Some not especially original thoughts on the (almost) tenth anniversary of 9/11

In a few weeks time we may well be asked to remember 9/11 - so lets. Observations in no particular order:



1. The event itself was long coming and yet a surprise as well. The organisation Al-Qaeda (sometimes translated as meaning 'the base') is said to have been founded in the late eighties. It was a highly neo-liberal organisation. If it exists today it is more of a devolved franchise than close-knit conspiracy.



In 1993 the World Trade Centre was attacked by a truck bomb. In 1998 several American embassies in Africa were bombed. In 2000 the USS Cole came under attack. There had been several audacious and deadly attacks by people connected to Al-Qaeda before 9/11. It was immediately obvious to everyone not deranged and/or ideologically blind, that the attacks were connected to the sustained and ongoing western imperial intervention in the Middle East.



Yet the event was a shock. Despite the ongoing effects of the fin-de-siecle recession most parts of the world not starving were stupefied. Despite the grand efforts of the anti-capitalist movement (who lets not forget brought the word capitalism back into common use), force, hatred, history and all that seemed an anachronism.



9/11 was a shock, then a stimulus. The global right received a boost, equivalent to a huge dose of political viagra. Following 9/11 every incident around the globe became 'our 9/11'. The American right loved 9/11. If it didn't it wouldn't to this day be trying to recreate that wonderful, priapic rush. I say 'priapic' with just cause. 9/11 let the Republicans unleash all their ultimate fantasies, dramatically extended surveillance, a global system kidnap and torture, and a theory of war based on overwhelming technological superiority. Goodness me, the abiding political verb at the time was 'saddamize'. Clearly someone had been anticipating something like this, some spectacular event, emancipating the Republican libido. The Patriot Act is 342 pages long, the length of an average novel. It was printed and passed on October 24th 2001... not a case of writers block.



The global anti-war movement was a vital and inspiring movement, a reaction to the crazy aggression of the western powers. However it, at best, struggled to a score draw. American and British politicians, especially, fear another Iraq-like war and the effect it would have on the public back home. NATO's apparent triumph in Libya may help it reign in the Arab Spring and revive the notion of humanitarian intervention... then again there may be surprises in store. We shall see. But on the matter of war and humanitarian intervention:



2. You can't fight a war without dehumanising your enemy. War on an abstract noun is a bit difficult; terror is bulletproof. You have to fight some people. Again, it's a bit difficult to fight a decentralised, extra-territorial organisation. Al-Qaeda don't stand in the open yelling "shoot me, shoot me". The Axis of Evil was a useful makeshift. This war was to be a mopping up operation for the End of History. The only problem was the Axis of Evil (as some actually existing alliance of doom) made absolutely no sense.



The consensus on our enemy has settled on muslim extremism. The only problem with that is it frequently is elided into muslims in general. In Britain the EDL have simply taken mainstream consensus a step further, their enemy is brown people in general.



We are living with this toxic politics still. Racists love it. Divide and rule is essential to capitalist government. But what about the strange reaction of several prominent, professed left-wingers? The answer is well known, but lets go over it again. The immediate answer goes back to the soporific decade before 9/11. In such times it is difficult for socialists to differentiate themselves from the well-intentioned amiable rootless drifting social reformers who clog up our world. Once the need arose for definitive answers and decisive action a section of the nominal left split - leaving a trail of bitter and egregious articles in its wake: the left must this, the left should that, we need a decent left (not comprised of "rough train drivers" and "Marxist-Leninists") and so on. The only legitimate political actor is now the state, any attempt to solve the world's problems by a movement from below inevitably ends in gulags (those rough train drivers!). Whereas rightists might assert the superiority Judeo-Christian values or some such, liberals elevate enlightenment values. Forget for a moment that the enlightenment was not necessarily liberal or nice by modern standards; the result is the same, they believe in the superiority of ruling class white westerners. Ugly, isn't it?