$80 billion to Fuel Terrorism
5/15/2003 - ?Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor of the Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments magazine,
said protecting expatriate workers from suicide attacks was very difficult, and the focus must be on
capturing the terrorists before they can carry out further atrocities? (Adnan Malik, AP writer, in
?Westerners Urge Changes in Saudi Arabia?). "It is greatly more secure, housing foreign workers in
compounds, but how do you stop a jihadi (Muslim militant) truck bomb or suicide attack?" Binnie
asked. "Short of putting up heavy machine gun posts, it is really tough. It is better to be proactive in
hunting down the bad guys." However, the big guys in Washington lack funding to achieve Binnie?s
dream. Instead, the additional $80 billion the Congress awarded the Bush administration last month will
be expensed, not for any war on terrorism, but for ?weapon procurement?, for more wars, leading to
increased hatred, anti-American sentiment, and terrorism.
By Sam Meko
When a government privileges business profit goals over its duty to protecting the people, that
government is indeed the most dangerous enemy of the people. Contrary to the philosophy of ?us? and
?them? being spread, terrorists are at war against Washington because of the White House?s disastrous
international policy, and not against the American people being terrorized to force Washington to change.
Terrorists keep killing innocent Americans because the White House disregards their political claims,
exactly the same way Palestinian terrorists behave with the out-and-outer, Zionist regime of Israel. Some
think that Washington is right in hardening its position vis-à-vis terrorism, but they are confused when
they are asked to accept as well to pay the price of innumerable innocent American lives for hypothetic
victories in the ?war on terror.?
Washington?s obsession with innermost corporate profits leads the Bush administration to get the wrong
wars. The war American people want against terrorism do not need tanks, B-52s, fighter-bombers,
missiles, and other heavy artillery. It only needs hundreds of thousands of American intelligence agents to
be best trained and spread out over the world to combat the terrorists in their very lairs. As we wrote in
a former paper, war on terror should be not more than terrorizing the terrorists.
But yet, 20 months after 9/11, Washington is still limited to issuing simple warnings of terrorist attacks,
totally incapable of stopping them. Nothing has changed in the White House attitude of not taking
significant steps out into the field to stop attacks it is alone to know in advance are being prepared.
It is loathsome to hear the US ambassador in Saudi Arabia complaining that he requested the Saudi
authorities to better securitize the sites bombed by terrorists on Monday. He did not condemn any
dereliction from any American anti-terrorist agents. There is no US anti-terrorist unit operating in hot
areas such as Saudi Arabia? 20 months after 9/11.
This means the war on terror is being made only by some individuals in Washington as usual, and not
where terrorists get organized, plan their attacks and execute them. Washington?s war on terror is
limited to seeking the ?cooperation? of foreign governments to stop terrorist attacks, to advertising the
capture of rare ?top raking? terrorists coarsely decorated with numbers or card names, to assigning
?security alert? levels, and to making repetitive, endless speeches.
The responsibility of stopping terrorist attacks is easily off-loaded over to foreign governments thanks to
embedded media in charge of shaping the public opinion at Washington?s will. But they would not say
whether these scapegoat governments have the means necessary to get the job done. Even with its
advanced military machinery and the strong logistic and financial assistance received from Washington,
Israel is still unable to check the Palestinian terrorism. Yet, the Zionist regime is able to defeat any of its
neighboring countries in any war. Which means any global war on terrorism necessitates tremendous
intelligence, human, material and financial resources.
The battle Washington really led was when the stake was about getting Congress vote on the budget of
the war in Iraq, not the global war on terrorism. An analysis of the budget distribution and of the
Congress decisions shows that Washington cares most about its cronies? business profits than protecting
the American people.
On one hand, when it comes to funding the global war on terrorism, an unrelated accounting dispute
between Congress and the White House would hold up billions of dollars of funds the CIA needs,
because they are embedded in Defense Department. "The Central Intelligence Agency in the coming
months faces a cash crunch aggravated by a White House decision to finance a portion of the agency's
budget through a special $10 billion contingency reserve for military and intelligence activities," wrote
David Rogers in the Wall Street Journal ("Budget Cap Risks Cash Crunch for Sensitive Operations at
CIA," 01/13/03, p. A4, not available online).
CIA appropriations are considered a classified "intelligence method" that must be protected at all costs.
Intelligence spending is closely scrutinized and funding is made only sparingly. On January the House of
Representatives approved this way a measure authorizing the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to 2.5
billion dollars for intelligence and special operations programs that are part of the global war on
terrorism.
What is the budget amount for the global war on terrorism? ?Although the CIA's budget is once again
classified, FAS' Steven Aftergood estimates that the agency will receive $5 billion out of the $35 billion
to 40 billion for all intelligence agencies this fiscal year,? wrote Drew Clark (?Intelligence reorganization
spotlights fabled FBI-CIA rift,? National Journal?s Technology Daily, March 17, 2003.)
9/11 and the decreed global war on terrorism have not affected the agencies? appropriation levels,
despite all the noise made around that war the American people want to be done. As reported in the
Washington Post (July 28, 1997), CIA appropriation for 1998 was about $30 billion, up from $29
billion in 1997. Therefore the Bush administration reserved less than 10 billion dollars for the war on
terror. One may thus understand why nothing is done to actually combat global terrorism.
On the other hand, ?Bush proposed the biggest increase in military spending, in both absolute amount
and in percentage terms since the first years of the Reagan administration. Pentagon spending would rise
by 14 percent in 2003, to $379 billion. Another $16.8 billion in the Department of Energy budget
finances the production of nuclear warheads, bringing to the total military budget to nearly $396 billion,?
wrote Patrick Martin (?Billions for war and repression: Bush budget for a garrison state,? WSWS,
February 6, 2002.)
In addition to that amount, the Congress granted the Bush administration $80 billion especially for the
war in Iraq. In his speech at the signing of the Defense Appropriation Bill, G W Bush defined how he
distributed that amount.
?[?] this year's defense bill will ensure that our military is ready and well-equipped. We increased funds
for operations and maintenance by more than $5 billion, provided nearly $72 billion for weapon
procurement, an $11-billion increase. Today's American forces are ready and able to deploy to any
point in the globe to defeat any foe, and we're going to keep it that way. Third, this legislation begins
developing the next generations of weaponry that will win battles in the future. We invest almost $58
billion in research and development.?
$135 billion of additional government expenses for weapon procurement, operations, maintenance, and
research and development, would be paid to cronies? armament companies that would lobby the
engaging of new wars that would bring them more similar contracts, and so on. Not a single word of any
amount for any operations of the necessary direct war on terrorism. The use to be made of the $135
billion is the main fuel of hatred and terrorism worldwide, which compromises the White House?s
constitutional mission of protecting the American people.
".
".
________________________________________________________________________________
___________
©2003 The African Independent, Inc. All rights to republication are reserved
