C. Wright Mills called the quintessential tools of American Politics "deception, flattery and entertainment." For the Arabs and Muslims, Mills' words ring true as they dissect Clinton's speech on terrorism. As'ad AbuKalil is associate professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and Research Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at University of California, Berkeley.

A new dictum in American presidential politics is emerging: when in trouble, bomb Iraq or some other Muslim country.

As President Clinton was facing the most serious crisis to befall his administration, he suddenly discovered the dangers and perils of international terrorism. This knowledge was precipitous and required immediate action, despite his own admission that the target of these bombs, Osama bin Laden, has been involved in anti-American acts before.

Clinton claims that the bombing was a punishment for previous bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. But apart from media leaks by the American intelligence community, how do Americans know Osama bin Laden was responsible? And what would Americans think if they learned that this very same bin Laden was but a creature of the CIA, which trained him and his followers when they fought America's war against the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan has experienced continuous bloodshed and destruction since the withdrawal of Soviet troops. America bears much of the blame for it's plight. The Taliban movement is the direct byproduct of America's sponsorship and financing of the most obscurantist and reactionary of movements in the world of fundamentalist Islam. The American government was far from discriminating in its partners during the Cold War -- all anti-Soviet reactionaries were welcome to U.S. aid.

Terrorists, Clinton told Americans, hate America simply because it's a free and open country. Denmark is also free and open, but Clinton cannot explain why Denmark does not suffer from the scourge of international terrorism. It is not our democracy, such as it is, that angers people around the world. It is our foreign policy that they hate.

Enemies of the U.S. have legitimate grievances: the utter disregard for the plight of Afghanistan and its people once the Cold War was over; continued U.S. support of the most intransigent of Israeli governments; the intervention by the IMF and the World Bank in the internal affairs of foreign governments in order to open other countries to the exploitative control of American-led multi-national corporations; American support for oppressive governments in Saudi Arabia and other places; the prejudicial rhetoric in the U.S. Congress against Arabs and Muslims; and, very urgently, the primarily American responsibility for the prolonged suffering of the Iraqi people in the wake of the Gulf War.

These are serious political issues that are discussed by Muslims and Arabs worldwide. It is highly deceptive to claim that Muslims and Arabs are angry because of America's freedom and pursuit of human rights.

This is not to say that terrorism is not real: witness the daily death toll in Iraq from U.S. sanctions as well as from the recent bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. But the U.S. is hardly the party to fight international terrorism. This is the same government that recently stood alone against the banning of landmines and the creation of a world court against genocide.

If America really wants to serve the cause of fighting terrorism, it should allow the international community to devise workable procedures to deal with crisis situations. The American government that acted as if its verbal apology sufficed to justify inaction as some 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda lacks international moral credibility.

Arabs and Muslims around the world would be justified in wondering about the extent to which the "Wag the Dog" syndrome affected the American decisions to bomb Muslim countries far from U.S. shores. After all, Iraqi TV has more than once aired pirated copies of that movie to underline the personal reasons behind America's employment of violence. The rally-around-the-flag phenomenon is now well documented by experts in American political behavior: when an international crisis involving America occurs, and the President takes decisive action, no matter how foolish, there is a sudden and often remarkable boost in the President's opinion ratings.

So Clinton will now finally be allowed to enjoy his vacation while the short attention span of the American media shifts to the favorable coverage of the results of the American bombings. American viewers will be repeatedly assured that the factories that were bombed had some sinister purposes even if they produce milk or medicine, and that innocent victims should not be blamed on the U.S. but on Saddam Hussein or bin Laden or any other Muslim on whose doorstep the U.S. government can lay whatever evil it wishes.

Meanwhile the American public continues to nap, as we're fed what C. Wright Mills calls the essential tools of American domestic politics: deception, flattery and entertainment.