoots its enemies and sets their houses on fire is its good right -- its President has said this all along. And Obama can assure Pakistan's leadership by telephone that all this is "a good and historic day for both our nations" to immediately clarify that such days will continue. "And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates."

On the other hand, this does not protect Pakistan from the suspicion that it is a "rogue state" after it became clear that Bin Laden could only have stayed so long in such a place with intelligence support ...

All the petty problems that Obama touches on in his triumphal speech -- among other things, the unfortunate cost of war -- fall by the wayside when he gets to the sweeping finale. All the losses, all the victims, all the efforts, everything that the nation still copes with are just one big argument to win back the "community spirit of September 11." This is the solution to all the problems that worry America. Even if that isn't true at all, the American President formulates an extremely tough demand on his people: he demands their unconditional willingness to sacrifice for the nation because, even though Bin Laden is finished, some tasks are still left for a world power. Obama judges the successful execution of the archenemy as a "a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to." This message is directed not only at his own people; the rest of the world of states is informed that America in no way intends to give up its position as World Power Number One without a fight. Truly not a pleasant outlook!