|
Events
may be conspiring to deny George W. Bush and his war-maddened
advisors the chance to implement their plan for the
conquest and occupation of Iraq. To begin with, the
United Nations Security Council has been turned into
the first battlefield in this war, and it doesn't look
good for the War Party. As the Anglo-American proposal
to unleash the dogs of war was raised in the latest
session, France, Germany, and Russia were quick
to offer their own resolution – giving Iraq another
120 days to comply. By that time, even if the Iraqis
still refuse to cooperate, summertime in the desert
would make warfare on the ground difficult if not impossible.
Another
obstacle looming large is Turkey's
continued unwillingness to allow U.S. troops on
its soil, even in exchange for a generous bribe. And
supposing they eventually cave, a crucial question is
the number of troops they'll permit in the country,
and for how long. Before the U.S. can open up the crucial
northern front in the administration's invasion plan,
the Turks must not only negotiate their price but also
convince Turkish legislators to accept the deal – by
no means a foregone conclusion.
And
on the other side of the world, the North Koreans are
demanding
our attention. As Colin Powell, Japanese Prime Minister
Junichero Koizumi, and other dignitaries arrived in
Seoul to attend the inauguration ceremony installing
Roh Moo-hyun as South Korea's new President, the North
Koreans launched a missile into the Sea of Japan, as
if to say: "Trouble
is on the way."
Trouble
on the home front has already arrived, at least for
the President and the GOP. Antiwar sentiment is on the
rise, with a number of congressional Republicans deeply
troubled by what they're hearing from their constituents.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
"With
the U.S.-Iraq showdown possibly headed to a climax,
many Republicans who have spent months staunchly behind
President Bush's hard-line posture are confronting anxiety,
skepticism and some outright opposition among their
constituents."
"…
Even some members of Bush's own party are expressing
concern about the need for more allied support. 'Today,
America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency
of the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein,' Sen.
Charles Hagel (R-Neb.) said
in a speech Thursday at Kansas State University.
'America must balance its determination with patience
and not be seen as in a rush to war.'"
Richard
Lugar is another prominent Senator who wishes the President
would cool
down the war fever at the White House, just
a bit, and the Indiana Republican is far from alone
on his side of the aisle. According to Capitol Hill
Blue, some of the President's advisors are beginning
to counsel backing away from the brink:
"Some
strategists within the Bush Administration are urging
the President to look for an 'exit strategy' on Iraq,
warning the tough stance on war with the Arab country
has left the country in a 'no win' situation."
More
good news:
"In
addition, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate
are telling the President privately that he is losing
support in Congress for a 'go it alone war' against
Iraq. 'The President's war plans are in trouble, there's
no doubt about that,' says an advisor to House Speaker
Dennis J. Hastert. 'Some Republican members want a vote
on military action and some of those say they would,
at this point, vote against such action.'"
But
not that good:
"Some
White House advisors are urging the President to consider
complying with the UN position or to look for other
'face saving' ways to avoid war with Iraq. President
Bush, however, is reported to be 'hanging tough' on
plans to invade Iraq, even though his closest advisors
tell him such a move could be 'disastrous' politically."
When
a Republican strategist confides that he's advising
his clients to distance themselves from Bush and his
war, you know that something is up:
"Republican
campaign strategist Vern Wilson says he is advising
his clients to 'put some distance between themselves
and the President' on war with Iraq. 'When you have
former military leaders questioning the wisdom of war,
then you have Vietnam and Gulf War veterans marching
against the war, when you have Republicans in Congress
questioning the President's judgment, it tells me we
could have a problem,' Wilson said."
If
the President isn't even listening to his own supporters,
then the whole question of just what this war is really
about looms larger and ever more mysterious. Why is
Bush 43 willing to alienate not only our allies overseas,
but an increasing number of prominent Republican office-holders?
Among the most bothered and bewildered are state and
local officials, already
burdened with extra costs, forced to watch as Turkey
openly extorts $24 billion from the U.S. Treasury
– and then rejects
it as too little! It's a bitter pill for grassroots
Republicans to swallow while their own voters face steep
tax hikes or politically
difficult cuts to cover record deficits.
Brent
Scowcroft, the Pentagon,
and more
than six million antiwar marchers planet-wide have
all registered their protests, to no avail, and now
the polls and his fellow Republicans are telling the
President the same thing: lay off, George. But the Cowboy
Caesar is deaf to their pleas, and gives every indication
that he just can't wait to cross that Rubicon. What
kind of hold does the War Party have on this guy that
he would be willing to sacrifice so much? Is it blackmail,
or a simple case of demonic possession?
Although
a case might be made for the latter, the former, it
seems to me, is closer to the truth, at least in a metaphorical
sense. One of the great strategic advantages of the
War Party is that it's a bipartisan affair: they effectively
control the leadership of both parties. So if the Republican
wing starts to waffle, the Democratic branch office
moves in to close the deal. Writing in the Washington
Post, Richard Holbrooke, the shadow Secretary of
State in the Democrats' putative cabinet, attacked
the Bushies for being insufficiently warlike:
"In
a roughly similar situation, in 1999, the Clinton administration
and our NATO allies decided to bomb Serbia (for 77 days)
without even seeking UN approval, after it became clear
that Russia would veto any proposal. This contrast with
the supposedly muscular Bush administration is especially
odd when one considers that Saddam Hussein is far worse
than Slobodan Milosevic, and that Iraq has left a long
trail of violated Security Council resolutions, while
there were none on Kosovo."
The
Democrats are now sending the same message as the neoconservative
wing of the GOP: to heck with consulting anyone outside
of Washington, screw that second resolution, and let's
roll! Joe Loserman
and Dick Gephardt are waiting in the wings to use that
line if the President fails to, and that is Karl Rove's
greatest fear. Or perhaps there is one greater….
With
the outflanking of the GOP on the war question, the
way is paved for a series of attacks smearing the Bush
family as a tool of Saudi interests. We have already
seen a
few trial balloons
floating overhead, and if Bush backs down the War Party
will certainly turn on him with all the viciousness
they once reserved for the antiwar movement. In the
neoconservative demonology, the Saudis are identified
as the epicenter of evil, the world capital of "Islamo-fascism,"
and the cradle of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden's implacable hostility
to the House of Saud, and his stated aim of overthrowing
it, are irrelevant to the advocates of this theory,
whose analysis of the forces at work in the Middle East
never rises much above the level of a comic book. Such
a view, however crude, has its uses….
Here
is where the completely erroneous "war for oil"
mantra of the antiwar left serves the political purposes
of the pro-war Lieberman-Gephardt-Beinart
Democrats. Having portrayed George W. Bush as the pawn
of the Texas oil barons, the liberal wing of the War
Party can stand the "no war for oil" slogan
on its head, and accuse Bush of "appeasing"
the antiwar Saudis and other regional powers in the
interests of Big Oil.
Well,
then, if this
isn't a war for oil profits, then why is the President
defying not only most of the rest of the world, but
also the best advice of those who wish him well? Both
Michael Kinsley
and Arnaud
de Borchgrave, two very smart people with very different
politics, have come up with the
same answer. The latter said it most recently, and
the former Washington Times editor's column on
the subject was
cited by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press"
in a joint interview with congressman Dennis Kucinich
and neocon "Prince
of Darkness" Richard Perle:
"Mr.
Perle, there's been discussion about the role of Israel
and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding
Iraq. Let me show you an article from the Washington
Times, written
by Arnaud de Borchgrave:
"'The
strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern
stability. The destabilization of 'despotic regimes'
comes next. In the Arab bowling alley, one ball aimed
at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would
discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes
in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf emirates
and sheikdoms. The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded
by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelis – soon
to be surrounded by 300 million Arabs – with peace and
security for at least a generation. ...The roots of
the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published
in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document
was titled 'A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm.'
...Israel, according to the 1996 paper, would 'shape
its strategic environment,' beginning with the removal
of Saddam Hussein... ...Prominent American opinion-makers
who are now senior members of the Bush administration
participated in the discussions and the drafting that
led to this 1996 blueprint.'
Glancing
up from his notes, Russert turned to Perle, looked him
in the eye and said:
"
Can you assure American viewers across our country that
we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his
removal for American security interests? And what would
be the link in terms of Israel?"
Although
one of Perle's Pentagon proteges brought in during the
Reagan administration was investigated "on
suspicion of passing classified military information
to the Embassy of Israel and an Israeli Defense Ministry
official," this is the closest anyone has ever
come to calling him an agent of Israel. But he didn't
even blink – the snake! – and slithered out of answering
the question with admirable ease:
"Well,
first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of
us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam
doesn't disarm – and I doubt that he's going to – believe
it's in the best interests of the United States. I don't
see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with
democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic,
we'd live in a much safer international security system
because democracies do not wage aggressive wars."
Never
mind the whole world – what about Iraq? Why that particular
nation, in that particular region of the world? Why
are all the countries listed Israel's worst enemies?
Where is China, where the gulag rivals Stalin's and
may even surpass it, in this Axis of Asiatic Evil, or
the crypto-authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin, whose
cult of personality is rapidly reaching Stalinesque
proportions? No doubt their turn will come soon enough,
but if there is meaning in the order of our chosen targets,
then what is it? Kinsley provides us with a clue to
the mystery:
"The
lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in
the thinking of 'President Bush' is easier to understand,
but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant
in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.
The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters
nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the
classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers
whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country
to foreign interests. But the consequence of this massive
'Shhhhhhhhh!' is to make a perfectly valid American
concern for a democratic ally in a region of nutty theocracies,
rotting monarchies, and worse seem furtive and suspicious."
Kinsley
is right, but for one important matter: this is not
about the influence of Jews in the GOP, and the corridors
of power, but of the Israeli government and its
agents, conscious or unconscious – most of whom are
fundamentalist
Christians, or plain ordinary
conservative Republicans. Now that even Tim Russert
is asking about the central role played by Israel and
its amen corner in fomenting the war on Iraq, Paul
Craig Roberts gets the prediction of the year award
for writing in his New Year's column:
"In
2003 the story will be confirmed that the U.S. invasion
of Iraq was a secret Israeli plan designed to involve
the U.S. long-term in the Arab-Israeli conflict, cynically
sold to the Bush White House by neoconservatives as
a reelection strategy."
–
Justin Raimondo
|
comments
on this article?
|
|
|
Please Support Antiwar.com
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or Contribute
Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
contributions are now tax-deductible
|
