|
CounterPunch
November
11, 2002
Bush's Motives:
Increase US Global Dominance
by BRIAN RAINEY
On Oct. 26, well over 100,000 people gathered
in Washington, D.C. and well over 75,000 converged in San Francisco
to protest George Bush's plans for war on Iraq. People of various
political perspectives converged in these cities with one goal
in mind: stop Bush's war. There were many liberals, some socialists,
some anarchists, anti-imperialists, Democrats, Greens, religious
groups and pacifists. Most excitingly, many who had never protested
made the trek to the capital.
This protest was a visible expression
of the millions of Americans who have problems with the war.
Most polls show that around 55 percent of Americans support military
action against Iraq, and they also show that the support plummets
to around 30 percent if the United States does not have allied
support. Support also wanes considerably if there are a high
number of Iraqi and/or American casualties. Clearly, the American
people smell something fishy about this war.
The recently released "National
Security Strategy" document, outlining the Bush administration's
foreign policy objectives (also known as the "Bush Doctrine"),
clearly states: "The President has no intention of allowing
any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States
has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade
ago." The document goes on to say: "Our forces will
be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing
a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the
power of the United States."
The "Bush Doctrine" sounds
a lot like a 1992 Pentagon paper co-authored by Dick Cheney and
Paul Wolfowitz that said the United States will aim to "prevent
the reemergence of a new rival ... This is a dominant consideration
underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that
we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region
whose resources would under consolidated control, be sufficient
to generate global power." Though the paper stirred so much
controversy when it was leaked in 1992 that it was practically
disowned, the similarity in language between that paper and the
"Bush Doctrine" clearly shows what's behind Bush's
foreign policy.
The objectives laid out in the Bush Doctrine
show unequivocally that the administration's goal is to maintain
the United States' unparalleled dominance over all potential
rivals _ and that including so-called "friends" such
as Russia, China and the European Union. Keep that in mind when
considering that the Saddam Hussein government awarded $1.1 trillion
in oil contracts to Europe, China and Russia. Russian oil corporations,
particularly the Russian oil giant Lukoil, are fearful that their
contracts will not be honored by a post-Hussein government dominated,
if not outright controlled, by the United States.
On Oct. 8, Reuters reported that the
U.S. State Department will be holding a meeting with Iraqi opposition
leaders later this month to "discuss expanding Iraq's oil
and natural gas sector after the fall of Saddam Hussein."
The article goes on to say that (surprise!) "the Bush administration
has not decided whether such oil development contracts would
be accepted by the United States in a post-Saddam government."
In case we didn't understand what that meant, a U.S. policy official
spelled it out for us, "Naturally, U.S. policy generally
across the board is to maximize U.S. economic and commercial
influence."
Indeed, a war would be a convenient way
for the United States to get the upper hand in Iraq and dictate
what happens to its oil. Because the United States has military
might that far surpasses Europe and Russia, any "international
coalition" that invades Iraq will be dominated by the United
States _ as was the case in the Gulf War of 1991.
The Bush administration's schemes of
how a post-Hussein Iraq would look should erase all doubt about
its motives. The New York Times reported that "the White
House is developing a detailed plan ... to install an American-led
military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam
Hussein. ... In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by
an American military commander _ perhaps Tommy Franks, commander
of United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates
_ who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served
in Japan. ... In contemplating an occupation, the administration
is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition forces
in a post-Hussein government." The Times goes on to note
that "as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq,
they would essentially control the second-largest proven oil
reserves in the world." How convenient. And it is worth
reiterating that any "coalition partners" will be getting
their marching orders ! from Washington.
In the final analysis, this is all about
dictating what happens to "a region whose resources would,
under consolidated control be sufficient to generate global power."
As the Bush Doctrine makes clear, for any foreign power to even
think about catching up with the United States is unacceptable.
So Jacques Chirac and Bush's diplomatic wrangling over the wording
of Security Council resolutions has little to do with weapons
of mass destruction; rather, it is a battle over who will control
a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. That's
the "fishiness" that the American people smell about
the war. And because this is the real reason for the war, Bush
is having a hard time making a case to his constituency.
Now the socialists, the Greens, the anarchists,
the liberals, the Democrats, the pacifists, the religious groups
and those who haven't quite sorted out their political beliefs
need to be organized into an effective weapon against the war
drive. At Brown, there is no widespread and organized opposition
to the war, and this state of affairs needs to change quickly.
Poll numbers alone are not going to stop an administration that
is determined to go to war. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support
a woman's right to choose, but that hasn't stopped Bush from
trying to bulldoze abortion rights. Most Americans support gay
rights in employment, but the Employment Non Discrimination Act
has not been passed. The reason the opinions of the American
people are so easily ignored is that there is no organized expression
of their dissent. That's why it is imperative that students,
faculty and staff who are opposed to the war come together. The
famous saying that "all that is necessary for ev! il to
triumph is for good men to do nothing" is very true. However,
good men (and women) can't do anything if there is no organization.
Brian Rainey
is a student at Brown University. He hails from Chesapeake,
Va. He can be reached at: Brian_Rainey@brown.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Ali Abunimah
Sharon's
Appendix
M. Shahid Alam
Political Geography
Zionist Theses and Anti-Theses
Michael Neumann
Demonstrating a Genteel Reticence
Rosemary & Walter
Brasch
Personal Possession:
War and Iraq, a Recollection
Ralph Nader
The Mid-term Elections
Mark J. Palmer
Bring Back the Grizzly
Robert Fisk
Bush's "Clean Shot"
Dave Marsh
And the Beat(ing) Goes On
Adam Engel
No Blood for Marijuana in Iraq
Josh Frank
Sleater-Kinney
Rocks
Our Protest Songs Are Here
Clifford Lyle Marshall
Give the Trinity Back to the Salmon
Zeynep Toufe
Turn These Children into Stone
Philip Farruggio
In Name Only
Charles Sullivan
Mountain Party Rising!
Bernard, Krieger, Alam
Poets'Basement
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
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
/
|
November 7,
2002
Bruce Jackson
Don't
Mourn, Bake!
Anthony Gancarski
Jeb
Bush: Left-Liberal?
William Evan
A Diplomatic
Strategy
How Carter and Castro Could Avert War on Iraq
William A.
Cook
Blinded
by the Right
Pierre Tristam
Hypocrisy
at Camp Delta
Mayor Walid
Hamad
Settlers
and Trash
Matt Siegfried
Questions
of War
Alexander
Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
Nosedive:
the Democrats the Day After
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
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
|