Fifteen Years of War
Many people are observing the second anniversary of the Iraq War today, but really, the war has been going on for fifteen years.
Think back to the late eighties and early nineties. The fall of Marcos, the freeing of Nelson Mandela, and the end of apartheid, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union after the beating back of the counter-coup by the old Stalinist guard, the fall of Marcos non-violently by “people power,”the fall of the Duvalier regime and the election of Aristide in Haiti —all these events and more like them, gave new optimism to people at that time. To people, that is, not to the repressive, militaristic, right-wing members of the American ruling class. Dick Cheney all along thought Nelson Mandela should remain in prison.
I will never forget the reaction of George Bush the First the day the Berlin Wall fell, when some TV newsperson asked him a question, lobbing him a softball asking “Isn’t this great?” But Bush had this panicked, pained expression on his face. You could tell that he didn’t think it was great at all, but that he knew he had to say it was. Then, when the Stalinists took control and overthrew Gorbachev for a day, the Bush I Administration, immediately issued friendly remarks about the Stalinist generals, saying they were sure they could work with them, etc. Why is this? Part of it, I think, is that the Bush people didn’t like seeing people rise up against corrupt and repressive ruling groups. That hits a little too close to home for them. Also, Gorbachev issued this curse against the American cold-warriors and military-industrial complex: he said he would do the worst possible thing to them, he would take away their enemy.
I also remember the tour of U.S. by Nelson Mandela in the summer of 1990, there was such optimism. Then, shortly after, something happened which seemed to instantly throw the world back into something out of the 1930s: Iraq invaded Kuwait, and there were reports that they were massing troops on the border with Saudi Arabia. It turned out that the massing troops on the border part was a propaganda lie disseminated by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. And as for the “naked agression” of Saddam Hussein, the record of documents and sworn congressional testimony by the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, indicate that the United States gave the green light to Saddam Hussein when he asked if it was okay to invade the border oil fields with Kuwait. It was a trap set by Bush and Saddam fell right into it.
Think about it. The entire fifteen-year (and counting) Iraq War (I say fifteen years because the United States bombed Iraq constantly throughout the nineteen nineties and hundreds of thousands died due to sanctions and the bombed-out infrastructure) was created by the Bush cabal to prevent people power and world peace and to provide an excuse for US military control of the world, beginning with the major oil reserve regions. Before 1990, the United States had no troops to speak of in Saudi Arabia, for example. The reason April Glaspie was instructed to say the United States had no objection to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait was to scare US allies in the Persian Gulf region into accepting more US military bases and to intimidate US opponents with those stationed troops.
It was also, in classic gangster fashion, a display of high-tech destructive power intended to send a message to regional strong men who might be tempted to stop following Washington’s orders. The tragedy is, throughout the whole period beginning with the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was desperate to cut a deal again with the United States, but that was the last thing the leaders in the United States wanted, since they wanted to make an example of Saddam Hussein and to intimidate the rest of the world. Bush administration officials admitted as much in memoirs, saying that the one thing they feared most in the lead-up to the war was that Saddam would accept the terms for peace.
Although the strategic goals were the same, the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations differed sharply on tactics. Bush I and Clinton (notice how well they are getting along lately?) both thought it wise to contain Saddam Hussein, preserve the bogey-man and avoid a messy occupation. That was smart because througout the nineteen-nineties, the world was in awe of US military power. I don’t think that is the case now. A few thousand dollars of rocket-propelled grenades and improvised bombs can easily destroy millions of dollars in US military equipment. Of course, that is no problem for the weapons manufacturers—every time some American equipment blows up, they make more money at taxpayer expense: A win-win for the Bush cabal and their financial backers. It costs even less to blow up an oil pipeline which, come to think of it, is also not a problem for the Bush administration. As long as they have troops stationed in Iraq, they have ultimate control of the oil fields. If Iraqi production ramped up quickly, oil prices wouldn’t rise as much and the oil companies would make less money. So the constant blowing up of oil pipelines is not a problem. They just keep repairing them, again at taxpayer expense and profits for military contractors. Do we want the children of Iraq and the United States killed, maimed and psychologically damaged for this?
Think back to the late eighties and early nineties. The fall of Marcos, the freeing of Nelson Mandela, and the end of apartheid, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union after the beating back of the counter-coup by the old Stalinist guard, the fall of Marcos non-violently by “people power,”the fall of the Duvalier regime and the election of Aristide in Haiti —all these events and more like them, gave new optimism to people at that time. To people, that is, not to the repressive, militaristic, right-wing members of the American ruling class. Dick Cheney all along thought Nelson Mandela should remain in prison.
I will never forget the reaction of George Bush the First the day the Berlin Wall fell, when some TV newsperson asked him a question, lobbing him a softball asking “Isn’t this great?” But Bush had this panicked, pained expression on his face. You could tell that he didn’t think it was great at all, but that he knew he had to say it was. Then, when the Stalinists took control and overthrew Gorbachev for a day, the Bush I Administration, immediately issued friendly remarks about the Stalinist generals, saying they were sure they could work with them, etc. Why is this? Part of it, I think, is that the Bush people didn’t like seeing people rise up against corrupt and repressive ruling groups. That hits a little too close to home for them. Also, Gorbachev issued this curse against the American cold-warriors and military-industrial complex: he said he would do the worst possible thing to them, he would take away their enemy.
I also remember the tour of U.S. by Nelson Mandela in the summer of 1990, there was such optimism. Then, shortly after, something happened which seemed to instantly throw the world back into something out of the 1930s: Iraq invaded Kuwait, and there were reports that they were massing troops on the border with Saudi Arabia. It turned out that the massing troops on the border part was a propaganda lie disseminated by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. And as for the “naked agression” of Saddam Hussein, the record of documents and sworn congressional testimony by the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, indicate that the United States gave the green light to Saddam Hussein when he asked if it was okay to invade the border oil fields with Kuwait. It was a trap set by Bush and Saddam fell right into it.
Think about it. The entire fifteen-year (and counting) Iraq War (I say fifteen years because the United States bombed Iraq constantly throughout the nineteen nineties and hundreds of thousands died due to sanctions and the bombed-out infrastructure) was created by the Bush cabal to prevent people power and world peace and to provide an excuse for US military control of the world, beginning with the major oil reserve regions. Before 1990, the United States had no troops to speak of in Saudi Arabia, for example. The reason April Glaspie was instructed to say the United States had no objection to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait was to scare US allies in the Persian Gulf region into accepting more US military bases and to intimidate US opponents with those stationed troops.
It was also, in classic gangster fashion, a display of high-tech destructive power intended to send a message to regional strong men who might be tempted to stop following Washington’s orders. The tragedy is, throughout the whole period beginning with the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was desperate to cut a deal again with the United States, but that was the last thing the leaders in the United States wanted, since they wanted to make an example of Saddam Hussein and to intimidate the rest of the world. Bush administration officials admitted as much in memoirs, saying that the one thing they feared most in the lead-up to the war was that Saddam would accept the terms for peace.
Although the strategic goals were the same, the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations differed sharply on tactics. Bush I and Clinton (notice how well they are getting along lately?) both thought it wise to contain Saddam Hussein, preserve the bogey-man and avoid a messy occupation. That was smart because througout the nineteen-nineties, the world was in awe of US military power. I don’t think that is the case now. A few thousand dollars of rocket-propelled grenades and improvised bombs can easily destroy millions of dollars in US military equipment. Of course, that is no problem for the weapons manufacturers—every time some American equipment blows up, they make more money at taxpayer expense: A win-win for the Bush cabal and their financial backers. It costs even less to blow up an oil pipeline which, come to think of it, is also not a problem for the Bush administration. As long as they have troops stationed in Iraq, they have ultimate control of the oil fields. If Iraqi production ramped up quickly, oil prices wouldn’t rise as much and the oil companies would make less money. So the constant blowing up of oil pipelines is not a problem. They just keep repairing them, again at taxpayer expense and profits for military contractors. Do we want the children of Iraq and the United States killed, maimed and psychologically damaged for this?
posted by Donald Hunt at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home