The American press on Tuesday hailed: "It's war" and "Act of War". Bush, after a couple of days acting stunned, comes to their support. In the International Herald Tribune (IHT) of the 14th September, he states… "we have just seen the first war of the 21st century" "Now that war has been declared on us, we will lead the world to victory".

In Bush's own words, we are involved in a "war" involving the "world", and hence a World War.

Bush is rallying the troops (army on full alert; 50,000 reserves already called up, $20b promised by congress for "the war") and encouraging the involvement of other Western countries. Even the Christian Science Monitor (Sept 14 "A New World Order") applauds Bush's newfound consulting skills...

Days ago, foreign leaders were fretting that a disengaged United States was heading down a unilateralist path. Now the US is reaching out to friend and foe alike as it seeks to build an international coalition to fight the scourge of terrorism. ...

Suddenly, President Bush is dealing with international relations much more in the style of his father, who rallied a broad coalition to fight the Gulf War. ...

Both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have spent many hours since Tuesday consulting with world leaders. ...

One can imagine the type of consultation... "hey, Helen Clarke, what's up? Are you gonna support our righteous war, or would you prefer a total trade embargo." Hypocritically, the same article quotes Colin Powell...

The US clearly sees this as a moment defining "who is with us and who is against us" in fighting terrorism.

This is not consultation, it's "are you with us, or not".

Apparently this time, unlike the short and sweet Gulf war, the Yanks are in for the long haul. The first page of the IHT, 14th September reports under the title "Bush Vows to 'Lead World to Victory' – A Sustained Fight Is Promised; NY Toll of Missing Near 5000" ...

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that the U.S. response would aim first at smashing those behind the attacks on Tuesday and then continue with a "global assault against terrorism in general." "You don't do it with just a single military strike, no matter how dramatic," he said. "It's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign."

His intention to "END states" which support terrorism is frightening.

All western countries will support a restricted attack against one "rogue state" such as Afghanistan, although it's unlikely they will permit high human losses for a widespread American attack to gain long-lasting power over all wealthy oil-producing Arab countries. America is dependent on the financial support of other wealthy states to launch a war. In fact, one of his war aims could be just that: the transfer of funds to the States for use in its military machine (which is simply an exportable consumable) and to boost the economy. Seen from this point of view… US allies would in effect be buying this product to indirectly destroy innocent civilians.

In fact, perhaps there is no need to worry… after all it's bound to be another of Andre Gunder Frank's rich vs poor (north vs south) wars… pretty much no one with a flash car is touched.

For the last word, check out what the Washington Post (14 Sept) has to say...

The call-up will be paid for with some of the $40 billion in emergency spending that Congress agreed to yesterday -- half of it to cope with the catastrophe, and half to launch the war. What sort of war is coming was still unclear, but Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said it will not be an isolated retaliatory strike. Strategists are planning a "sustained and broad" campaign, he said. U.S. diplomats continued to line up support from nations around the world. "Now is the opportunity to do generations a favor," Bush said, "by coming together and whipping terrorism. . . . This is now the focus of my administration."

The carnage, the outrages, the fears and disruptions have made the public strong supporters of war -- even a long war in which innocent civilians are killed. A Washington Post-ABC News survey of 609 randomly selected adults Thursday night found that 7 in 10 Americans are prepared to accept a long war with many U.S. military casualties. Nearly 85 percent support an attack on Afghanistan, if the country harbors Osama bin Laden, suspected sponsor of the assaults.

"We have no choice, we're at war," said Rodney Forsberg, 43, of Dacula, Ga. "Any thinking American dreads war, but here again we don't have a choice -- we're in for a big one."

"THE WAR" – it's a given! This article was particularly disgusting in it's consistent mixing of emotion and government plans… fragments of pulling body parts from the wreckage, and bush in tears are mixed with hard-line military policy. complete article

I support a reasoned discussion of the events and a justified solution, either economic or military, to avoid the risk of further attacks. The United States needs to understand that this attack is already a retaliation in itself, the reasons for which may be far more complicated than simply blaming some mad Arab. Their war, if that's what they want to call it, started long ago.

What should be unsupportable is the one-sided, trigger-happy approach taken by almost every widely read newspaper in the English world. For another side to the debate, I suggest the following publications...

The Nation

The Progressive

World Socialist Web Site

Le Monde Diplomatique in English , French or Japanese

Latin American and Arabic newspapers are also worth a look, for a round up, see

Courrier International