By now, the shocking and grisly effects of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been gone over ad nauseum in media reportage and commentary. And there has been no shortage of reflections on either side of the spectrum, from the hawkish responses which have portrayed this as a civilisational war between "good" and "evil", to a more reflective consideration of the broader causes, and other conditions of terror, that have led to this degree of antagonism and desperation on the part of even a small groups of terrorists.
 
But while the acts themselves were of course appalling beyond belief in their senseless destruction of innocents, the reaction to them by the representatives of ”the international community” of world leaders has been almost equally alarming. The ignorance or cynicism that has given these tragic deaths a more privileged position viv-a-vis those of innocent children in Iraq or the thousands dead in the Middle East or the victims of terror in Kashmir or East Timor over the past few years, is not the worst feature of the reaction.
 
What is most alarming about the reaction is that, across the world, it has been assumed that the response of the US government must necessarily be one of brute force through military might, directed at countries and their (mostly innocent) populations rather than only at individual terrorists. And such a response has been seen as not only correct, but one which must be actively supported by all other governments.
 
Perhaps it was only to be expected that the Bush administration, and the US President himself, would react with the very strong language that has already been used (although the relative restraint thus far on the actual use of force is still a cause for some relief). Of course, the immediate identification of Osama bin Laden as prime suspect may appear a bit too pat. Similarly, Bush’s Wild West-type statements about wanting him “dead or alive” without needing to display any proof or showing any regard for due process are obviously problematic in terms of the long term implications for international law.
 
But the real difficulties come in the declared language of war which has been used extensively both by the right wing and by the US administration, and which has been given political support by organisations like NATO. And in all this, both the usual allies (such as Tony Blair) and the wannabes (such as the Indian Prime Minister) have been enthusiastic in their support for such a war, in terms of offering air space and airbases and other forms of assistance.
 
A war against terrorism in general, which clearly needs to be fought and won, is nothing like a conventional war, in that it cannot pit one country against another and must be directed against terrorist activity in all countries. And while it is true that terrorist activity may in some cases reflect genuine social movements (even progressive ones) and justified popular grievance, most terrorism today is the handiwork of a small minority of people within countries, whose populations do not support or benefit from such extremism. Indeed, the ordinary people by and large take the brunt of both terrorist activities and counter-terrorist responses by states.
 
Meanwhile, support for terrorist activities in turn comes all sorts of quarters, including most famously from the multitudinous covert activities of the CIA, which was of course the early sponsor of bin Laden himself, among others. The US government has been extremely cynical in its attitude to those using violence against innocent civilians as tactics, whom they have called insurgents or progressive dissidents when they have served its own geopolitical agenda, and terrorists when they have not. And the complex web of financial support for terrorist activities comes from a sordid combination of drugs trade, arms deals and other nefarious activities in which the governments of all the major developed countries have been directly or indirectly complicit at some time or another.