The Guardian July 9, 2003


Out of their own mouths (Part 3)
Iraq, a battle in a longer war

by Anna Pha

Dig a little deeper than the rhetoric and lies of politicians and their 
propagandists, and one will find the advisers and ideologues who develop 
and dictate policy on behalf of the corporate sector. They are to be found 
in the various think-tanks, on government advisory bodies, in the corridors 
of academia and in the corporate board rooms. This is the third and final 
article in a series looking at what some of these power brokers are saying 
and their plans for a new US imperial order. The first two articles and 
some background details on the power brokers quoted in the series can be 
found in the previous two issues of The Guardian (25-6-03 & 2-7-
03).

"With Saddam Hussein condemned to the ash-heap of history. The real 
question now is how the United States can leverage its victory in Iraq to 
uphold, expand, and institutionalize Pax Americana." (Thomas Donnelly, 
Preserving American Primacy, Institutionalising Unipolarity, 
American Enterprise Institute (AEI), April 22, 2003)

"`Institutionalising unipolarity' is not an unachievable aim. To begin 
with, Americans have the experience of creating the international 
institutions that helped manage the crises of the cold war; despite their 
recent failures NATO and the United Nations have generally proved to be 
very useful tools of US statecraft", says Donnelly.

The agenda is global domination by US imperialism in a post-Soviet world, 
where all states accept US leadership and "values", adopt "free markets" 
and other IMF and WTO policies or are deemed to be enemies requiring regime 
change and disciplining.

Iran, Syria, Libya, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North 
Korea), the People's Republic of China and Cuba head the list of "rogue 
states" in line for US treatment. They are portrayed as being governed by 
despotic dictatorships, assisting terrorists, possessing weapons of mass 
destruction, selling weapons to failed states, and as posing a danger to 
the freedom loving, democratic, civilised world led by the US.

September 11 and the Bali bombings served them well as excuses to wage "war 
on terrorism". But the Bush administration is now running into difficulties 
with its plans for future wars and conquests as more people come forward 
with information exposing the lies that were used to justify the war 
against and occupation of Iraq. 

The British Government is also facing difficulties as its own MPs and many 
others question the principal reason given for going to war: weapons of 
mass destruction.

"Mother of modern terrorism"

The preparatory work of softening up the public, particularly in the 
Murdoch media, is well under way for future operations in Iran, Syria and 
other countries on the hit list.

"Support for terror is an integral part of both regimes [Iran and Syria], 
and it is impossible to win the war on terrorism so long as the two regimes 
are in power. The good news is that both are very vulnerable to political 
attack", says policy adviser and AEI member Michael Ledeen, ("The End of 
the Beginning", The Spectator, June 28, 2003)

"And if you're going to be serious about that, then dealing with Iran and 
bringing down the regime in Iran is the central act because Iran is the 
world's most dangerous terrorist country. It's the mother of modern 
terrorism. It invented jihadism. It created Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. I 
mean, Iran is the centerpiece of the war." (Michael Ledeen, AEI transcript 
March 21, 2003)

Bombs and missiles are not the only option open for bringing down the 
regime. There are other methods such as covert work, assassinations, coups, 
organising and assisting opposition forces. There are differences in the US 
administration as to the best method of achieving a compliant regime in 
Iran that is to the US's liking.

Former Minister in the Polish Government and leader in Solidarinosc Radek 
Sikorski says: "I have been contacted by Iranian students who want to know 
how we formed Solidarity and how Solidarity worked to overthrow the 
communist regime. Therefore I think Mike [Ledeen] is right." (AEI 
transcript, March 21, 2003)

"In the case of Iran, you really see us more in a diplomatic, 
psychological, political offensive, trying to ally ourselves with younger 
Iranians, rather than in the kind of military operation that we might need, 
say in Baghdad." (arch-reactionary Newt Gingrich, Fox News Channel 
interview May 10, 2002)

Israel

Possession of and development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are used 
as an excuse for economic sanctions, intervention or pre-emptive strike. 
But not when these weapons are in Israel's hands. The US and other Western 
countries have remained deadly silent about Israel's possession of such 
weapons, including nuclear weapons.

Gingrich has no problem in handling that contradiction: "My only comment on 
possession of weapons of mass destruction would be that whether or not 
Israel has them  and everyone agrees they do have them  they clearly 
have refused to use them, and they clearly exist for the purpose of 
deterrence.

Reuel Marc Gerecht of the AEI goes further in defending Israel's possession 
of nuclear weapons. He says "the Israeli nuclear arsenal is I think the 
primary check on the Iranians engaging in what you might call open, 
naughty, aggressive behavior ." (AEI transcript, May 6, 2003) His admission 
of their existence is rare among US and other Western leaders or media.

North Korea

The power brokers have their own plans regarding the re-unification of 
Korea.

"While Korean unification might call for the reduction in American presence 
on the peninsula and a transformation of US force posture in Korea, the 
changes would really reflect a change in their mission  and changing 
technological realities  not the termination of their mission.

"Moreover, in any realistic post-unification scenario, US forces are likely 
to have some role in stability operations in North Korea...it is not too 
early to recognize that the presence of American forces in Korea serves a 
larger and longer-range strategic purpose." (Project for New American 
Century (PNAC) Rebuilding America's Defenses)

Radek Sikorski does not mince words on North Korea either. He is not 
interested in the technical details of its warheads and missiles. "It is 
the nature of the North Korean regime, and not its armaments, that threaten 
us. And that regime is beyond evil. We can only be secure when it finds 
itself on the ash-heap of history where it belongs."

North Korea is both an ideological threat with its socialist path of 
development and also of strategic importance to the US because of its 
border with China.

China

"China is not yet powerful enough to be a challenger to the American 
empire, and the goal of the United States is to prevent that challenge from 
emerging. China will be a major economic and military power in a 
generation" , says Stephen Rosen. (Harvard Magazine, "The Future of 
War and the American Military", May-June 2002)

"If Chinese political reforms are successful, and the Chinese government 
ceases to be a dictatorship the government of China will concentrate on 
improving the lives of its own people, and participating in the world order 
led by the United States", says Rosen.

"Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the 
rise of China to great-power status. For this to proceed peacefully, US 
armed forces must retain their military preeminence and thereby reassure 
our regional allies." (PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses)

Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Japan play a part in providing 
forces, weapons, communications facilities and bases in the plans of the US 
to defeat China.

Cuba

Tiny Cuba only 90 kilometres off the coast of the USA is one of the biggest 
thorns in the side of the Bush administration. It spreads "poison" across 
the Americas by providing free education and health services to its people. 
Its socialist ideology and genuine people's democracy is an anathema to 
everything these right-wing forces stand for.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell challenged the Organisation of American 
States on June 9, 2003, at an annual meeting of Foreign Ministers to join 
the US in finding ways to "hasten the inevitable democratic transition in 
Cuba".

Mark Falcoff, writing for the AEI, speculates on the future of Cuba: "in 
the near and perhaps even the medium term, Fidel Castro has nothing to 
worry about. His control of the island is all but absolute, and he enjoys a 
remarkable degree of support in the foreign press and in the so-called 
international community.

"In the long run, however, his country's future is very problematic indeed 
and intransigent enemy of the United States at the United Nations and the 
so-called nonaligned movement." (June 3, 2003)

United Nations

The US has taken the law into its own hands (not the first time by any 
means), and makes no pretence of respecting international law  except 
when it gets what it wants.

"In the heady aftermath of the Allied victory in the second world war, the 
hope that security could be made collective was reposed in the United 
Nations Security Council  with abject results." (Richard Perle, "United 
They Fall", The Spectator, March 29, 2003)

"The Bush administration went to the UN. They tried to get the support. 
They couldn't get the support. They said, fine, you chose not to support 
us, we're going to go ahead and get the allies we can and do what we think 
is necessary." (Kristol, AEI transcript March 21, 2003, on going to war 
against Iraq)

Perle also has little time for the UN: "Now, for world health and 
agriculture and other things, it's fine, and for peacekeeping, it's fine. 
But we need either new institutions or a radically reformed approach to 
the United Nations if the UN is going to be relevant to the security 
concerns that we now face. (Perle, AEI March 21, 2003)

Ledeen also weighs in: "one of the great accomplishments of the Bush 
administration [was] showing that we don't need the United Nations for 
serious international operations actually it was Clinton who showed that 
because that was Bosnia. Right? The UN voted against Bosnia, and we went 
ahead and did it anyway.

"Sometimes we seem to forget that, you know, as if Bush acting, as the 
rhetoric puts it, in contempt of international opinion and the United 
Nations is something new. It's not new." (Ledeen, AEI, March 21, 2003)

Warning to others

"So what we have produced, I think, is a revolution in military doctrine, a 
revolution in national security doctrine, and also a revolution in the 
region and the world in understanding what the power of the United States 
is and what it is capable of doing. So we ought to do what we have to do, 
alone if we have to." (Krauthammer, AEI April 22, 2003)

Back to index page