<http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281> ... Q: You mentioned Iran earlier. What do you see happening there?
A: The 2002 national security strategy—which the Bush administration used as a blueprint for initiation of a policy of… regional transformation in the Middle East—only mentioned Iraq once, and yet it was used as a document to set forth the events that led to the invasion of Iraq. The 2006 version of this mentions Iran 16 times as the No. 1 threat to the security of the United States of America. And it does not reject a preemptive war of aggression. In fact, in addition to not rejecting it, or not ruling it out, it embraces it; despite how bad things have gone in Iraq, it continues to say this was the right thing to do. Left with that, I don't think anyone could question the motivation of the Bush administration, which is to continue with regional transformation policies in the Middle East that revolve around regime change, which means that's what our goal is vis-à-vis Iran.
That's why when I speak of Iran, I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It's the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn't care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn't matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.
Q: How can we do that, given the depletion of our military forces?
A: I always love to hear civilians say that—no offense. I hear it over and over again with the civilian generals, the civilian warriors, the people who aren't planning the military actions, who aren't sitting on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who don't occupy seats of authority in the Pentagon.
You'd be surprised what kind of plans are being hatched up right now—plans that include covert action; plans that include massive aerial bombardment, according to Seymour Hersh's recent article in The New Yorker; plans that include massive aerial bombardment that incorporate the possibility, or some would say the probability, of nuclear weapons. And if you go to the School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as I have several times, you'll see the maps on the wall clearly indicate an American interest in pushing forces into Azerbaijan. Why? It neighbors Iran. Why is that important? The shortest route to Tehran is down the Caspian Sea coast, [where] the Army is planning an incursion right now.
We civilians may say there's not enough troops. We don't count. The military believes they can do this mission, and they are planning to do this mission because they have received the political guidance from their commander-in-chief to accomplish this mission. That's the only reality that counts. None of the pundits that appear on TV, none of the ill-informed people writing op-eds have a vote in this matter. The only votes that count are those who have the authority to order military action and implement those orders, and that's the president, his inner circle and the military, and they are preparing for war with Iran as we speak.
Q: You've said Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it's wrong; you say they're against it because we're losing. Is it just that Americans don't like getting their asses kicked?
A: I'm saying Americans don't know enough about anything to have a well-informed opinion; this is all superficial. At the end of the day, yeah, we don't like to get our asses kicked. We have a lot of national pride that's based around the notion that we can kick anybody's ass—we're the biggest, baddest boys on the block. And in Iraq, we're not winning, so a lot of Americans have their ruffles up. I guarantee you, had we invaded Iraq, had it gone easily—let's say it went as easily as it appeared to go; we got rid of Saddam, we bring down the statue and peace and prosperity breaks out—there'd be a small, little element in the so-called anti-war movement; they'd be screaming about violation of law, etc. They'd be shouted down by the vast majority of Americans who would thump their chests with national pride and say, "No, we did the right thing. To hell with international law. We got rid of Saddam. We've instilled democracy. And it's a good thing we did."
Of course, things have gone sour, and now a lot of Americans are jumping on the bandwagon of "Hey, we shouldn't have gone there." But, again, at what point in time, I ask these newfound converts to the anti-war movement, did this become a bad war? See, that's a key question people have to ask. I say it was a bad war the day we invaded Iraq, because it's an illegal war. It's totally out of keeping with my personal vision of what America stands for—you know, a nation of laws, the rule of law; we stand for individual freedoms and liberties and justice; we stand for the Bill of Rights; we stand for a whole bunch of things. But we don't stand for planning and implementing wars of aggression.
I don't think America represents a nation that embraces war crimes, and a lot of people were willing to sweep all this under the rug had we won, had we been victorious, which tells me that they have a superficial understanding of what the United States represents, or they don't agree with what the United States represents and they have a new vision of what America should be—perhaps a global empire. Who knows. ...
-- Andy