What the Bush regime's foreign policy was always about

Charles Jannuzi b_rieux at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 18 22:46:58 PDT 2002


The following article is great, coherent, informative, analytic writing. The whole piece is free online, too. It's about the best summary I know of how US foreign policy got us from there to here. I'm posting just an excerpt. A couple updates are necessary:

1. the significant elements (the ones the US takes seriously) of the anti-Hussein forces are now being called the Iraqi National Coalition (is this the combination of the Congress and the Accord plus some ex-military heavyweights?);

2. the Downing Plan's (basically the plan used to take Afghanistan) originator, Wayne Downing, has resigned from the Bush administration--but considering his 'expertise' and responsibilities in fighting terrorism perhaps the guy ought to be strung up (but then again, perhaps he has revolved out of the caudillo and into some position heading up some sort of parasitic intelligence-military-mercenary-construction (oil pumping) 'services' entity looking for fat contracts in the military-run, post-Hussein Iraq?).

CJ Excerpt and url to whole article follows:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq_Yugoslavia/SlowMotionHolocaust_Iraq.html

As early as the first half of the Clinton administration, US was resorting to proxy war in its campaign against Iraq. In 1994, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) launched an insurrection from a base in Iraqi Kurdistan with US backing, intent on overthrowing the Ba'athist government before it could resume exporting oil. The insurrection was a dismal failure, but that didn't stop Chalabi from co-signing, with Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Donald Rumsfeld, an open letter to President Clinton in 1998, urging a second try. Toward the end of his term, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, allocating $97 million for training and military equipment for Iraqi opposition groups. Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and many other signers of the letter now hold positions in the Bush II administration, where they are counseling an all-out war under the handy pretext of the "War on Terrorism. "

After September 11, 2001, Chalabi presented a new battle plan, featuring a firebase inside Iraq, declaration of a provisional government (with quick US recognition, no doubt), and recruitment among Iraq's Shi'a Muslims. Chalabi's new plan also calls for heavy US bombing and plenty of US Special Forces. Chalabi's plan anticipates multiple threats paralyzing the Iraqi military. General Wayne Downing, a former ad hoc advisor to the INC now (appropriately) serving as the National Security Council's expert on terrorism, apparently believes a few hundred Americans could train a small Iraqi force sufficient to seize an airfield near Iraq's oilfields, and neutralize the Republican Guards. Like Chalabi, Downing claims to believe that modest military successes by the Iraqi opposition will ignite wholesale insurrection. Scott Ritter's assessment lacks such cheerful arrogance. He predicts the Iraqi army would disperse to villages and towns throughout the countryside, and logically asks: "What will we do? Flatten the towns?"

It now appears that the CIA and State Department wish to bypass the INC, focusing instead on the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the pro-lran Supreme Islamic Council for Revolution in Iraq, and the Iraqi National Accord. Ayad Allawi, who heads the Iraqi National Accord, and a number of former Iraqi military officers, including Nizar Khazraji, a Sunni and a former combat general and Chief of Staff, have been meeting with CIA officials.

The Bush II administration's current obsession with overthrowing Saddam Hussein might seem hard to understand at first blush. The Gulf War devastated Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure. According to several UN inspectors, Iraq no longer has any weapons of mass destruction, and as discussed earlier, had developed only limited quantities of them by 1990. Nor could Iraq purchase the components of these weapons under the present sanctions. The obsession may relate to unintended consequences of the sanctions. Under the Oil for Food program, Russian, French, and Chinese companies, have benefited most. These countries have pursued policies less hostile to Baghdad. They are poised to benefit most from exploration and investment in Iraqi oil once the sanctions are lifted. This is likely to prove an excellent investment, since there are more than seventy known oilfields in Iraq, only fifteen of which have been developed. Chalabi has stated that should the INC lead a new Iraqi government, it would be US oil companies that would get the contracts. Russian and French companies would be junior partners at best.

Attacking Iraq directly might also benefit the US further by diverting international attention from the Palestinian Intifada, which shows no sign of abating. The chaos that might ensue from a US attack on Iraq, or Iraqi blows directed at Israel in response, could facilitate even deadlier Israeli repression of the Palestinians, possibly including mass expulsions. It could also provide a cover for greater direct assistance to Israel, including massive arms transfers.

....

One of the major problems facing opponents of the US war against Iraq has been a tendency to focus solely on sanctions and their enormous human cost. The humanitarian crisis must be alleviated. Yet only by carefully examining the full range of geostrategic, economic and political issues in the Gulf region, can we understand how and why Iraq stepped into the Gulf War trap, and why the US has insisted on a deadly regime of sanctions and bombing ever since. Making sense of US policies in the Middle East requires, at a minimum:

* Recognition of the magnitude of the prize that Gulf energy reserves and markets represent, and the bottomless depths of US determination to maintain control over them regardless of the cost.

* Recognition of the importance of Israel as the key US client in the region. The $6 billion annually sent to Israel is not charity. In exchange for this income, Israel, the last European settler-colonial state, has both accepted a role as lightning rod for anti-US sentiments in the Arab world, and assumed anti-democratic counter-insurgency responsibilities in defense of US interests in many other parts of the globe, especially Turkey and Latin America.

* Recognition of the Palestinian struggle as central to the entire political future of the Middle East, and even the world. The question of Palestine is the question of whether Middle Eastern peoples will be allowed to join the international community as equals, or whether they remain brutalized under the humiliating subjection of medieval religious and monarchical regimes suitable to Washington's aims. Iraq has consistently supported Palestinian struggle and aspirations financially, politically and militarily, and this is one of the reasons it has been the target of 12 years of unstinting brutality.

To understand these realities, and to make the case forcefully and relentlessly for an end to US hostility toward Iraq, is the minimum required for anyone seriously interested in putting an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Stephanie Reich is a longtime activist on issues of the Arab world. She is with the Alliance for Global Justice in Washington, D.C.

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list