| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:50 am Post subject: It is growing clearer that war is inevitable |
| It is growing clearer that war is inevitable
Paris | By Patrick Seale | 11/10/2002
The Bush Administration has decided to overthrow the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussain by force. Reliable sources in Washington and London confirm that a decision to go to war was taken many months ago, and has now been confirmed in confidential exchanges between allied governments.
Only the timing and tactics still remain fluid and are the subject of intense debate inside the Pentagon, and between the U.S. and its closest allies. Some Americans are said to be pressing for an attack as early as November-December, whereas British troops and armour – perhaps ten per cent of the attacking force – are unlikely to be ready until early in 2003.
The United States has already lined up a coalition comprising Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy and Turkey. It also includes a number of U.S. client states in the Arab world who have agreed, although in some cases reluctantly, to allow U.S. forces to use their bases and pre-positioned equipment.
Only an incurable optimist, or someone blind to the present realities of the international scene, can still believe that the U.S. is not going to attack. In recent days, hopes of a reprieve have been placed on the negotiations in New York between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
But the truth is that these talks are only intended to give an appearance of international legality to an American assault which all parties now recognise is in an advanced stage of preparation.
President George W. Bush's speech this week, in which he called Saddam Hussain a "murderous tyrant" a "homicidal dictator" and a "student of Stalin", leaves no doubt about his aggressive intentions.
The U.S. is determined to wage a "pre-emptive war" against Iraq, claiming as its main reason Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.
"Facing clear evidence of peril," Bush said, "we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
In the Security Council, the main argument has been between the U.S. and Britain on one side and France and Russia on the other.
China, the fifth permanent member, has kept a low profile. The U.S. and Britain wanted a single UN Resolution that sets very tough conditions for weapons inspections but also authorised the automatic use of force if Iraq failed, in any manner whatsoever, to throw itself wide open to inspection and disarm completely – thus setting aside its sovereign status.
The French argued that two Resolutions were needed, since the resort to war could not be automatic but would need Security Council authorisation. The U.S. and Britain have now conceded this point but, as part of the compromise, the French and the Russians have agreed to accept most, if not all, of the very stringent terms for the inspection regime which the U.S. has insisted upon.
Russia has been bought off by a U.S. pledge that, once Saddam is overthrown, it will be given a share of Iraqi oil concessions and will recover the $8bn which Iraq owes it. France, in turn, does not want to be excluded from any future share-out of Iraqi oil. Any hope of a French veto to restrain the U.S. has now faded away.
The American message was: Join us or get left out! Once the United States made clear it was going to war anyway, France and Russia had no choice but to climb on board.
Whichever way you look at it, Iraq is the loser. If it rejects the tough terms of the new UN Resolution, it will be hit. If it accepts the terms, they will spell such complete Iraqi surrender that Saddam's regime might not survive anyway.
As a Washington source put it to me this week: "The only way the Iraqis can save themselves is if Saddam gives up everything – everything!" By which he meant power itself.
As is now clear to most observers, U.S. foreign policy is today driven by a group of right-wing neo-imperialists and hard–line Zionists – often the same people. They are to be found in key posts in and around the Administration and draw their support from a wide and influential network of officials, think–tanks, journalists and lobbyists.
The widespread alarm caused in the United States by the terrorist September 11 attacks has given these men a unique chance to impose their views on mainstream American opinion, a chance they have been seeking for 20 years. They now drive the dominant discourse on the world's affairs.
The neo–imperialists want to destroy all threats to the United States, whether imagined, real or potential, and affirm America's world–wide supremacy. The hard–line Zionists – many of them close to Ariel Sharon's Likud – have a slightly more limited agenda. They are concerned to protect Israel by destroying its enemies and guaranteeing its regional supremacy over the Arabs.
There is reason to believe that these pro–Israeli activists – men like Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board, and Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defence Secretary – have been instrumental in "selling" a vainglorious vision of a "post–Saddam Arab world" to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice -President Dick Cheney, and to Bush himself, none of whom know much about the Middle East apart from oil, or what Israel and its friends tell them.
According to this "vision", once Saddam is overthrown, Iraq under American control would become a Western–oriented, secular, modern, democratic model for the whole Arab region. It would be made into the "natural" focus of the area, relegating other troublesome centres such as Cairo, Damascus and Riyadh, now seen only as seedbeds of terrorism, to relative insignificance.
As a powerful client state of the United States, Iraq could soon become the most advanced Arab country, reshaping the culture of the entire region, leading it away from Islamic militancy and from the more extreme forms of anti-Western and anti-Israeli Arab nationalism.
And once Iraq's oil production had been boosted by American technology, Iraq could become the "swing producer" displacing Saudi Arabia from that key position.
With its fabulous untapped oil reserves, Iraq would become the central strongpoint of an American "protectorate" stretching from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan to Kuwait and the lower Gulf.
On the flank of this new concentration of U.S. power, Iran would have to adjust to such an imposed regional reality, either with or without the compulsion of U.S. military force.
It was no accident that, in his speech this week, Bush emphasised America's commitment to rebuilding Iraq (at Iraq's own expense, of course) and to safeguarding its territorial integrity, prerequisites for its important future role under America's aegis.
Needless to say, hard–line American Zionists, in collusion with Sharon, see America's war against Iraq as a great opportunity to reshape Israel's immediate environment. Sharon will no doubt try to defeat the Palestinians comprehensively before imposing terms on them. Even forced population "transfer" out of the occupied territories cannot be excluded.
His temptation will be to destroy Hezbollah, marginalise Syria, and bring Lebanon under Israel's umbrella, as once before he sought to do in his disastrous 1982 invasion. Syria, thus stripped of any regional role, will be fortunate if it too escapes being hit.
Such is the vision of the men now ruling Washington. No one should underestimate their lunatic determination. But is their vision a geopolitical fantasy or might it succeed?
What price will America have to pay for this ambitious neo–colonial adventure? Will American citizens, soldiers and interests be at risk from attack throughout the region, or will the Arabs eventually accept to live quietly under American rule? Will American rule be direct or indirect? Who can administer such an empire?
Little thought appears to have been given in Washington to the post–Saddam era, or the likely opposition to these American–Israeli plans. The American tendency (now being mouthed by an alarming variety of Arab intellectuals in this very paper) is to dismiss the "Arab street" as all noise and no action and to conclude that Arab opponents, whether states or individuals, can either be bought off or intimidated.
Meanwhile, America's world-wide "war on terror" – a euphemism for war against militant Islam and perhaps Islam as a whole! – continues without respite. Networks will be disrupted, activists arrested and sanctuaries denied. Thousands of innocent Muslims will become victims. America's real fear is mass-casualty terrorism like September 11, which it feels must be prevented at all cost.
The sort of low-level, hit-and-run attacks, such as the killing of an American Marine in Kuwait this week, will not be enough to deter the hawks in Washington from their total war mentality. But what future is there in all this for Islamic values, Arab pride, Arab identity, and Arab nationalism itself?
Are the Arabs and Muslims to fall once more under foreign control as happened after World War I? Indeed, one must ask, given the supine position of most Arab leaders, is the new imperialism already in place?
Patrick Seale is an eminent commentator and the author of several books on Middle East affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Al Nisr Publishing LLC - Gulf News Online
======
http://chicago.al-awda.info/
Contact your representatives and elected officials: use
http://congress.cfl-online.org/
For other ways to help, see http://BoycottIsraeliGoods.org
Views are those of their owners. See http://al-awda.org/media for background on the Palestine Right To Return Coalition (PRRC), a grassroot activist and International movement. | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:25 am Post subject: Iraq: Voting on Saddam's Re-Election |
| Iraq: Voting on Saddam's Re-Election
WASHINGTON (Oct. 13) - President Bush promises to be at the helm of a ''vast coalition'' against Iraq. Unlike his father's 31-nation force for the Persian Gulf War, however, it is a coalition slow to gather and lacking in marquee players.
Bulgaria has anted up an airport. Romania guaranteed air bases and airspace rights to U.S. fighter jets. Qatar is upgrading its al-Udeid air base and letting the Pentagon set up a command center and pre-position armored brigade equipment there.
If the lineup looks like small-fry now, some experts expect it not to be for long.
With Congress' overwhelming vote to authorize a military strike if necessary to disarm Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Security Council and skittish would-be coalition members will fall into line, said Bill Taylor, former director of National Security Studies at West Point.
''The ones who pay any attention to our democracy understand that the hand of the president is strengthened enormously by Congress going along,'' Taylor said.
''You're seeing the trickle right now, and he's having a much tougher time than his father, but he's going to pull it off.''
Today's big bench-warmers - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Canada and others - can be counted on to enlist if and when Bush commits the full force of the U.S. military to wiping out Saddam and his weapons programs, agreed Ivo Daalder, who was an adviser to President Clinton's National Security Council.
''Nobody wants to be left behind in a sure victory,'' Daalder said.
For months, lawmakers in both parties, as well as Republican Party elders, publicly worried over what looked like a go-it-alone strategy at the White House. The president has since underscored a group effort by the United States and ''a lot of our friends.''
''My intent is to put together a vast coalition of countries who understand the threat of Saddam Hussein,'' Bush said. ''Many, many countries share our determination to confront this threat. We're not alone.''
Pressed to name names, Bush and his aides say only that time will tell. No less than Canada suggests it will take some convincing.
The day before Bush spoke of leading a vast coalition, Canada split with the United States over the question of ousting Saddam and said the verdict was still out on whether Canada would take part in any U.S.-led offensive.
In Operation Desert Storm, Canada deployed two destroyers and a supply ship to the Persian Gulf, and Canadian fighter jets flew bombing raids alongside the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, France, Italy, Bahrain and Qatar.
Then, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and an almost-instantaneous denunciation by the U.N. Security Council made coalition-building easy work for the first President Bush.
In the end, he had 31 nations helping to push back Saddam. Aside from the United States, the largest armed contingents came from Britain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and France. Turkey tied down Iraqi troops by deploying some 100,000 of its soldiers along the Turkish border with Iraq. Germany and Japan, legally barred from offensive warfare, provided billions of dollars to help defray war costs.
This time, U.S. allies are telling the current president they want proof Saddam is capable of a nuclear attack. And, led by France, most insist on the cover of a U.N. resolution demanding disarmament - or else.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won re-election and fractured U.S.-German relations by refusing to follow Bush into any war with Iraq. Its economy in the tank, Japan is in no position to be paying anyone else's bills.
Russia, with veto power on the Security Council, is bargaining for assurances that Moscow will not have to forfeit $7 billion owed by Iraq. Turkey wants promises of an Iraq kept whole, lest the Kurdish-controlled north seek an independent state and stir Kurdish rebels within Turkey's own borders.
Even in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has aligned himself behind Bush and led the indictment of Saddam for his illegal weapons programs, Parliament balks and Downing Street officials demur when asked about British troops going after Saddam again. That's hypothetical territory, they say.
The few allies who have already thrown almost unconditional support Bush's way are countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, which aspire to NATO membership and are eager to demonstrate their mettle.
Australia is firmly backing Bush, no matter what the United Nations ultimately does. Poland, Spain and Italy also have offered moral support, if not explicit promises of troops or other material help.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld frequently hints at a greater number of private commitments.
''In their defense, I don't think they have actively gone out - at least publicly - to gather the coalition,'' Daalder said.
''I think there may well be a vast coalition if we continue to play our cards right; if we get a U.N. Security Council resolution, if we seriously try to implement it, and if Saddam doesn't comply.''
AP-NY-10-13-02 2128EDT | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:37 am Post subject: BRINGING DEMOCRACY TO THE MUSLIMS |
| THE BUSH DOCTRINE:
BRINGING DEMOCRACY TO THE MUSLIMS
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002
Oct. 4, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO Once the United States overthrows Saddam Hussein and
`liberates' Iraq, it will then proceed to spread democracy, human rights,
and enlightenment throughout the world, but most notably in the Mideast. So
vows Bush Administration's National Security Advisor, Miss Condoleeza Rice,
an academic expert on Soviet affairs, who has drawn up much of the
recentlyproclaimed Bush Doctrine of worldwide intervention.
One hopes her preposterous assertion is simply part of the Administration's
propaganda buildup before invading oilrich Iraq. Truth is indeed the first
casualty of war. Recall in 1990 the famous heartjerker about Kuwaiti babies
thrown from incubators by evil Iraq soldiers, a canard that ignited war
fever across America, but turned out to be a total fabrication. Or White
House claims to have photographic evidence of an impending Iraqi invasion
of Saudi Arabia. These claims were also phony, but they succeeded in
stampeding the petrified Saudis into allowing the US to permanently station
military forces in the kingdom, where they remain to this day.
If Miss Rice truly believes the US will bring democracy to the Mideast, she
must also believe in the tooth fairy. Such naivet is unacceptable in a
senior policy maker. Unsurprisingly, Rice's silly claim was greeted from
Morocco to Pakistan with profoundest derision by the very people she
aspires to `liberate.' In fact, the Bush Administration's stated goal of
bringing democracy to the Muslim World faithfully echoes claims by
Victorian Britain's imperialists that they were conquering and exploiting
Africa and Asia only to bring the benefits of Christianity and western
civilization to benighted heathen.
Fifty years ago, Mideasterners would have believed Miss Rice. After World
War II, they hailed the United States as the symbol of honest government,
decency, generosity, and opposition to colonialism. When America's great
president, Dwight Eisenhower, ordered the British, French and Israelis to
end their 1956 aggression against Egypt, America was a supreme hero across
Asia and Africa.
In the ensuing half century, America has gone from hero to supreme villain.
America's evergrowing support for Israel was half the reason. But the other
half was the frightful punishment of Iraq and the US policy of keeping oil
prices low, and supply high, by imposing despotic surrogate rulers on the
region. The US has dominated the Arab World for the past 50 years. What has
it done during this long period to promote democracy or human rights there?
Name one democracy, one nation ruled by laws, one nation not run by the
secret police.
Take a tour of the Arab states under US `protection':
Morocco A medieval monarchy, as brutal as Iraq, with thousands of
political prisoners tortured and confined to underground dungeons.
Algeria Military dictatorship. Sunk in a nightmare civil war. When Algeria
held the Arab World's first free vote in 1991, Islamic parties won. The
army, backed by France and the US, annulled the elections, and has ruled since.
Tunisia Military dictatorship.
Egypt Home of 40% all Arabs, intellectual heart of the Arab World.
Military dictatorship with a ruthless secret police. Routinely tortures and
murders opponents. Many thousands in political prisons. Censored press.
Sham parliament. As in the case of Iran under the late Shah Reza Pahlavi,
FBI, CIA, and NSA all assist Egypt's secret police in repressing opposition
and keeping the military regime in power. 9/11 chief planner Ayman
alZawahri was tortured for years in Egyptian prisons. Jordan Decent and
wellrun, but no democracy. The USbacked king and his Bedouin army rule a
nation that is over 60% Palestinian.
Saudi Arabia Feudal monarchy of 7,000 princes. Political opponents
muzzled, sometimes charged with drug dealing and beheaded. The Saudis sell
oil to the US and its allies on the cheap. In exchange, they get protection
from the US against their neighbors and own people. Saudi buys billions of
US, British, and French arms it cannot use and keep $100 billion in the US
financial system. Osama bin Laden claims the west steals Arab oil. He says
oil should cost US$300 a barrel, not $2030 true terrorist talk to SUV owners.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates all tiny feudal
monarchies inherited by the US from the British Empire.
Oman, anther monarchy, is discreetly run by British intelligence, MI6.
Arab nations not under direct or indirect US domination
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan are also nasty dictatorships (Yemen less so).
Lebanon is a tribalfeudal society currently dominated by Syria. Saddam's
brutal Iraq, formerly a kingdom, then military dictatorship, was a close US
ally from 19791990.
Now, suddenly, Miss Rice and the Israelfirst neoconservatives who are
pulling the Bush Administration's strings, claim they will bring brining
the balm of democracy to the wretched Arabs. But why now, after half a
century of fostering petrodespotism?
Why the sudden conversion on the road to Baghdad? And at the very same time
that the Bush Administration is busy shoring up Pakistan's military
dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. And maintaining a USimposed regime in
chaotic, `liberated,' Afghanistan whose leader, Hamid Karzai, must be
protected by teams of US bodyguards from his own unloving people. In the
buildup to the 1991 war against Iraq, Bush I promised a Palestinian state.
This time around, the big promise is democracy and freedom for all Arabs,
especially Iraqis, then Iranians. Why just recently, Bush II promised
Palestinians democracy provided, of course, they didn't reelect Yasser Arafat.
To read previous columns by Mr. Margolis: Click here To receive Foreign
Correspondent via email send a note to majordomo@foreigncorrespondent.com
with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send
to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW:
http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please
contact: Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
FAX: (416) 9601769
Smail: Eric Margolis
c/o Editorial Department
The Toronto Sun
333 King St. East
Toronto Ontario Canada
M5A 3X5 | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
