Home Politics & Debate

The president's real goal in Iraq

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the
Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always
seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that
smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on
such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something
was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into
place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about
weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of
the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole
responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the
culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those
who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global
domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our
enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example,
why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from
Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will
create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the
Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside
that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other
nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II
ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same
in Iraq.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and
deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if
it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of
American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not
stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of
brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush
administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they
call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the
American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in
which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country.
The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant
departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to
the attacks of Sept. 11.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly
aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack
against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls
"American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that
suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document
It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of
"convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic
domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international
treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark
expansion of our global military presence.
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as
temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S.
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however,
because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not
inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same
language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New
American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the
thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global
"At no time in history has the international security order been as
conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two
years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and
enhance this 'American peace.' "
Familiar themes
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense
policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to
accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the
anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense
system. The administration has taken that course.
It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax
Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from
3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next
year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379
billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its
expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense
programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message
being preached by Rumsfeld and others.
It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting
the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many
of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the
Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly
surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to
the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is
undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office
of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are
members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis
Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is
comptroller for the Defense Department.
'Constabulary duties'
Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the
project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in
drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly
identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well
before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report,
they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq,
"past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force
requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these
regimes from power."
To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be
required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as
policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American
political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to
challenge the United States,the report advocates a much larger military
presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130
nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the
Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia,
where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the
mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration
rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as
our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier
document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had
also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world,
imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic
power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much
criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first
President Bush.
Effect on allies

[URL= http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm[/URL]

http://hometown.aol.com/orbanadarkstar/index.html http://hometown.aol.com/orbanadarkstar/index.html


  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Absolutely correct!
    I agree with your every word.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you are going to cut and paste an article into a thread please try and get the spacing right.

    I suggest you have a read on www.newamericancentury.org and see who is behind this movement in the US. Truely scary stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.