By Chris Floyd - The Moscow Times April 29, 2003.
As we all know, the
rape of Iraq (or as future historians will doubtless call
it, "The Dawn of the Shiite Empire") was planned openly
several years ago by a hard-right agitprop cell led by Dick
Cheney and Don
Rumsfeld.
|
Some cynics claim that George W. Bush and his closest advisors -- whom cynics refer to as "bloodthirsty corporate pimps" -- are just a bunch of vicious, shifty liars. But this column takes enormous umbrage at the heaping of such unsupported calumny upon the good names of these great leaders. They have been maligned, slandered, falsely accused. For when it comes to their plans for world conquest, these so-called "pimps" are as honest as the day is long.
As we all know, the rape of Iraq
(or as future historians will doubtless call it, "The Dawn of the
Shiite Empire") was planned openly several years ago by a hard-right
agitprop cell led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Now it turns out
that the recent big-monkey chest-beating aimed at Syria -- threats
of sanctions, "surgical" strikes, and "regime change" -- was also
carefully planned, by many of the same people, long before the Bush
Regime seized power.
As we've often reported here, in
September 2000 the Cheney-Rumsfeld outfit, Project for the New
American Century, proudly published their blueprint for the direct
imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the
Middle East. They even foresaw the need for what they called a
"Pearl Harbor-type event" to galvanize the American public into
supporting their ambitious program. Their reasons for this program
were also stated quite openly: to ensure U.S. political and economic
domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or
any viable alternative to the rapacious crony capitalism favored by
the PNAC extremists. This dominance would be enforced by the
ever-present threat -- and frequent application -- of violence. (A
tactic known elsewhere as "terrorism.")
PNAC was also very honest about
the role of Iraq in this crusade for empire, stating plainly that
the need for a U.S. military presence in the area "superseded" the
"issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." There was no sanctimonious
posturing about "liberation," weapons of mass destruction or
terrorist connections. To dominate the oil wealth centered in that
region -- and hence the economic/political development of the world
in the coming decades -- they needed a military presence in Iraq;
it's as simple as that.
And now they've got it. Again,
it's all quite open -- for anyone who cares to look. Last week, the
Pentagon announced that it "expects" (i.e., "demands") to have
"long-term access" to at least four major military bases in Iraq,
The New York Times reports. (Rumsfeld -- or "Shifty" as cynics like
to call him -- later issued a weasel-worded non-denial denial.)
Although the hundreds of thousands of armed and angry Shiite Muslims
currently clamoring for an Islamic state in Bush's new satrapy may
yet cause a spot of bother for the sahibs, for now the generals and
arms dealers installed as Iraq's new rulers believe they will still
be sitting pretty in Fort Pretzel and Carlyle Air Base throughout
the "new American century." This was, after all, the purpose of the
recent slaughter -- as Cheney and Rumsfeld told us plainly years
ago.
A few
months before PNAC's prophetic 2000 report, an allied group with an
overlapping membership published a similar document outlining steps
to be taken against Syria: first "tightening the screws" with
denunciations and economic sanctions, then escalating to military
action, as Jim Lobe of Inter-Press Agency reports. The architects of
this document included Elliot Abrams, the convicted perjurer now
running Bush's Middle East policy; Douglas Feith, one of Shifty's
top aides; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary to Colin Powell, and
influential Pentagon advisors such as David Wurmser, Michael Leeden
and everyone's sweetheart, Richard "Influence-Peddler" Perle.
The report sprang largely from
the loins of the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon, a
curious grouping of right-wing American Christians, right-wing
American Jews, and a sprinkling of Lebanese exiles. They object --
rightly -- to the fact that Syria has maintained "long-term access
to major military bases" in Lebanon, using this minatory presence to
exercise undue sway over Lebanon's political and economic life. Of
course, some cynics would say this situation is remarkably akin to
Israel's own 18-year occupation of, er, Lebanon, or the United
States' decades-long -- and still-continuing -- military presence in
Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Panama, etc. But you
know what cynics are like.
The USCFL also provides highly
insightful and very nearly literate analyses of vital regional
issues, such as its seminal paper, "Even Arabs Don't Like Arabs."
But the mindset of the group -- whose members now stalk the
corridors of power in Imperial Washington -- is perhaps best
displayed in its thoughtful 2001 treatise, "A Petition Demanding War
Against Governments That Sponsor Terrorism" (Except, of course, for
governments who enforce their will by the ever-present threat and
use of violence -- i.e. terrorism -- but are run by nice white men
educated at Yale and Oxford.)
Here, the proto-Bushist group
demands that six "rogue nations" -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran,
Libya and Sudan -- "turn over their governments to the United
States" on pain of massive military response. The United States will
then "occupy these territories until proper governments" -- ones
that allow "long-term access" to major military bases, no doubt --
"can be established." And just how massive should that threatened
U.S. military response be? The USCFL is, as always, admirably -- and
brutally -- forthright: "America must set a clear example-identical
to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you tread on me, I will wipe
you off the face of the earth."
Is this what the Bushists are
really talking about in their fear-mongering diatribes about seeing
"terrorism's smoking gun in a mushroom cloud"?
|
|