The man behind the curtain
Mar. 12th, 2003 07:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teleidoplexA Wilful Blindness
Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has
anything to do with US global domination.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th March 2003
The war in Afghanistan has plainly brought certain benefits to that
country: thousands of girls have gone to school for the first time, for
example, and in some parts of the country women have been able to go back
to work. While over 3000 civilians were killed by the bombing; while much
of the country is still controlled by predatory warlords; while most of
the promised assistance has not materialised; while torture is widespread
and women are still beaten in the streets, it would be wrong to minimise
the gains that have flowed from the defeat of the Taliban. But, and I
realise that it might sound callous to say it, this does not mean that the
Afghan war was a good thing.
What almost all those who supported that war and are now calling for a new
one have forgotten is that there are two sides to every conflict, and
therefore two sets of outcomes to every victory. The Afghan regime
changed, but so, in subtler ways, did the government of the United States.
It was empowered not only by its demonstration of military superiority but
also by the widespread support it enjoyed. It has used the licence it was
granted in Afghanistan as a licence to take its war wherever it wants.
Those of us who oppose the impending conquest of Iraq must recognise that
there's a possibility that, if it goes according to plan, it could improve
the lives of many Iraqi people. But to pretend that this battle begins and
ends in Iraq requires a wilful denial of the context in which it occurs.
That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to
suit itself.
In this week's Observer, David Aaronovitch suggested that, before
September 11, the Bush administration was "relatively indifferent to the
nature of the regimes in the Middle East"1. Only after America was
attacked was it forced to start taking an interest in the rest of the
world.
If Aaronovitch believes this, he would be well-advised to examine the
website of the Project for the New American Century2, the pressure group
established, among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul
Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom
(except the president's brother) are now senior officials in the US
government. Its statement of principles, signed by those men on June 3
1997, asserts that the key challenge for the United States is "to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests"3. This
requires "a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and
future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes
American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the
United States' global responsibilities."4
On January 26 1998, these men wrote to President Clinton, urging him "to
enunciate a new strategy", namely "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
from power."5 If Clinton failed to act, "the safety of American troops in
the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab
states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be
put at hazard." They acknowledged that this doctrine would be opposed, but
"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence
on unanimity in the UN Security Council."6
Last year, the Sunday Herald obtained a copy of a confidential report
produced by the Project in September 2000, which suggested that blatting
Saddam was the beginning, not the end of its strategy. "While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the
need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."7 The wider strategic aim, it
insisted, was "maintaining global US pre-eminence". Another document
obtained by the Herald, written by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, called
upon the United States to "discourage advanced industrial nations from
challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role"8.
On taking power, the Bush administration was careful not to alarm its
allies. The new president spoke only of the need "to project our strength
with purpose and with humility"9 and "to find new ways to keep the
peace"10. From his first week in office, however, he began to engage not
so much in nation-building as in planet-building.
The ostensible purpose of Bush's missile defence programme is to shoot
down incoming nuclear missiles. The real purpose is to provide a
justification for the extraordinarily ambitious plans - contained in a
Pentagon document entitled Vision for 2020 - to turn space into a new
theatre of war, developing orbiting weapons systems which can instantly
destroy any target anywhere on earth11. By creating the impression that
his programme is merely defensive, Bush could justify a terrifying new
means of acquiring what he calls "full spectrum dominance" over planetary
security.
Immediately after the attack on New York, the US government began
establishing "forward bases" in Asia. As the assistant Secretary of State
Elizabeth Jones noted, "when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave
Central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region"12. The
US now has bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Georgia. Their presence has, in
effect, destroyed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which Russia and
China had established in an attempt to develop a regional alternative to
US power.
In January, the US moved into Djibouti, ostensibly to widen its war
against terror, while accidentally gaining strategic control over the Bab
Al Mandab - one of the world's two most important oil shipping lanes. It
already controls the other one, the Strait of Hormuz. Two weeks ago, under
the same pretext, it sent 3000 men to the Philippines. Last year it began
negotiations to establish a military base in Sao Tomé and Principe, from
which it can, if it chooses, dominate West Africa's principal oilfields.
By pure good fortune, the US government now exercises strategic control
over almost all the world's major oil producing regions and oil transport
corridors.
It has also used its national tragedy as an excuse for developing new
nuclear and biological weapons13, while ripping up the global treaties
designed to contain them. All this is just as the Project prescribed.
Among other enlightened policies, it has called for the development of a
particular genetic characteristics14.
Why do the supporters of this war find it so hard to see what is happening? Why do the conservatives who go beserk when the European Union tries to change the content of our chocolate bars look the other way when the US seeks to reduce us to a vassal state? Why do the liberal interventionists who fear that Saddam Hussein might one day deploy a weapon of mass destruction refuse to see that George Bush is threatening to do just this against an ever-growing number of states? Is it because they cannot face the scale of the threat, and the scale of the resistance necessary to confront it? Is it because these brave troopers cannot look the real terror in the eye?
I have decided from now on to attach references to my articles. These may not always appear immediately, due to time constraints. The references for this article are as follows:
1. David Aaronovitch 9 March 2003. Thank the Yank. The Observer.
2. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
3. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
4. ibid
5. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
6. ibid
7. Since publishing this article, Ive been given the URL for this document, which turns out to be publicly available. It is called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, and it can be downloaded at http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
8. Cited by Neil Mackay, 15 September 2002. Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President. Sunday Herald.
9. Remarks By The President To State Department Employees, February 15, 2001. The White House.
10. Remarks By The President To Students And Faculty At National Defense University, May 1, 2001. The White House.
11. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace
12. Sergey Ptichkin and Aleksey Chichkin, 22 January 2002. Russia 'Encircled' by US, NATO When Afghan Operation Over. Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
13. See for example Paul Richter, March 9, 2002. U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms. The Los Angeles Times; and Edward Hammond, 21 September 2001. Averting Bioterrorism Begins with US Reforms. The Sunshine Project. www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr190901b.pdf
14. On page 72 of the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (ibid)is the following sentiment: And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and longrange precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an interim, short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts designs and concepts different than!
those contemplated by the current defense program to maximize the capabilities that already exist.
Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has
anything to do with US global domination.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th March 2003
The war in Afghanistan has plainly brought certain benefits to that
country: thousands of girls have gone to school for the first time, for
example, and in some parts of the country women have been able to go back
to work. While over 3000 civilians were killed by the bombing; while much
of the country is still controlled by predatory warlords; while most of
the promised assistance has not materialised; while torture is widespread
and women are still beaten in the streets, it would be wrong to minimise
the gains that have flowed from the defeat of the Taliban. But, and I
realise that it might sound callous to say it, this does not mean that the
Afghan war was a good thing.
What almost all those who supported that war and are now calling for a new
one have forgotten is that there are two sides to every conflict, and
therefore two sets of outcomes to every victory. The Afghan regime
changed, but so, in subtler ways, did the government of the United States.
It was empowered not only by its demonstration of military superiority but
also by the widespread support it enjoyed. It has used the licence it was
granted in Afghanistan as a licence to take its war wherever it wants.
Those of us who oppose the impending conquest of Iraq must recognise that
there's a possibility that, if it goes according to plan, it could improve
the lives of many Iraqi people. But to pretend that this battle begins and
ends in Iraq requires a wilful denial of the context in which it occurs.
That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to
suit itself.
In this week's Observer, David Aaronovitch suggested that, before
September 11, the Bush administration was "relatively indifferent to the
nature of the regimes in the Middle East"1. Only after America was
attacked was it forced to start taking an interest in the rest of the
world.
If Aaronovitch believes this, he would be well-advised to examine the
website of the Project for the New American Century2, the pressure group
established, among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul
Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom
(except the president's brother) are now senior officials in the US
government. Its statement of principles, signed by those men on June 3
1997, asserts that the key challenge for the United States is "to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests"3. This
requires "a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and
future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes
American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the
United States' global responsibilities."4
On January 26 1998, these men wrote to President Clinton, urging him "to
enunciate a new strategy", namely "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
from power."5 If Clinton failed to act, "the safety of American troops in
the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab
states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be
put at hazard." They acknowledged that this doctrine would be opposed, but
"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence
on unanimity in the UN Security Council."6
Last year, the Sunday Herald obtained a copy of a confidential report
produced by the Project in September 2000, which suggested that blatting
Saddam was the beginning, not the end of its strategy. "While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the
need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."7 The wider strategic aim, it
insisted, was "maintaining global US pre-eminence". Another document
obtained by the Herald, written by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, called
upon the United States to "discourage advanced industrial nations from
challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role"8.
On taking power, the Bush administration was careful not to alarm its
allies. The new president spoke only of the need "to project our strength
with purpose and with humility"9 and "to find new ways to keep the
peace"10. From his first week in office, however, he began to engage not
so much in nation-building as in planet-building.
The ostensible purpose of Bush's missile defence programme is to shoot
down incoming nuclear missiles. The real purpose is to provide a
justification for the extraordinarily ambitious plans - contained in a
Pentagon document entitled Vision for 2020 - to turn space into a new
theatre of war, developing orbiting weapons systems which can instantly
destroy any target anywhere on earth11. By creating the impression that
his programme is merely defensive, Bush could justify a terrifying new
means of acquiring what he calls "full spectrum dominance" over planetary
security.
Immediately after the attack on New York, the US government began
establishing "forward bases" in Asia. As the assistant Secretary of State
Elizabeth Jones noted, "when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave
Central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region"12. The
US now has bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Georgia. Their presence has, in
effect, destroyed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which Russia and
China had established in an attempt to develop a regional alternative to
US power.
In January, the US moved into Djibouti, ostensibly to widen its war
against terror, while accidentally gaining strategic control over the Bab
Al Mandab - one of the world's two most important oil shipping lanes. It
already controls the other one, the Strait of Hormuz. Two weeks ago, under
the same pretext, it sent 3000 men to the Philippines. Last year it began
negotiations to establish a military base in Sao Tomé and Principe, from
which it can, if it chooses, dominate West Africa's principal oilfields.
By pure good fortune, the US government now exercises strategic control
over almost all the world's major oil producing regions and oil transport
corridors.
It has also used its national tragedy as an excuse for developing new
nuclear and biological weapons13, while ripping up the global treaties
designed to contain them. All this is just as the Project prescribed.
Among other enlightened policies, it has called for the development of a
particular genetic characteristics14.
Why do the supporters of this war find it so hard to see what is happening? Why do the conservatives who go beserk when the European Union tries to change the content of our chocolate bars look the other way when the US seeks to reduce us to a vassal state? Why do the liberal interventionists who fear that Saddam Hussein might one day deploy a weapon of mass destruction refuse to see that George Bush is threatening to do just this against an ever-growing number of states? Is it because they cannot face the scale of the threat, and the scale of the resistance necessary to confront it? Is it because these brave troopers cannot look the real terror in the eye?
I have decided from now on to attach references to my articles. These may not always appear immediately, due to time constraints. The references for this article are as follows:
1. David Aaronovitch 9 March 2003. Thank the Yank. The Observer.
2. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
3. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
4. ibid
5. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
6. ibid
7. Since publishing this article, Ive been given the URL for this document, which turns out to be publicly available. It is called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, and it can be downloaded at http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
8. Cited by Neil Mackay, 15 September 2002. Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President. Sunday Herald.
9. Remarks By The President To State Department Employees, February 15, 2001. The White House.
10. Remarks By The President To Students And Faculty At National Defense University, May 1, 2001. The White House.
11. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace
12. Sergey Ptichkin and Aleksey Chichkin, 22 January 2002. Russia 'Encircled' by US, NATO When Afghan Operation Over. Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
13. See for example Paul Richter, March 9, 2002. U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms. The Los Angeles Times; and Edward Hammond, 21 September 2001. Averting Bioterrorism Begins with US Reforms. The Sunshine Project. www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr190901b.pdf
14. On page 72 of the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (ibid)is the following sentiment: And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and longrange precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an interim, short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts designs and concepts different than!
those contemplated by the current defense program to maximize the capabilities that already exist.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Glad to see I am not alone
Date: 2003-03-12 08:55 am (UTC)PS Send me those references that we talked about!!!
no subject
Date: 2003-03-17 05:46 am (UTC)