|
I
miss the Cold War. Like a pedestrian who congratulates
himself for nimbly avoiding an on-coming bicycle only to find
himself in the path of a truck, the US rid itself of one
enemy--the USSR--only to find itself at war with an enemy far
more dangerous and far less reasonable. Comrades Brezhnev,
Khrushchev, and Gorbachev--please, come back! All is
forgiven!
America's
new war is far colder than the Cold War ever was--cold as in
September 11's cold-blooded murder. With the
Soviets, at least we always knew who was in charge and that we
couldn't be attacked without his orders. In fact, we had a
direct line to him, instituted by President Kennedy after the
Cuban Missile Crisis, to provide instant contact at the first
hint of problems. By contrast, on Tuesday we lost thousands of
people, and we're not even sure who did it.
With
the Soviets, a war would only have come after an escalation of
tensions. In our new, post-September 11 era, an attack
could come at any time, without warning.
As
French leader Charles De Gaulle realized, though most Americans
did not, by the 1950s the USSR's leaders weren't red firebrands
hell bent on claiming a world for communism. They were
traditional, even conservative leaders who sought to resolve
their country's economic problems, gain influence in the world,
and protect their own precarious position. If they ever really
became demanding or intransigent, they could usually be pacified
or bought off with promises of American trade or technology,
which served to help their economies continue to function
without threatening their rule.
By
contrast, America's new enemies seem to have no demands.
They can't be bought, bribed, or even blackmailed. They
only want to strike a blow at any cost. And if a suicide
hijacker or bomber really believes that by dying in his jihad
(Muslim holy war) he'll go straight to heaven and Allah's loving
embrace, what earthly reward could the US or anybody else
possibly offer as a substitute?
It has been said that all generals
make the mistake of preparing to fight the last war instead of
preparing to fight the next one. I can't help but feel that way
about some of our latest anti-terrorist preparations. Certainly
airport security needs to be strengthened, and the
re-institution of the Sky Marshal program--putting armed
undercover security officer on flights--would also be a positive
move. But I have the nagging suspicion that the next attack
won't be by "suicide hijackers"--it will be something even
worse. I see two principal dangers:
1)
a nuclear weapon or device acquired from the collapsed Soviet
empire used by a terrorist or terrorist group against American
civilians
2)
chemical or biological weapons
Though
the West still fails to recognize it, in many ways the fall of
the Soviet Union created far more security risks than the
Soviet Union itself did. After the Russians embraced
the free-market, their economy collapsed and their society was
pitched into chaos. Since 1991, Russia has lost half of its
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and three-quarters of the its
population now lives at the subsistence level.
With
the collapse of their economy has come the collapse of many of
their military and scientific institutions. Nuclear
physicists who in earlier times were among the world's leaders
in scientific advance have been forced to moonlight as street
corner ice-cream vendors in order to feed their families.
Tens of thousands of Soviet defense industry personnel--many of
whom had access to powerful and even nuclear weaponry--have been
laid off or forced to go long periods without pay. Countless
common soldiers have been left destitute. Any terrorist in
search of advanced weaponry and in possession of a little cash
would take a keen interest in such people.
Also, the roughly 8,000 mafia gangs who control much of Russian
economic life see arms traffic--particularly the advanced
weaponry which only advanced countries like the former USSR
had--as an extremely profitable business. Reportedly materials
used to make nuclear weapons or even some nuclear
weapons themselves are currently unaccounted for.
Equally
vexing and a product of the same problems is the possibility of
a chemical weapons attack upon the United States. There have
been reports, some of them confirmed, that Hezbollah
guerillas, Chechnyen terrorists, and international arms
traders have acquired chemical weapons from Russia and other
former Soviet republics. According to Chemist Kathleen
Vogel of the Monterey Institute of International Studies,
"once chemical weapons are in the hands of a terrorist
group, carrying out an attack on an unsuspecting civilian
population could prove to be simple. There are a variety of
chemical munitions that are relatively small in size, making
them easy to conceal and transport."
Large
civilian targets could be devastated by chemical or biological
weapons no bigger than a backpack. Yet the post-Soviet
collapse is so complete that American experts have found that
Russia is apparently incapable even of fixing the holes in the
fences around many chemical weapons storage facilities!
Who
would be most likely to use nuclear or chemical weapons against
the US? Apparently Osama bin Laden and his group of fanatics.
And who got them started by training them and providing them
with weapons? The United States.
When
the Soviet army went into Afghanistan in 1979 to save its allied
government from falling to the Mujahedin (Afghan rebels), the US
showered the rebels with billions in aid. US intelligence,
along with the Saudis, Pakistanis, and others, recruited Muslim
militants, including bin Laden, to help the Mujahedin.
The
Soviets argued that their military intervention was justified
because, in addition to its security concerns, the Soviet-backed
government offered Afghans--particularly female Afghans--a
better way of life.
In
this the Soviets were right--their allied government had granted
new and extensive rights to women, helped the Afghan poor, and
had begun to modernize a backward society. It
promoted education for girls, distributed land to the
impoverished peasants, and restrained the power of the mullahs,
the Muslim clergy. But for Cold War reasons the US chose
to back the Mujahedin--Muslim fundamentalist extremists, many of
whose soldiers later came to form Afghanistan's current, brutal
leaders, the Taliban.
Under US pressure, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled Soviet
troops out in 1989. Despite pitched battles and stiff resistance
from Afghans who supported the now abandoned leftist regime, the
Mujahedin won and took over Afghanistan in 1992. What followed
there has been a nightmare worse than anything the Soviet-backed
government ever could have brought to Afghanistan.
That nightmare has now been brought to our shores. America
wanted to defeat the Soviet Union and wanted Osama bin Laden &
Company to help us do it. Be careful what you ask for--you might
get it.
This column first appeared in the
Los
Angeles Daily Journal and the
San Francisco Daily Journal
(10/2/01).
Printer-friendly version
|
