|
CounterPunch
February
19, 2003
The Motives for a Flawed War
Israel's Proxy
War?
by M. SHAHID ALAM
It has been apparent to all but the purblind--a
defect in understanding assiduously cultivated by America's mass
media--that the war United States is ready to wage against Iraq
has almost nothing to do with its security.
In an age when the people believe that
their voices must be heard, the United States must sell its wars
the way corporations sell their products. In the past, the people
were asked to lay down their lives for visions of glory; now,
governments appeal to their self-interest. The first Gulf War
had to be fought to protect American jobs. If Saddam Hussain
stayed in Kuwait, he would raise the price of oil, and Americans
would lose their jobs.
The argument this time is different.
It had to be weightier than any fear of losing jobs. This new
war seeks regime-change; it involves greater risks. American
forces must invade Iraq, defeat the Iraqi army, occupy Baghdad,
and stay around, even indefinitely. Americans understand that
"regime-change" is serious business. They would not
back this war unless Iraq threatened American lives. That explains
why the war against Iraq had to supersede the war against terrorism,
and why Saddam replaced Osama as the new icon of America's loathing.
This substitution was quite easily executed.
Most Americans take the President at his word when he talks about
foreign enemies; this trust comes more easily when a Republican
occupies the White House. George Bush told Americans that Saddam
Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and he had to
be stopped before he could transfer them to Al-Qaida.
(Why hadn't he done this already?) For many Americans, it was
an open and shut case. Saddam had to be removed.
The flaws in this argument did not matter.
If Saddam hadn't used WMDs during the first Gulf War--when his
army was being pummeled--why would he use them now? The CIA warned
that a war, or the threat of it, would increase the risk of Iraq
using WMDs. Others, like Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons
inspector for the UN, pointed out that Iraq did not have any
WMDs that mattered. More than 90 percent had been destroyed by
inspectors; if any escaped, they would be past their shelf life.
At least initially, few Americans gave any credence to these
doubts, though that has been slowly changing.
Why then is United States straining
to go to war against Iraq?
The most popular theory on the left is
that this war is about oil. According to one version of this
theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to
corner Iraq's oil for American oil corporations. I do not find
this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow
a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country
into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if
the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices.
At the least, it is doubtful if oil interests, on their own,
can account for the unobstructed rush to a mad war.
There is another oil theory. It argues
that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens
of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq's
oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf
War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard
to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that
has drastically curtailed Iraq's oil output for the past twelve
years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues
for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections
regime and selective economic sanctions.
There is also a third oil theory, one
offered recently.[1] It maintains that this war preempts the
Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to
the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that
have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve.
In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to
this system by switching Iraq's dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC
follows Iraq's lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This
can only be stopped by dismantling the OPEC, and this demands
war against Iraq.
An OPEC challenge to the dollar sounds
naïve at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary
action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike
of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate
dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United
States and the world economy which would make the East Asian
financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even
the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there
is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory--if
it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel.
If it isn't oil, then, is this civilizational
war, a war of the Christian West against Islam? This conjecture
flies in the face of some obvious facts. First, this is America's
war. It is opposed by two key Western allies, France and Germany;
and apart from Britain and Israel, the support of other Western
countries lacks depth. More to the point, the overwhelming majority
of Westerners outside the United States oppose this war. In United
States itself, the anti-war sentiment has grown rapidly, and
the most recent polls indicate a majority against the war if
it happens without the support of the United Nations.
Is it then America's war against Islamists?
Even that is doubtful. Apart from the right-wing Christian extremists,
led by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, nearly all
Christian denominations have come out against the war. Everyone
would agree that Al-Qaida constitutes the most serious Islamist
threat to United States; they had proved it on September 11,
2001. And yet, we are ready to push this threat aside in order
to wage war against one of the most decidedly secular of Arab
states, one that spent ten years waging war against 'fundamentalist'
Iran? Why not Wahhabi Saudi Arabia which supplied 16 of the 19
hijackers of September 11. Why not Shiite Iran? Their turn too
will come, one hears neoconservative voices, to be followed by
Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.
Why then is United States ready to wage
this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests?
Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences
cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly
regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike
at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable
to shocks. It may force Saddam to use his chemical and biological
weapons--if he has them--leading United States to nuke Baghdad
or Basra. It may fuel global terrorism for years to come, leading
to attacks on American interests globally.
These anomalies quickly melt away if
we are willing to entertain a sel-dom-aired hypothesis. This
may not be America's war at all, much less a war of the West
against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel's war
against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that
can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive
skepticism. Could the world's only superpower be persuaded to
fight Israel's war? Is it even possible? Could the tail wag this
great dog?
Consider first Israel's motives. Iraq,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten
the United States; but they are a threat to Israel's hegemonic
ambitions over the region. This conflict between Israel and her
neighbors was written into the Zionist script. A Jewish state
could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive
ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings,
Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak,
divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt
in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq
in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians
continuously since 1948.
Israel's contradictions have deepened
since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians
rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon,
a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians.
Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation,
the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings. Sharon's
brutal war was not working, and Israel's losses began to catch
up with Palestinian casualties. In April 2002, Israeli tanks
reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian
infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews,
sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards
and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing
through starvation.
This slow ethnic cleansing is only a
stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic:
their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority
inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won't live under
an Israeli aparthied, the Likud, with growing popular support,
is turning to Israel's second option. If the aparthied plan were
to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing
of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948
and 1967.
But Israel cannot do this alone. This
ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major
war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to
bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that
only United States can wage. Israel needs United States
to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.
It should be clear that Israel has the
motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this
off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power--the
only superpower, in this case--to wage its own wars. Historically,
great powers have often waged wars through lesser proxies; but
that does not mean that this relationship can never get inverted.
What makes this eminently possible is
the way an indirect democracy--in particular, democracy in United
States--works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful
lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the
officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political
lobby in this country works for Israel, led by American Israel
Public Action Committee (AIPAC). There is scarcely a member of
the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by
AIPAC; several are funded quite heavily.[2] The power of the
pro-Israel lobby in United States, however, does not start or
end with AIPAC. The result of this massive power is a Congress
packed with Israeli yes-men. No member of the Congress has dared
to contradict Israeli interests and remained in office. Just
last year, two members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia
McKenny, were defeated by pro-Israeli money because they had
stepped out of line.
Consider some of the achievements of
the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the
cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or
demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign
aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this
in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all
US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars,
the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion.[3]
That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen
of Israel.
The official aid is only a small part
of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for
loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan
in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel's military
R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel
in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel's
enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in
Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since
1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.[4]
In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish
citizen of Israel.
The US record on vetoes cast in UN Security
Council constitutes another major achievement of the pro-Israel
lobby. The US has cast 73 vetoes out of the 248 cast by all permanent
members of the Security Council. On 38 occasions, these vetoes
were cast to shield Israel from any criticism directed against
its violation of human rights of Palestinians or the territorial
rights of its neighbors. On another 25 occasions, US abstained
from such a vote.[5] This does not include the votes cast by
United States--along with Israel, Tuvalu and Nauru--against UN
General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israeli violations of
human rights or Security Council resolutions. It would be difficult
to maintain that the strategic interests of United States always
demanded such a consistent voting record on Palestine.
I am aware that the notion of an Israeli
proxy war against Iraq will be greeted with skepticism by not
a few. I hope to have established that Israel possess in abundance
both the motive and capability for such a war. There is some
evidence that it has demonstrated this capability in the past
also. In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain,
the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the
creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine,
they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support
throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word."[6]
It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was
in 1917.
This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli
lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq.
At present, there are several forces in United States that are
pushing for this war. Prominent among these indigenous forces
are the oil corporations, the arms manufacturers, the aerospace
industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However,
it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could
have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic
confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual
justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost
entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby. And their intellectual input
may have been vital.
Notes:
[1] http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm
[2] http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm.
[3] http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html
[4] http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
[5] http://middleeastinfo.org/print.php?sid=63
[6] Lilienthal, Alfred M., What price Israel(Chicago:
Henry Regnery, 1953): 20-21.
M. Shahid Alam
is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University. His last
book, Poverty from the Wealth of Nations, was published
by Palgrave in 2000. He may be reached at m.alam@neu.edu.
© M. Shahid Alam
Yesterday's
Features
Steve Perry
Cowboy
Dreams:
War as Hollywood Western
Saul Landau
Cuba's
View of Bush's War on Terror: an Interview with Cuban VP Raul
Alarcon
Jason Leopold
The
Origins of Bush's Iraq War Drive: The 1998 Wolfowitz / Rumsfeld
Memo to Clinton
Lenni Brenner
Lerner
and the WWP:
The Ranting Rabbi Doesn't Speak for All Anti-War Jews
Anthony Gancarski
The Return of Gary Hart:
A Voice of Reason?
Gloria Bergen
Storm Warning!
Imperialist Gangs Stalk Planet Earth
David Krieger
Peace March: We Must Lead This Nation to a More Just Future
Tom Turnipseed
The Peace Movement in South Carolina
Alexander Cockburn
Messy Valentines: Rummy and Frank on the Intrepid
Website of the Day
Protest
Photos
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|