OCR Text |
Show IRAQ 6G the CALL of EMPIRE AN By Lance Christie Naturally, the common people don’t want war....But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship....All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” | -Hermann Goering Virtually every day the Utah media report on military reservists being called up and sent off to the Middle East in preparation for war against Iraq. The George II Administration and Britain were quick to find fault with Iraq's 22,000-page accounting for their weapons of mass destruction efforts, prepared in a few weeks by a nation that has about the word processing technology of the SE Utah Association of Local Governments. However, so far the inspectors in Iraq, even with the report as a guide, have found nothing to‘challenge the report's claims. I think that the George II Administration aspires to invade Iraq and to remain there indefinitely for the reasons stated in the Administration's published National Security Strategy and earlier policy documents by the same authors. These policy goals are to secure US military basing in the Middle East from which to impose the “Pax Americana” called for in the Strategy, and to secure and control production of eleven percent of the world's petroleum supply. Viewed from the realpolitik perspective of Niccolo Machiavelli or Otto von Bismark, this strategy is a brilliant if cynical means of pursuing national military security and economic interests. However, there are some likely “unintended consequences” which might lead to different and less happy outcomes for the USA than I presume the George II Administration wishes to achieve with this adventurism. EXPANDED VERSION OF LANCE CHRISTIE'S ESSAY, UPDATED ON MARCH 19, APPEARS IN THE ON=EINES VERSION OF THE ZEPRIVR. given that the authors of the 2000 report are now policymakers in the George II administration. Paul Wolfowitz is 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 Gross are members of the Defense Policy Board; Dov Zakheim is the Defense Department comptroller; and I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. In his foreign policy debates with Al Gore, candidate George W. Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy. His position appealed to voters leery of military intervention by the USA. I cannot tell whether the attacks of 9-11 suddenly caused Bush to start listening to Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other Project 2000 group and change his mind about international military interventionism, or whether Bush did not reveal his true intentions during the election campaign. "At no time in history y\ oe ieee has the international security order a National Security Strategy The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a document in which each presidential administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush Administration's NSS, published September 20, marks a significant departure from previous NSSs, a change the administration attributes largely to the attacks of September 11. To address the terrorism threat, the NSS lays out an aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing preemptive 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 NSS asserts. It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic. 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. 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 NSS warns. The language of the NSS derives from a report published in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the U.S. might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire. The 2000 report stated, “At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this ‘American peace.'” Most of what the 2000 Project report advocates, the George II Administration has tried to accomplish, which is no surprise given the authors of the report were appointed senior George II Administration policymakers and wrote the 2002 National Security Policy: been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this "American Peace." Project for the New American Century Oil and the Economy 1. 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. Donald Kagan of Yale served as co-chairman of the New Century project. He believes the US should establish permanent military bases in post-war Iraq. “We will probably need 2. The report recommended increasing defense spending from 3% to 3.8% of the gross domestic product in order to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana. The Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP. 3. The report advocates “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 Donald Rumsfeld and other appointees. 4. The report 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 house approved development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator that the Bush administration asked for. 5. The report identifies Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, complaining that “past Pentagon wargames gave given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power.” President Bush labeled these nations “the axis of evil” and says he aspires to remove these regimes from power. 6. To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform “constabulary duties,” and says that such actions “demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.” Bush is proposing the U.S. act as world policeman in Iraq if the U.N. will not act. ; 7. The report states we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.” According to leading oil expert Colin Campbell, two of the nations that will achieve peak production of petroleum last-- well into the next decade--are Saudi Arabia which has 23% of the planet's oil, and Iraq, which has 11% of the planet's oil, or 112 billion barrels. Some analysts believe unexplored potential in Iraq is greater. The United States will have to import 90% of its oil by 2020 to meet the current annual level of demand. “Oil spikes inevitably lead to [economic] recession,” he says. The September 30, 2002, U.S. News and World Report article “Future Shock” states that many in the U.S. oil industry foresee a scenario in which the unseating of Saddam Hussein opens up vast new oil resources, lowering prices and altering the politics of world oil. Oil is currently trading around $30 a barrel, which analysts agree includes a $5-7 “war premium” reflecting uncertainty over the effects of a U.S. attack on Iraq on world oil flow. Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisors in St. Louis, says a $10 rise in the price of oil will cut U.S. economic growth by one half percent over the following four quarters; that would currently amount to a $30 billion loss of growth. The U.S. oil industry is now relegated largely to expensive deep-sea and Arctic production expansion. In 1999, 50 foreign oil companies attended an exhibition in Baghdad at which Saddam sought new investment to develop Iraq's oil fields after U.N. sanctions were lifted. Iraq signed deals with French, Russian, and Chinese oil companies. All three countries are members of the U.N. Security Council, and observers agree the contracts were designed to give Iraq leverage over these countries. If the U.S. invades Iraq and installs a pro-West government protected by permanent U.S. military bases, would U.S. oil companies gain access? Would Iraq then pump out enough oil to challenge Saudi Arabia's domination of the world oil market and-lower prices to a stable level beneficial to U.S. economic growth? A number of commentators certainly seem to hope this is what would happen. In an October 14 article, U.S. News editor David Gergen summarizes a theme among “conservatives” he spoke with: “Once a U.S.-friendly regime is in place in Baghdad, the thinking goes, America will gain substantial influence over the second-largest supply of oil Europe, in Latin America, and in Southeast Asia. The 2000 report acknowledges its debt to a document drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was written by Paul Wolfowitz, then the defense undersecretary for policy. The 1992 document also had the US imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When released in draft form it met so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by George I. The close tracking of the 2000 recommendations to current policy is not surprising, PAGEI8 |