Summing up: Americans? fears are hypothetical. Subsequently the fears they evoke to counter their fears become real. They are fearful that the dominance that they have over the world would be reduced if the political environment in the world softens. Others genuinely fear demolition due to dependence and also due to intrigues.�� America can manage to overcome its fears.� Others cannot, particularly when America keeps on creating tension. What Americans perhaps cannot comprehend that prosperity and good will can also be won through other means, other than attaining military superiority and arming the allies. Germany, Japan and China are proving it. And the Scandinavians proved it a century ago. A friendly America under the leadership of progressive Bush is what the people of the world are looking for. Their hopes are constantly being hampered is agonising. Would Bush listen? He must also listen to the most meaningful of all the calls: Militarism cannot become total and perfect, even if its built-in mechanism of self-destruction is delayed or, somehow, checked: It would always remain susceptible to innovations with the growth of knowledge. And knowledge is surely a thing that is not and would never be an American monopoly.
Though the article points towards backlash from the affected countries somewhere in far future, and the terrorism was not the subject discussed, yet it clearly mentioned that America in spite of its military and financial might would not remain safe. The article was written to emphasis that safety is collective requirement of entire human race and it should not be treated in isolation due to so called national interests. The tragedy of today was the work of a group; imagine what would have happened in similar circumstances if nations were involved, and if nuclear or any other lethal weapons were used.
Besides being the arms supplier to most of the countries, America has also been supporting militant groups in North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Latin America and South Asia. Even the ultra-left militant organisations of Europe had a subtle American support. And who is not aware of Afghan tragedy: the American strengthened militants pushed a nation into an unending misery. The strengthening of militancy would make them suffer as well, Americans very well knew; but to an extent that would shake their supremacy, they did not.
The small nations do not learn from the national tragedies. They have neither the courage nor the means to accept the realities. They would keep on fighting wars or war like games, even after losing one after the other. Sometimes even the big nations behave similarly. The Germans after WW1 started WW2, only to face a bigger defeat. After undergoing such a big catastrophe, would Americans change their strategies? Presently they are the biggest suppliers of conventional weaponry, and their armament industry also promotes out of greed the nuclear and missile programmes of many countries, of course with the consent of the American government. Through this arms purchase, many a countries have demolished their economies and their societies. America is thus directly responsible for growth of poverty in a larger part of the world. Given its huge natural resources, super advancement in knowledge and technology, and above all vastness of its own domestic market that is larger than half of the markets of the world, can?t Americans choose a human way to influence the world? They must because not all can be known, monopolised, and conquered. The fatal unknown would continue to exist and appear, and more likely in a devastating way; and it is not going to spare any one. The only answer to the unknown is cooperation, not confrontation. The future of all nations, whether they are rich or poor, stupid or wise, and powerful or weak would depends on peace and collective prosperity. The Americans can help a lot towards achieving this goal.
Yet, this so much "big" about them has also made them "small". One directional dynamics of sticking to the assigned jobs only has no doubt enhanced their individual job specific knowledge and thinking, and contributed to their collective material development, but it has narrowed their social thinking. They are least bothered about what is happening a few miles away from them. Their perceptions of the world are vague, and not even their presidential candidates have desired knowledge of external affairs. The latest presidential campaign that brought G.W. Bush to White House, bears testimony to that. In fact absolute materialism has turned them into well-programmed machines. That is the secret of their success but that is also the reason behind their negligence that inflicted on them, and also on the humanity, so big a tragedy.� Do whatever you want; they would not think other than what state and media makes them to think. None and I repeat none of the Americans would believe that during the Iran-Iraq war America was involved in supplying of arms to Iran. They stuck to their noble belief that it was the evil empire, the USSR, which was entirely doing so, even after I showed to them a newsletter of ARMCO that revealed in detail the complex military connection between their country and Iran. Constant one track media feeding has frozen the political side of common American mind. It is obvious that their think tanks too think under given and rigid set of rules, and also under acquired apathy or prejudices.
That is why neither the people nor the intellectuals ever questioned the wisdom of their state when it would propagate against some dictatorships but would protect the others. That is why up till now not a single American, in spite of going through the big tragedy, has meaningfully sought answer from his government about its previous support to militancy world over. Those, who or whose relatives became victim of terrorism a week ago, have all the reasons to take their state to the court, because if it is Osama, then it is the USA that selected and trained him in religious militancy and supported him for a long time.� Secular America would promote religion, as a military instrument, isn?t that violation of American Constitution. It is a fit case for the American legal lobby, which usually sides with the ignorant and innocent victims. There are hundreds of such examples of USA?s duplicity spread all over the world. OK, all was well till it did not hurt the US citizens in a big way, now that it has, the American social activists too, if there are any, should act and raise the question: why it happened?
Attacking Afghanistan, catching an old friend turned enemy, and sitting here and there with their armies, will not solve the problem in totality. In addition to that America has to do much more. It has to help in the development of societies all over the world and specifically in our region where it is so deeply connected, and where there is so much of oil and absurdity around. Development does not mean material help only, the result of which Pakistanis have already seen through fifty-five years of friendship, and the Afghans have seen through twenty years of US sponsored religious militancy; it also means to assist in the development of social side of the societies. Would America do that? It would depend more on how America changes from within. So far the kind of democracy Americans have in their own country is democracy for the machines, by the machines and of the machines. They have to turn to thinking democracy inside and help establish it outside also. They have to do it before the aliens or the unknown or the known but unmanaged strike again.
Had American citizens and media challenged the international dichotomy of their state, not only America, but also the whole world would have been different than what it is now or what it became on Black September 11, 2001. It is not by chance that from Jordan to Pakistan entire area is more than friendly to America and is governed by dictatorships, kingdoms and religious groups. Even till last week the Americans acted as biggest donors for Talibans. The American citizens will have to rise and ask their government: why it created and protected anti-democratic forces worldwide? It is to be done if world is to live in peace. America is directly sitting in the Gulf, and indirectly sitting everywhere, and particularly in the region and has tremendous influence on all sections of the regional societies, why can?t it help the governments and the people to design democratic systems, which they want but somehow are not being allowed.
