US objectives in the War on Terror

America used terror to mask its real aims
By Michael Connors
The Age, Melbourne
September 2, 2005


Canberra has stifled debate while hitching its cart to the US, writes Michael Connors.

HUGH White is the talking head of the Australian foreign policy commentariat. He is a professor of strategic studies at the ANU, and the security analyst of choice for many in Australia. But his comments on this page yesterday demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of the politics of the war on terrorism in this country.

White confesses to what most of those people imbibing at diplomatic functions and academic talk-fests have known for quite some time — that the hysterical (he chooses the word heroic) public presentation of the threat of terror is at odds with the more realistic threat perceptions regarding terrorism held by those in power.

The fact is that "terrorism" is not going to wipe out whole societies in the way that nuclear conflict during the Cold War might have done.

White notes the divergence between rational discussion and sensible gradation of threat possibilities among government insiders, flanked by the growing entourage of terror experts, and the ersatz Churchillian thunder of politicians in public.

to explain this divergence? It's a good question, but White's answer fails. He writes: "Politicians (and commentators for that matter) talk about terrorism in what we might

call heroic terms because that is how we as publics want them to talk about it."

Do you get that? It's your fault. You weren't happy with the Government's anti-terror campaign, you wanted to be alarmed. You are aching for a chance to sacrifice, seeking an escape from your meaningless existence. It is you who forces onto politicians an excessive language of threat and extinction. Terror has given your life meaning and, as a consequence, politicians are hostage to popular prejudice. They can only repeat ridiculous rot about barbarians at the gate because if they don't, you won't be happy.

White hopes that if we reflect on this insight we might find a way out, be more sensible, listen to the experts more. Honesty might be a better option.

The Government has not been reluctantly serving up a feast of vacuous platitudes to satiate popular prejudice. It has willingly mastered the art of confection, recklessly serving "sexed-up" intelligence, homilies to our sacred way of life, and, at times, lies.

It has done this to ensure that Australia is hitched to the world's superpower. This is the highest priority of nation-interest diplomacy, and if joining in the "war on terror" is required, this Government will bleat with the rest of them. It'll go to war, too, on totally false premises.

The Government, not the people, is to blame for the woefully inadequate public discussion of terrorism in this country. The language of terror, the inflation of threat and the manipulation of news have been instrumental in furthering US and, by this Government's logic, Australian strategic objectives.

Using terrorism as a cover, the US has embarked on a remarkable expansion and repositioning of its global presence. Bases have sprung up in central Asia and the Middle East.

Why have we witnessed an expansive US policy if terrorism is not the global threat it is made out to be, and if policing is a better option than military deployment? The simple answer is that the US seeks to maintain its present status as sole superpower.

Since the early 1990s when Paul Wolfowitz, then a defence official, penned a memo about the need to thwart the emergence of a regional or global rival to US global hegemony, the US has been playing the game of being the only game in town.

It's no secret.

Even the US National Security Strategy of 2002 addresses the overriding imperative of US global hegemony. To achieve this goal the US needs resource security and unsurpassed military presence.

The rhetoric of the war on terrorism has cloaked these objectives. After all, it is easier to win popular support with talk of evil than with talk of hegemony, military expansion and resource security.

The debacle in Iraq, a more sceptical population, and opposition to national security legislation are all undermining the instrumental uses of the inflated threat of terror.

As Australian foreign policy elites try to pick up the pieces, cover their tracks, and disown some of their erstwhile commentary, it must be tempting to point the finger at someone.