| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel |
| Subj: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel
Date: 4/3/04 10:38:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel
The neocons got the US into the war on Iraq for Israel’s sake, now the 9/11 commission is headed by a pro-Israeli neocon ( a fringe neocon) by the name of Philip Zelikow, who actually admits the Israeli motivation for the war. As the article by Paul Skerry points out:
"Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."
It so happens that Zelikow is closely connected to the Bush administration and the neocons. Sperry points out that "In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.." Philip Zelikow also co-authored a book on German reunification with Rice.
An article by Emad Mekay documents that Zelikow revealed that helping Israel was the real purpose of the war on Iraq.
"’Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,’ Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
"‘And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,’ said Zelikow."
Zelikow was not telling the exact truth here. Iraq was never a military danger to Israel. But the neocons/Likudniks planned to attack Iraq because the destabilization/disarmament/occupation of Israel’s Middle East enemies would enhance Israel’s security even in regard to the Palestinian demographic threat.
So here you have it: the head of the September 11 commission once publicly acknowledged that the Iraq war was fought for Israel, but held that the government wanted to hide that motive. Obviously, as head of the commission he will do his best to keep that motive hidden.
Let’s summarize a bit here.
Israeli Likudniks developed the idea of a plan to destabilize the Middle East through a war that would begin with Iraq.
Neocons had been pushing for a US war against Iraq throughout the 1990s.
Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz focused on attacking Iraq from the very start of the Bush administration.
Neocons used September 11 to push the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection lie.
Neocons pushed the WMD lie—especially relying on the neocon controlled Office of Special Plans to provide bogus intelligence derived from neocon tool Ahmed Chalabi and from Israel itself.
Now it appears that an individual who openly admitted that the Iraq war was for the sake of Israel directs the 9/11 commission.
But despite all of this evidence, it is still deemed "anti-Semitic" to point out that neocons or Israel had anything to do with the war on Iraq. Needless to say, it is the neocons who are pushing this lie too.
_________________________
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html
March 31, 2004
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay
http://www.atimes.com
Front Page
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.
Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".
"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."
To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."
Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.
Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or [Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.
(Inter Press Service) | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:49 am Post subject: September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction |
| Subj: September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
Date: 4/3/04 5:33:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Friends,
September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
I am including this piece by Doug Giebel only for its comments about the possibility that Bush administration insiders had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorism but deliberately allowed it to happen. It is a very cogent argument.
Giebel writes:
"Prior to 9/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq."
In short, US authorities did not have to have foreknowledge of the specifics of the impending attack. Rather, they simply wanted to allow any type to attack, which could be used to provide a pretext for war against Iraq. Thus, they deliberately ignored warnings about terrorism. However, there would be no reason for them to expect the great devastation that did occur, the probability of which was very low.
Giebel continues that "the Bush White House did not foresee the expected ‘event’ (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations, giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced (as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon burned; they simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge."
Some individuals with considerable expertise, such as German intelligence expert Andreas von Bülow, have argued that the US government (and/or Israel) actually staged the entire attack. But if this were the case it would seem that the conspirators would have made it appear that it was committed by Iraqi agents. Since this was not the case, it would seem that the Al Qaeda terrorists were real. And it seems that Israel was aware of these terrorists. We know that some Mossad agents lived on the same street in Florida as Mohammed Atta and that other Mossad agents filmed the burning Trade Towers from across the Hudson. These occurrences would definitely seem to be other than pure coincidence. http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm
It seems reasonable to assume that if the Mossad were keeping surveillance on the Islamic terrorists, Bush administration insiders were aware of this. (Naturally, President Bush would be totally unaware of what was going on.)
Does this theory attribute an impossible evil cynicism to the Bush administration insiders? Giebel writes: "Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration had so little interest in the loss of human life it would tolerate a modest loss to terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq? Not according to the evidence. The Bush Administration has shown little interest in the loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government avoids ‘body counts’ of ‘collateral damage.’ Similarly, there have been no major reservations about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq will result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team, such losses are acceptable."
Given the numerous lies the Bush neocons have put out regarding the non-existent WMD and the non-existent Saddam-Al Qaeda ties, it is apparent that they believe that the ends justify the means.
__________________________
http://www.counterpunch.com/giebel03292004.html
March 29, 2004
Candide in the Wilderness
How Bush Administration Policy Was Made
By DOUG GIEBEL
In this best of all possible political worlds, might and money triumph over adversity. Until the dramatically expected appearance of Richard Clarke, Lady Luck was blowing almost daily on the dice of George W. Bush and the Bushvolk. How did they work their magic? Was the table rigged? Short of climbing into the skulls of Bush Administration brainiacs, it is possible to speculate as follows.
Not "All" About Oil
It is no secret. Some neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration pined for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein well before George W. Bush began his first bid for the White House. The goal: to appropriate Iraq as a major foothold for U.S. military power and influence in the heart of the Middle East. In the years following the first Gulf War, Iraq had succumbed to inspections, sanctions and military strikes. There was virtually no chance Saddam Hussein would or could attack the United States. The problem: How to convince U.S. politicians and the public that an invasion of Iraq was an acceptable course to follow.
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence the Bush Administration war-seekers planned the terrorist crimes of 9/11; nor does it seem likely that those involved in carrying out the attacks knew (a) of the plans to take out Saddam Hussein's government; (b) how the administration would react to their September Surprise.
In the weeks before September 11, 2001, the Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group ignored advice from Clinton Administration insiders. Instead, as Clarke, O'Neill and the record show, they had their sights on Saddam's Iraq. Warnings of impending terrorism in briefings given by members of the Clinton Administration to the incumbent Republicans were dismissed or ignored because the new kids on the block had a cocksure sense of their own self worth. They knew Iraq was where they were going. They weren't quite certain how to get there.
Prior to 9;/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq.
Lady Luck arrived unexpectedly for both George W. Bush and Usama bin Laden. Just as the terrorists could not have foreseen the complete collapse of the World Trade Center, so the Bush White House did not foresee the expected "event" (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations, giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced (as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon burned; they simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge.
Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration had so little interest in the loss of human life it would tolerate a modest loss to terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq? Not according to the evidence. The Bush Administration has shown little interest in the loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government avoids "body counts" of "collateral damage." Similarly, there have been no major reservations about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq will result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team, such losses are acceptable. On October 17, 2003,Rep. Tom Delay expressed the administration view, declaring, "We'll pay any price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty. After the shock and of awe of major combat the price and burden of human hope shift from the battlefield to the town hall and the town market. And that hope Mr. Chairman cannot come in the form of a promissory note. It's our fight and now it's our job."
Later, when asked if the war was worth the lives of 564 U.S. soldiers killed, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Oh, my goodness, yes. There's just no question ...25 million people in Iraq are free." (March 14, 2004)
My suggested scenario explains why the administration did not seem especially concerned about an impending event of terrorism and why alarms sounded by people in the field were ignored or under-valued. It also renders more clearly the possible reasons why President Bush would object to setting up the 9/11 Commission and why the commission has been stonewalled. Successful strategists take advantage when the unexpected arrives unexpectedly.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Pre-invasion, their statements to the contrary, Bush Administration leaders knew there were few or no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In revving up the siren to wail that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD capable of killing "thousands" and "millions" of human beings, administration officials knew its fear-inducing claims were patently untrue.
Whatever their failings, those who led us into war may be risk-takers, but they are not foolhardy. The everyday behavior of President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others with membership in The Project for the New American Century demonstrates their collective interest in remaining in power through the re-election of George W. Bush and beyond. In politics, very little happens that is not calculated with at least one hand on the pulse of public opinion. Being there: that's what politics is all about.
In this context, the often-cited Wolfowitz statement in Vanity Fair makes sense. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for invading Iraq]." Still hurting from the criminal acts of 9/11, Americans would be more easily persuaded of Saddam Hussein's evil designs if he were portrayed as posing the most alarming threat possible: his possession of weapons of mass destruction to be used against U.S. cities and other targets. As we know, the argument, although quite absurd, carried the day. (Why "absurd"? Because Saddam's nation had been under sanctions, military overflights and attacks for a dozen years. Iraq had no air force and no navy capable of reaching the United States. The best our neo-con fear-mongers could muster was the specter of unmanned drone aircraft that were in reality incapable of flying from Iraq to the <U.S.A>.)
How much damage were Bushvolk willing to risk? Facing the potential use by Hussein's forces of tons of supposedly highly-lethal weapons of mass destruction would have meant taking extraordinary risks with the lives of U.S. and "coalition" troops. Invading forces met by such formidable opposition would likely have resulted in a nightmarish slaughter of the "liberators" and stain the Bush record for all time. Would these otherwise-circumspect political creatures really take that chance? Logically: no, they would not. And they didn't.
No WMD were used against coalition forces during the invasion, and they have not surfaced to be used against those forces during the occupation. Why not? Common sense would lead one to believe that if the weapons really existed and posed a threat so immediate that invasion was necessary, Saddam Hussein would have used those weapons in a heartbeat to repel invasion and to wipe out the occupiers.
Another major "clue" to the WMD mystery can be addressed by recalling the Pentagon's unusual strategy to "embed" reporters with the invading troops. According to some estimates, approximately 2,700 "embedded" reporters worked the march to Baghdad and beyond, a staggering number, especially if there were any real fear of encountering weapons of mass destruction. Embedded journalists were perhaps even more likely to be killed or injured than the troops engaged in actual combat. Their reports of battlefield casualties from WMD related-causes would have horrified the nation and the world. It seems certain this army of reporters would never have been invited along for the ride if invasion had not been viewed by Pentagon brass and others as the relative "cakewalk" it turned out to be.
Note also that on February 7, Australia's newspaper The Age reported, "Australian troops fighting in Iraq were told in an official briefing days before entering the country that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours." The news must have relieved anxiety for Aussie troops. Surely if Australia knew, the U.S. knew. This reinforces retired State Department weapons expert Greg Thielmann's statement to 60 Minutes that Saddam posed no real threat, not even to his immediate neighbors.
After considering those years of bombings, sanctions and intelligence gathering, the Bush Administration was quite certain an invasion of Iraq would be successful and would immeasurably enhance its prospects for a second four-year stint in the White House. At home, a "war budget" would block funding of social programs disfavored by the White House. The semi-secret plan to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would move forward following the selection of a "democratically-elected" group to govern Iraq according to U.S. needs and wishes. Today: Iraq. Tomorrow: The Middle East and beyond.
The unaccomplished mission went forward; Iraq was invaded as planned and desired.
Weapons of mass destruction had everything (and nothing) to do with it.
Protecting Iraq
On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune ran a short article by foreign correspondent Christine Spolar in which she revealed the U.S. military is building "an enhanced system" of fourteen (14) "enduring bases" that are "designed to last for years.
Experts were correct to believe the U.S. should have employed a much larger military force when invading Iraq, especially for maintaining civil order once the occupation began. On the other hand, chaos has the advantage of demonstrating to occupation critics the need for a permanent U.S. military presence. It remains to be seen whether, under U.S. control, an effective Iraqi army and police force can ever be established. Although Iraq poses no real danger to the United States as a nation, a simmering Iraq gives the Bush Pentagon an excuse for maintaining a significant number of U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil. Better safe, they might argue, than sorry.
Two redundant questions regarding a "rebuilt" Iraqi military:
1. Will an Iraqi air force be re-established capable of repelling threats from outside the country?
2. Will the Iraqi military be independent and provided with military hardware (tanks, missiles, etc.) capable not only of repelling attacks from foreign entities and also capable of launching an invasion of neighboring nations?
Consider. In May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We'll have as many forces in the country as is necessary to see that there is a secure environment.'' Nearly one year later Rumsfeld ruminated, "[M]y personal view is that the Iraqis are going to be better able to provide for their own security, more likely to make progress with respect to their economic and--and--and essential service side of the equation if, in fact, there's an Iraqi face on the government and that they have a voice and some important role in governing their country."
The Iraqi military will not be revived to the extent it could pose a "danger" or an "imminent threat" to anyone outside its borders. In all matters foreign and domestic, there will be an "Iraqi face" and they will have "some important role" in the nation's affairs.
Interviewed on ABC's This Week program, Secretary of State Powell said, "We will continue to have 100,000 troops there, helping them with their security as their own security forces show greater ability to protect the population. We'll also have a very large embassy." (March 14, 2004)
In February 2004, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seconded Rumsfeld, stating it is unlikely an Iraqi government will ask the U.S. to leave Iraq. Then Myers added, "And our help's going to be needed for some time. If nothing else, think about the external threats to Iraq. Certainly, the new Iraqi army's not going to be up to that in terms of size, or their training."
These revealing statements set forth Iraq's future, the performance of which will be stage managed by the United States, not for a year but, in Gen. Jay Garner's words, "the next few decades. (Congress Daily, February 6, 2004)
If Iraq is threatened from outside, the U.S. will come to the rescue with our military might including continued use of National Guard and Reserves. Should those forces dwindle, re-introduction of the military draft will follow. By means of this political strategy, employment figures at home will be boosted, giving President Bush a means of claiming an improved economy as new workers are hired to fill the shoes of those sent east in combat boots.
Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure will drag on for years. The contracts granted to U.S. corporations will continue as long as our semi-privatized military and our palatial embassy remain in Iraq. Delaying and prolonging reconstruction has advantages. Men sitting endlessly in line to fill their cars' gas tanks will not be making mischief somewhere else. Families who must wait hours for electricity to come on are tied to their homes by necessity. Water is necessary for life. Its absence weakens the healthy and debilitates those who are ill. Unpurified water may cause sickness among those who are not immune to impurities. Negatively rationing water leads to restricted activity and cloudy mental processes. Our model here: the old Hollywood westerns: He who controls the energy and water supplies controls the territory.
The cowboys are in charge. To borrow from President Bush, we will be in Iraq "As long as it takes." Whether a compliant press will ever ask President Bush and John Kerry for their views on this issue seems doubtful. The cost of building and maintaining at least 100,000 troops on ground in Iraq is unknown, as are estimates of the number of lives that may (surely will) be lost over a period of (say) fifty years. Will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be wounded or murdered in Baghdad? Perhaps these matters are not to be discussed in polite patriotic society. Is "Bring the Troops Home" already a lost cause?
How does the Bush Administration respond to the question of lives lost as a result of our good-will efforts to remake Iraq in our own image? Neo-con Bush booster William Kristol, Chairman of the Project for the New American Century, gave what might be the answer when he told the Diane Rehm Show, "I am very comfortable defending the morality of the current situation." Kristol's comfortable position is cold comfort to those who must serve in harms way and those who suffer loss as the war of occupation drags on for decades, draining money and blood from Americans.
The Bush Administration was quite aware no weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to our invading and occupying forces. The Big Lie was bigger than most folks realized. Contrary to critics who believe the administration has no "plan" for post-invasion Iraq, the plan is obvious to any willing to examine what has happened, what is happening and what is being said. The years those neo-conservatives spent dreaming of their golden opportunity to appropriate Iraq were not spent in idleness. The puzzle fits.
Oh, and one more thing . . .
Oil.
Doug Giebel is a writer and analyst who lives in Big Sandy, Montana. His essay "When Professors Cheat" is soon to be published by Mellen Press. He welcomes comments at dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net.
Weekend Edition Features for March 20 / 21, 2004 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
