FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Bush’s Motives in Iraq

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

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 14, 2019
Chelli Stanley
In O’odham Land
November 13, 2019
Vijay Prashad
After Evo, the Lithium Question Looms Large in Bolivia
Charles Pierson
How Not to End a Forever War
Kenneth Surin
“We’ll See You on the Barricades”: Bojo Johnson’s Poundshop Churchill Imitation
Nick Alexandrov
Murder Like It’s 1495: U.S.-Backed Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
George Ochenski
Montana’s Radioactive Waste Legacy
Brian Terrell
A Doubtful Proposition: a Reflection on the Trial of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7
Nick Pemberton
Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech
James Bovard
The “Officer Friendly” Police Fantasy
Dean Baker
The Logic of Medical Co-Payments
Jeff Mackler
Chicago Teachers Divided Over Strike Settlement
Binoy Kampmark
The ISC Report: Russian Connections in Albion?
Norman Solomon
Biden and Bloomberg Want Uncle Sam to Defer to Uncle Scrooge
Jesse Jackson
Risking Lives in Endless Wars is Morally Wrong and a Strategic Failure
Manuel García, Jr.
Criminalated Warmongers
November 12, 2019
Nino Pagliccia
Bolivia and Venezuela: Two Countries, But Same Hybrid War
Patrick Cockburn
How Iran-Backed Forces Are Taking Over Iraq
Jonathan Cook
Israel is Silencing the Last Voices Trying to Stop Abuses Against Palestinians
Jim Kavanagh
Trump’s Syrian See-Saw: From Pullout to Pillage
Susan Babbitt
Fidel, Three Years Later
Dean Baker
A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security is What America Needs
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Trump’s Crime Against Humanity
Victor Grossman
The Wall and General Pyrrhus
Yoko Liriano
De Facto Martial Law in the Philippines
Ana Paula Vargas – Vijay Prashad
Lula is Free: Can Socialism Be Restored?
Thomas Knapp
Explainer: No, House Democrats Aren’t Violating Trump’s Rights
Wim Laven
Serve With Honor, Honor Those Who Serve; or Support Trump?
Colin Todhunter
Agrarian Crisis and Malnutrition: GM Agriculture Is Not the Answer
Binoy Kampmark
Walls in the Head: “Ostalgia” and the Berlin Wall Three Decades Later
Akio Tanaka
Response to Pete Dolack Articles on WBAI and Pacifica
Nyla Ali Khan
Bigotry and Ideology in India and Kashmir: the Legacy of the Babri Masjid Mosque
Yves Engler
Canada Backs Coup Against Bolivia’s President
November 11, 2019
Aaron Goings, Brian Barnes, and Roger Snider
Class War Violence: Centralia 1919
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
“Other Than Honorable?” Veterans With “Bad Paper” Seek Long Overdue Benefits
Peter Linebaugh
The Worm in the Apple
Joseph Natoli
In the Looming Shadow of Civil War
Robert Fisk
How the Syrian Democratic Forces Were Suddenly Transformed into “Kurdish Forces”
Patrick Cockburn
David Cameron and the Decline of British Leadership
Naomi Oreskes
The Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All
Fred Gardner
Most Iraq and Afghanistan Vets now Regret the Mission
Howard Lisnoff
The Dubious Case of Washing Machines and Student Performance
Nino Pagliccia
The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Mammon: Amazon and the Seattle Council Elections
Kim C. Domenico
To Overthrow Radical Evil, Part II: A Grandmother’s Proposal
Marc Levy
Veterans’ Day: Four Poems
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail