What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
Special Investigation:
Have Journalists Been Deliberately Murdered in Iraq by the US
Military?
Our new
CounterPunch newsletter, just out, Christopher Reed examines
the growing body count of journalists in Iraq and documents numerous
incidents where US troops have deliberately targeted reporters.
Charles Glass offers a
stark comparison of the uprooting of Palestians in the Galilee
during the 1948 war to the lush compensation of Israelis living
on the same land who were displaced by the war on Lebanon. Remember, we are funded
solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
The tension between the Bush administration
and the members of the Iraq Study Group, illustrates the widening
chasm between old-guard U.S. imperialists and "Israel-first"
neoconservatives. The divisions are setting the stage for a major
battle between the two camps. The winner will probably decide
US policy in the Middle East for the next decade.
The failed occupation of Iraq
has put the entire region on the fast-track to disaster. That's
why James Baker was summoned from retirement to see if he could
change the present trajectory and mitigate the long-term damage
to US interests. Baker was opposed to the invasion from the onset
but his 4 day trip to Baghdad convinced him that something had
to be done quickly. The ISG report reflects the unanimous view
of its authors that Iraq is disintegrating into chaos and that
action must be taken to reduce the level of bloodshed.
Baker is not merely an objective
observer in this process. He clearly "has a dog in this
fight". As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan he put
together the basic scaffolding for America's imperial presence
in the region and he continues to be connected to many of the
corporations which benefit from US relations in the Middle East.
But he has also always taken a "pragmatic" approach
to regional policy and cannot be considered a war-monger. Some
critics of Baker say that his business interests suggest that
he indirectly supports the Bush policy. But this is an oversimplification.
In fact, Baker sees war as a blunt instrument that is essentially
incompatible with commercial interests. There are simply more
efficient ways for clever men to achieve their objectives.
In Antonia Juhasz's recent
article "Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization"
shows how Baker was more than happy to overlook Saddam's domestic
repression as long as it didn't damage business dealings. As
Juhasz's says:
"Baker's interest was
focused on trade, which he described as "the central factor
in the US-Iraq relationship". From 1982, when Reagan removed
Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism until August
1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked
with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively
and successfully expand trade.
The efficacy of such a move
can best be described in a memo written in 1988 by the Bush transition
team arguing that the US would have to decide whether to treat
Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible,
or to recognize Iraq's present and potential power in the region
and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the
latter view.' Two reasons offered were Iraq's vast oil reserves'
which promised a lucrative market for US goods' and the fact
that the US oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush and
Baker took the transition teams advice and ran with it".
This is the real James Baker.
He's not ideological and he's certainly not on a religious crusade.
His approach may seem cynical, but it shows that he prefers commerce
(even with a brutal dictator) over war. This proves that his
role with the ISG is not simply to provide cover for Bush. Baker's
task is to salvage the imperial system which he helped to create.
Besides, it's clear that Bush is unhappy with the report and
has already rejected its two critical recommendations; negotiations
with Syria and Iran, and a commitment to troop reduction. Furthermore,
Bush is doing everything in his power to minimize the effects
of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair to Washington
so that he wouldn't look as isolated in his position.
Baker has done a good job grabbing
headlines and making his case directly to the American people,
but his effect on Bush has been negligible. Bush appears to be
brushing the report aside just like he brushed aside the results
of the midterm elections. His summation of the ISG's work was
intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as "interesting"
and "sincere", blah, blah, blah.
But Baker won't be patronized
or put-off. In fact, his tone has been unusually threatening
at times. As more than one critic has noted, Baker appears to
be offering Bush an "ultimatum" not merely recommendations.
He warned Bush not to "pick and choose" the recommendations
as he saw fit:
"I hope this is not like
a fruit salad and I say I like this but I don't like that. This
is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem
we're facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems
that we face in the region to restore America's standing and
credibility in that part of the world".
Baker is courteous to the point
of seeming unctuous, but his point is clear. He is demanding
that Bush execute his plan in its totality and without deviation.
This is the cautionary advice of a Mafia consigliore not the
empty musings of a retired bureaucrat.
Whatever one thinks about James
Baker, he is a seasoned diplomat and a serious man. His record
shows that he has broad support among the leaders in the American
oligarchy, so he can't simply be ignored. He represents a powerful
constituency of corporate chieftains and oil magnates who are
conspicuously worried about the deteriorating situation in Iraq
and want to see a change of course. Baker's their man. He's the
logical emissary for the growing number of jittery plutocrats
who see that the Bush policy-train has jumped the tracks.
But if Big Oil wants a change
of direction than where is Bush getting his support for "staying
the course"?
An AP poll conducted this week
shows that only 9% of Americans believe that "victory"
in Iraq is possible. Even the hard-core Bush loyalists have abandoned
the sinking ship. The only group left touting Bush's failed policy
is the "Israel first" camp which continues to wave
the bloody shirt of incitement from their perch at the Weekly
Standard and the American Enterprise Institute. These same diehards
are leading the charge for a preemptive attack on Iran; a criminal
act which will have catastrophic effects on America's long-term
energy needs.
An article which appeared in
the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz shows how confident Prime Minister
Olmert is in the ability of the Jewish Lobby to torpedo the Baker-Hamilton
report and steer the US away from changes in Iraq:
"On his way home from
Los Angeles, the Prime Minister calmed' the reporters and perhaps
even himself"by saying there is no danger of the US President
George Bush accepting the expected recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton
panel, and attempting to move Syria out of the axis of evil and
into a coalition to extricate America from Iraq. The Prime Minister
hopes the Jewish Lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the
new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on
the Palestinians. (Akiva Eldar, "The
Gewalt Agenda")
Olmert has good reason to be
"calm". While the new Congress is being apprised of
its duties to Israel, the Brookings Institute is convening a
forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy entitled: "America
and Israel: Confronting a Middle east in Turmoil". The meeting
will be attended by Israeli right-wing extremist, Avigdor Lieberman,
as well as political big-wigs, Bill and Hillary Clinton.
The context of the meeting
suggests that right-leaning Israelis will be informing their
friends in the Democratic Party about the anticipated attack
on Iran, as well as discussing strategies for sabotaging Baker's
report. If we see the Democrats lambasting the ISGs recommendations
next week; we'll know why.
So, the battle lines have been
drawn. On one side we have James Baker and his corporate classmates
who want to restore order while preserving America's imperial
role in the region. And, on the other side, we have the neo-Trotskyites
and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and chaotic Middle
East where Israel is the dominant power. (see "A Clean Break")
The one group that has no voice
in this "Battle of the Titans" is the American people.
They lost whatever was left of their shrinking political-clout
sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush.
In any event, Baker and his
ilk are not going to sit back and watch the empire (and the military)
they put together with their own two hands be systematically
pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an agenda that only
serves Israeli hardliners.
That ain't gonna happen.
Expect Baker to wheel out the
heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-nail to reassert the primacy
of the American ruling class. "The Lobby" may be powerful,
but it's going to be tough-going to take the country away from
the people who believe they own it.
The struggle between the political
heavyweights is about to break-out into open warfare.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
