Chicago Indymedia : http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive
Chicago Indymedia

News :: [none]

BAIT AND SWITCH

This isn't conservatism; it's utopian folly and a prescription for endless war.
Bait and Switch


by Gene Lyons


Many people say the 9/11 terrorist attacks changed everything.


Americans realized that the oceans can no longer protect us in a hostile,


dangerous world. Alas, the Bush administration ideologues fondest of saying


that haven't changed their thinking at all. They've been gung-ho to invade


Iraq at least since 1997, and their motives have little to do with any genuine


threat from Saddam Hussein.





To many patriotic Americans, attacking Iraq has the two-fisted


appeal of an Arnold Schwarzennegar or Bruce Willis action/adventure film.


They imagine something like the Reagan administration's adventures in


Grenada or Panama. U.S. soldiers go in, kick some cowardly Arab butt,


crush an evil villain, hand out candy bars to grateful children, and, tranquility


restored, return home to a peaceful and prosperous America.





Although our feckless commander-in-chief has been calculatedly


deceptive about it, disarming Iraq has never been what Bush administration


holy warriors really wanted. Even "regime change" isn't the primary goal of


America's first "preemptive" war, although White House spokesman Ari


Fleischer's use of the phrase in connection with U.N. arms inspections


recently produced an angry, incredulous outburst from that traditional


American foe, the Prime Minister of Canada.





Whether or not Saddam destroyed missiles, Fleischer said, was of


no consequence, since U.S.policy was "disarmament and regime change."


Prime Minister Jean Chretien erupted. "If it is a changing of regime, it's


not what is [U.N. resolution] 1441," he said. "And if you start changing


regimes, where do you stop? This is the problem, who is next? Give me


the list, the priority list."





Evidently Chretien, who spoke in French, after all, hasn't grasped


the characteristic bait and switch tactics of the Bush administration. Going


to the U.N. was a tactical feint. The idea was to trick Congress, appease


Democratic critics like Sen. John Kerry, mislead foreign policy thinkers


like Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brezsinski, Gen. Anthony


Zinni, and Gen. Wesley Clark, and fool voters into thinking that a Republican


vote wasn't necessarily a war vote. Feckless Democrats, including this


column, took the bait.





But no, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 calling upon Iraq


to disarm or face "serious consequences" says nothing about regime change.


It would have stood no chance of passing, much less of passing unanimously,


if it had. The U.N. wouldn't last six months if the Security Council started


handing out DIKTATS about the legitimacy of member governments.


(Although come to think of it, the U.N. might have done a fairer job refereeing


the disputed 2000 presidential election than the U.S. Supreme Court.)





Anyhow, that was then. This is now. The Little King must have his


dynastic holy war. Regardless of how cunningly Saddam Hussein plays out


his hand, how many missiles he destroys, or caches of abandoned nerve gas


or anthrax he digs up--mostly sold to him by the Reagan administration, in


the person of Donald Rumsfeld, of course--Bush cannot afford to take yes


for an answer.





To do so would be to abandon the messianic schemes of the Project


for the New American Century, a close-knit clique of visionaries who see war


in Iraq as beginning of a worldwide American empire. If the name sounds like


something from the third voyage of "Gulliver's Travels," its acolytes--among


them Rumsfeld, Asst. Secy. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President


Cheney, and Richard Perle--spelled out their goals in an extraordinary Sept.


2000 report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses."





Here are two characteristic passages excerpted on the "Liberal


Oasis" website: "The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable and


durable...Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even


a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself...If an American peace is to


be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned


U.S. military preeminence."





"[T]he United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent


role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides


the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence


in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."





Pardon me, but I'm not awed by the brainpower of people capable


of writing that "peace has proven itself peaceful." But I can translate the


last bit into simple English. It says "regime change" means turning Iraq


into an American West Bank, a conquered province from which to launch


further "preemptive" strikes against Syria, Iran and other impediments


to U.S. and Israeli dominance in the region.





Meanwhile, Bush, who promised a "humble" foreign policy and


sneered at "nation building" during the 2000 campaign, has morphed into an


apostle of Wilsonian idealism. "A new regime in Iraq," he said last week


"would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other


nations in the region."





More bait and switch.





This isn't conservatism; it's utopian folly and a prescription for endless war.
 
 

Donate

Views

Account Login

Media Centers

 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software