Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
May
29, 2003
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Jason
Leopold
Despite Thin Intelligence Reports,
US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime
Ron
Jacobs
Popular Uprising, Inc.
Michelle
Ciaccorra
Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Yves Engler
The Economics of Health Care in
America: Pay More to Die Sooner
Kimberly
Blaker
Vouchers for Jesus
Harry
Browne
Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at
the Top of the IRA
Stew
Albert
Cops of the World
Steve Perry
Greens 04: In or Out?
May
28, 2003
David
Vest
DubyaCo.: It's Not So Funny Any More
Dave
Lindorff
My Grandfather's Medal
John
Stanton
America's Dying: Arts and Philosophy Hold the Key
Bernard
Weiner
A PNAC Primer
Robert
Jensen
Texas Dems Set a Standard for the Rest of the Party
Ahmad Faruqui
The Oil Business of Regime Change:
the CIA and Iran
Hammond
Guthrie
Disarming Conundrums
Steve Perry
What If There's No Such Thing as Al-Qaeda?
May
27, 2003
Kurt
Nimmo
Condoleezza Rice: Huckstress for Israeli
Myths
Anthony
Gancarski
Hillary: a Dem the NeoCons Could Love?
Patrick
Cockburn
Terror, Bush and Joseph Conrad
John Chuckman
an Interpretation of Bush's Character
Kathleen
Christison
What Sharon Wants, Sharon Gets
Jeffrey
Blankfort
AIPAC Hijacks the Roadmap
Steve
Perry
Trouble in the Hinterlands
Hot Stories
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
May
31, 2003
A Tangled Web of Neocon Lies
The Frauds of
War
By GARY LEUPP
Oh, what a tangled web we
weave,
when first we practice to deceive.
You make use of the post 9-11 fear and anger to
implement plans for change in Southwest Asia and the Arab world
that you, and your colleagues in the American Enterprise Institute
and Project for a New American Century, have advocated for a
decade. (You recognize the potential utility of anti-Arab racism
and the tendency of your countrymen to conflate all Muslims.)
You say al-Qaeda is linked to Saddam
Hussein's Iraq. (No serious Middle Eastern scholar believes this,
but you know that under the circumstances, with Homeland Security
and flags flown cavalry-like from SUVs and Arab-Americans getting
beat up and rounded up---the lie will fly.)
You say Saddam is sponsoring the al-Ansar
Kurdish group, joined by al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan,
in northeastern Iraq. (But you know that pro-U.S. Kurdish forces
in the northern "no-fly zone" in fact control that
area, and Baghdad has minimal influence and no probable cause
to support Islamic fundamentalism, which secularist Saddam has
in fact always fought.)
You say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
threatening his neighbors and even the U.S. (The neighboring
countries all dispute this. As of today, no evidence for any
WMD has been found during six weeks of occupation. Both Bush
and Rumsfeld have cavalierly noted they may never be found. Paul
Wolfowitz has just told Vanity Fair that the "one
issue, weapons of mass destruction," was "settled on"
by the Bush administration "for bureaucratic reasons."
[Emphasis added. Bureaucratic use of untruth, frankly
acknowledged.] No problem for Wolfowitz, because, he suggests,
the real reason for the war was to allow the U.S. to relocate
troops from Saudi Arabia and so create a more peaceful Middle
East. As Colin Powell said when the Niger uranium story, so crucial
to the administration's argument, was exposed as a hoax: "Fine."
Why would any post-9-11 proud-to-be-an-American want to make
an issue out of this?)
You say the WMDs were transported to
Syria. (No evidence. But a good case for "regime change"
in Syria. We can move on now, and tangle the web more.)
You say Syria has allowed fleeing Iraqi
officials to enter the country. (Maybe, but do officials, even
ones that their own people might eventually want to try for crimes
[somewhat like your own people might eventually want to try
you for crimes], people fleeing their illegally invaded country,
violate any international law and provide you with any reasonable
grounds to resent their travel plans? Or to demand from any government
offering them refuge that they turn the refugee officials over
to you, to your occupation regime that has little legitimacy
in the eyes of the occupied?)
You say that whether or not any WMD are
ever found, or whether any al-Qaeda link is ever established,
it doesn't matter. Because Iraq has now been liberated.
(Actually, Iraq has been thrown into chaos by Operation Iraqi
Freedom, its cultural heritage looted. There are daily anti-occupation
riots and demonstrations in Iraq, and U.S. soldiers are being
shot every day. It seems that the war Bush with much fanfare
pronounced a victory isn't really over yet. Plans for an interim
Iraqi government seem in hopeless disarray. Within a month the
Pentagon announced plans to reduce the U.S. military presence
by the fall, and then, due to mounting violence---some of it
directed at themselves---to increase it. Freedom, or mission-creep?)
You explain away that untidy unrest in
freed Iraq by blaming diehard remnants of the Baath Party and
Saddam supporters. (But the Sunni and Shiites alike are saying,
"No to Saddam, No to the U.S.A.!" The demonstrations
and rioting in Fallujah and Hit seem rooted in specific indignities
that anyone, including secularists and Islamic fundamentalists,
or for that matter Christians and Jews anywhere in the world,
would resent.)
You attribute Shiite hostility to the
foreign troops to Iranian interference. (Shiite Iran has
limited influence among the Shiite community of course; but it
doesn't shape their feelings towards occupation. But this is
a good argument for regime change in Iran, which you consider,
and want the American people to consider, evil.)
You say that there are some al-Qaeda
operatives in northeastern Iran, a lawless region bordering Afghanistan.
(Quite probably; just look at a map. If there are refugee al-Qaeda
in U.S.-allied Pakistan, to the east, there are probably routed
al-Qaeda in Iran, to the west. And in U.S.-friendly Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan, for that matter; those countries also border
Afghanistan. But you're not planning to overthrow those governments.)
You expand the point, and declare that
Iran is harboring al-Qaeda. (It's unlikely Tehran would
do so willingly, given the lack of ideological affinity and the
history of hostility between Iran and bin Laden's group)
You say that members of the Revolutionary
Guards are working with al-Qaeda. (Maybe some very corrupt ones,
but as a rule you wouldn't think Shiite Muslims loyal to the
mullahs would associate with Wahhabi Muslims who have a special
hatred for Shiites. But since the Iranian Shiite clerical establishment
is particularly hostile to the U.S., more than the reformist
President Muhammed Khatami, tarring those mullahs with an al-Qaeda
brush might suit your purposes.)
You say you have intelligence information,
received from the Saudis, that those particular, Iran-based al-Qaeda
planned the recent attack that killed 8 Americans in Saudi Arabia,
thus linking Iran and those American deaths. (Maybe. But CIA
chief George Tenet, according to the Financial Times,
contests this charge in a disagreement "likely to highlight
the rivalry between the CIA and the Pentagon." If it's
true, it's a very serendipitous addition to the list of arguments
for Iranian regime change.)
You say Iran has biological and chemical
WMDs. (So do many countries. But this argument worked in the
Iraq invasion case, whatever the embarrassing outcome of that
particular accusation. So maybe try it again.)
You say the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear
weapons program. (The Iranians, who are signatories of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, say they're not; they state that they just want nuclear
plants to generate electrical power, like they do in other modern
countries. But let's say they are working on nukes. Like Israel,
Pakistan, India, China and other neighboring countries. And like
the U.S., which is threatening to overthrow the Iranian regime.
What would you do, if you were in charge of a sovereign state
so threatened? But does Iran threaten us?)
You say Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas,
and Islamic Jihad, all enemies of Israel.
That last is probably true, not that
such support would justify the overthrow of the government of
a sovereign state. The U.S. government has supported such terrorists
as the Contras of Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola, RENAMO in Mozambique,
and the current Israeli president. Would that (speaking abstractly)
justify a foreign government toppling this one? Some things are
best left to the population of a nation itself.
In any tangled web of lies, there are
bits and pieces of truth or likelihood.
You can't say certain truths.
You can't say (without embarrassingly exposing your historical
sins) that you cannot forgive the Iranian people for overthrowing,
in 1979, the murderous Shah you imposed on them in 1953; or for
holding U.S. diplomats and spies hostage after his overthrow,
when you refused to extradite him to Iran to face trial (despite
his crimes and the U.S.-Iran extradition treaty); or for opposing
your geopolitical goals in the region. You can't say you're
thinking about placing the Shah's son, in U.S. exile, back on
the Peacock Throne and using him, as you did his father, as your
"gendarme of the Gulf." These are hidden truths fit
only for the neocon cognoscenti.
You don't want to mention that
Bush's national security adviser Condoleeza Rice asked the National
Security Council immediately after 9-11 "to think seriously
about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to
fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world
in the wake of September 11." (Many would find it insensitive
to use tragedy inflicted by one enemy as opportunity to attack
another, totally unrelated enemy. But seriously opportunistic
capitalization on tragedy clearly works.)
You wouldn't want to mention that the
motto of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency you much
admire, is: By way of deception, thou shalt do war; or
reveal your admiration for the philosopher Leo Strauss, who taught
that the wise and good in power should and must use deception
to manipulate the masses.
The spiders spinning this web of deceit
have captured, and are now trying to digest, untidy Iraq. They
hope to draw Syria and Iran into the web as well, and maybe even
North Korea. They've already spun circles around U.S. public
opinion, and hope through their relentless disinformation campaigns
to join us all to the sticky project they call the New American
Century.
Maybe time to get a broom out and start
sweeping.
*
* *
The above was inspired by the remarkable
speech delivered on the Senate floor May 24 by the Democratic
Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. I'm not into his
type of politics, but I thought the address ("The
Truth Will Emerge") well crafted, eloquent, courageous,
and true. (It might even offer some small redemption from the
more dishonorable aspects of his long career.)
Somewhat like an Old Testament prophet,
the 85-year-old Sen. Byrd tears into the Bushites' deceit. He
attacks the "exploitation of fear." He speaks of "prevarication
and misuse of power." He declares, "There is ample
evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully
manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and Al
Qaeda, who masterminded the September 11 attacks, to Saddam Hussein,
who did not." He "cringes" at the claim that the
U.S. forces in Iraq are "liberators" and notes frankly
"the smiling face of the United States as liberator is quickly
assuming the scowl of an occupier." He notes "our dissembling"
has alienated friends around the world.
He notes that most of the American people
have accepted the lies up until now.
"But there is a line. It may seem
to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will
appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding
American blood--when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians,
on innocent men, women and children, callous dissembling is not
acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie--not oil, not revenge,
not re-election, not somebody's grand pipe dream of a democratic
domino theory. And mark my words, the calculated intimidation
that we see so often of late by the 'powers that be' will only
keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually,
like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does,
this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall."
Well said, Senator. May your words help
many to cross the line, get righteously angry and disquiet, and
facilitate that fall of the deceitful.
Gary Leupp
is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University
and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Today's
Features
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Jason
Leopold
Despite Thin Intelligence Reports,
US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime
Ron
Jacobs
Popular Uprising, Inc.
Michelle
Ciaccorra
Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Yves Engler
The Economics of Health Care in
America: Pay More to Die Sooner
Kimberly
Blaker
Vouchers for Jesus
Harry
Browne
Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at
the Top of the IRA
Stew
Albert
Cops of the World
Steve Perry
Greens 04: In or Out?
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|