The goal of American foreign policy has long been
the replacement – by force, if "necessary" – of existing "criminal" regimes,
with regimes sycophantic to us.
Criminal regimes. Like that of the late Saddam Hussein.
What makes a regime criminal?
Well, for self-styled liberal interventionists, it’s human rights abuse, ethnic
cleansing and genocide.
For self-styled neoconservative interventionists, it’s just thinking about
acquiring nukes or the makings thereof and having missiles that can reach Israel.
So, when Clinton attempted to achieve regime change in Iraq circa
Christmas, 1998, from 20,000 feet, he got the support of the neo-crazies
by accusing the on-the-ground United Nations inspectors of being incompetent
or worse for failing to find the missiles capable of reaching Israel and "weapons
of mass destruction" our "intelligence" said Saddam had.
The liberal interventionists went along with that fiction because they knew
Clinton’s real rationale for the bombing was Saddam’s "human rights" abuses.
Congress – chock full of interventionists – had paved the way by passing the
Act of 1998:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence
of a democratic government to replace that regime."
However, the interventionists – in and out of government – soon realized that
bombing the gee-whiz out of a country from 20,000 feet was unlikely to result
in the people being bombed rising up and changing their regime. It would take
an invasion and lengthy occupation.
The interventionists also determined that the only rationale the American public
would buy for invading and occupying any country would be proof positive that
the "criminal" regime posed a direct threat to our National Security.
So, when terrorists associated with radical Middle Eastern organizations such
as al-Qaeda succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, on live TV, killing
thousands of Americans in the process, interventionists – in and out of government
– saw a "heaven-sent" opportunity.
Almost immediately Congress gave President Bush a blank
check, authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
The rationale for the use of such force was "to prevent any future acts of
Henceforth, all Bush had to do before launching a pre-emptive attack on any
nation, organization or persons was to tell Congress he had determined – despite
a total lack of evidence – that the attack was necessary "to prevent future
acts of international terrorism."
So Bush "determined" that Saddam had aided Al-Qaeda and now had – or soon would
have – nukes to give to Islamic terrorists who would somehow use them against
us or Israel.
Congress, of course, never questioned that "determination."
Now, in the Iran Freedom
Support Act of 2006, Congress "found" that
"The United States and the international community face no greater threat
to their security than the prospect of rogue regimes who support international
terrorism obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and particularly nuclear weapons."
Furthermore, "Iran is the leading state sponsor of international terrorism
and is close to achieving nuclear weapons."
So, the 109th (GOP-controlled) Congress – chock full of international
interventionists – has already established the basis for Bush doing unto Iran
what he did to Iraq.
Even still, in an address
to the nation this week, wherein Bush was supposedly telling us how he planned
to get us out of the "situation" he got us into in Iraq that is "unacceptable
to the American people," it was somewhat surprising that Bush claimed:
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and
stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with
addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents
to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material
support for attacks on American troops.
"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of
support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing
advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
"We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect
American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of
an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing
and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
"We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve
problems along their border.
"And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons
and dominating the region."
Bush is going to "seek out and destroy" the "networks" in Iran and Syria
that he suspects are providing "training" to "our enemies" in Iraq?
Our enemies in Iraq?
And who might they be? The Iraqis who also find the current situation in Iraq
– the American occupation – "unacceptable"?
Bush has sent an additional American aircraft-carrier strike force to
the Persian Gulf?
To strike who? Where? Why?
Bush is deploying Patriot ballistic-missile defense systems in Kuwait and Iraq?
To shoot down whose ballistic missiles?
To "reassure" whom?
And who do you suppose we’re going to "work with" to prevent Iran from diverting
its peaceful nuclear energy programs – currently safeguarded by the International
Atomic Energy Agency – to a military purpose?
Well, certainly not the IAEA.
Will the 110th (Democrat-controlled) Congress – also chock full
of international interventionists – allow Bush to implement his latest "plan"?
Well, that depends upon whether an aroused citizenry holds enough Congresspersons’
feet to the fire.
And there’s some hope.
Senator Evan Bayh (D, IN) has just announced
he won’t be a candidate for President in 2008 after all.
Well, he has concluded that after seeing the unacceptable mess the interventionists
have gotten us in to in Iraq, you red-blooded American voters don’t want another
interventionist President getting us into another unacceptable mess.
"You just hope that we haven’t soured an entire generation on the necessity,
from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle.
"That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They’re everything
we thought Iraq was but wasn’t. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support
terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they’ve threatened us,
Tragic, Yo Mama!