This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.
In 2002, TomDispatch was launched as a no-name email list for one reason and one alone: the unnerving decision of President George W. Bush to respond to the disastrous terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by invading Afghanistan. (None of the 19 plane hijackers that day were Afghans!) Even then, it seemed to me like a distinctly mad act, since al-Qaeda was obviously a modest-sized crew whose members were scattered across several countries. Still, as the president and his top officials quickly dubbed it, so began "the Global War on Terror" (which would soon enough become the plain-old uncapitalized "war on terror"). And how remarkably global it's proven to be in the worst sense imaginable.
As we now know, even in the rubble of the Pentagon that terrible day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was already thinking about going after -- yes -- Saddam Hussein, the ruler of Iraq, who had nothing whatsoever to do with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. An aide taking notes scribbled down Rumsfeld's comments at the time this way: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] at same time -- not only UBL [Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden]." All too ominously those notes, taken only five hours after the September 11th attacks, also included this: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
That "and not" was all you needed to know, then or now. More than 20 years later, if Osama bin Laden were alive, he would undoubtedly be pleased as punch about what those horrific attacks of his got this country into. He'd also surely be deeply satisfied that, in August 2021, after 20 years of war and occupation in Afghanistan, the U.S. finally retreated all too chaotically, leaving" yes (!)" the Taliban in control of that country. (Sadly, Afghans aren't laughing or cheering since their land is now a horrific mess.)
Only days after 9/11, Rumsfeld was already talking about launching "a large multi-headed effort that probably spans 60 countries." Even more ominously, in March 2003, the U.S. did indeed invade Iraq, while continuing to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. The 20th anniversary of that disaster was "celebrated" just weeks ago and it's worth reminding ourselves, as TomDispatch regular Karen Greenberg, author of Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump, does today, of one thing: as Congress continues to pour funds into the Pentagon and refuses to repeal the authorization for the use of military force it passed soon after 9/11 (turning its constitutional war-making powers over to the president), the Global War on Terror has morphed into nothing less than a way of life. And what a success it's been! If you take just one country, Niger, as Nick Turse reported recently, terrorism has risen by more than 30,000% (yes, you read that right!) since the U.S. began its counter-terrorism activities there. All in all, we're still living through one of history's great Mission (Un)Accomplished moments. Thanks a lot, Osama bin Laden! Tom
Will It Never Stop?
From Forever War to Eternal War
"It is time," President Biden announced in April 2021, "to end the forever war" that started with the invasion of Afghanistan soon after the tragic terror attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. Indeed, that August, amid chaos and disaster, the president did finally pull the last remaining U.S. forces out of that country.
A year and a half later, it's worth reflecting on where the United States stands when it comes to both that forever war against terrorism and war generally. As it happens, the war on terror is anything but ended, even if it's been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and simmering conflicts around the globe, all too often involving the United States. In fact, it now seems as if this country is moving at breakneck speed out of the era of Forever War and into what might be thought of as the era of Eternal War.
Granted, it's hard even to keep track of the potential powder kegs that seem all too ready to explode across the globe and are likely to involve the U.S. military in some fashion. Still, at this moment, perhaps it's worth running through the most likely spots for future conflict.
Russia and China
In Ukraine, as each week passes, the United States only seems to ramp up its commitment to war with Russia, moving the slim line of proxy warfare ever closer to a head-to-head confrontation between the planet's two great military powers. Although the plan to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia clearly remains in effect, once taboo forms of support for Ukraine have over time become more acceptable.
As of early March, the United States, one of more than 50 countries offering some form of support, had allocated aid to Ukraine on 33 separate occasions, amounting to more than $113 billion worth of humanitarian, military, and financial assistance. In the process, the Biden administration has agreed to provide increasingly lethal weaponry, including Bradley fighting vehicles, Patriot missile batteries, and Abrams tanks, while pressure for even more powerful weaponry like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and F-16s is only growing. As a recent Council on Foreign Relations report noted, Washington's aid to Ukraine "far exceeds" that of any other country.
In recent weeks, the theater of tension with Russia has expanded beyond Ukraine, notably to the Arctic, where some experts see potential for direct conflict between Russia and the U.S., branding that region a "future flashpoint." Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently raised the possibility of storing tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, perhaps more of a taunt than a meaningful gesture, but nonetheless another point of tension between the two countries.
Leaving Ukraine aside, China's presence looms large when it comes to predictions of future war with Washington. On more than one occasion, Biden has stated publicly that the United States would intervene if China were to launch an invasion of the island of Taiwan. Tellingly, efforts to fortify the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region have ratcheted up in recent months.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
