The *real* reason the U.S. is on Iraq’s case?

[Eva_Luna]

So what do you guys think, and why? I think it would explain a lot of things…but seems perhaps too simplistic to be 100% of the story. Then again, maybe not.
Subject: The President’s Real Goal - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Atlanta Journal-Constitution 9/29/02

The president’s real goal in Iraq

[believe it or not, this is a relatively brief excerpt; follow the link for the whole article]

By JAY BOOKMAN

“The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn’t fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the “American imperialists” that our enemies always claimed we were.”

[Patty_O_Furniture]

I think it would explain a lot of things[.]

Such as…?

…smart people in the Bush administration…

Hahaha!

There are too many people in this country with isolationist leanings to permit such a thing to happen.

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by Attrayant *
**

Such as…?

**

The main one I can think of offhand is the complete lack of post-regime change plan for Iraq on the part of the current administration. (Publicly, anyway.) I can’t imagine us wanting to pay for a Marhsall Plan-style deal, and none of the other possibilities sound like they’d be terribly palatable to the current U.S. administration, either. Coalition government? Just who would replace Saddam Hussein, anyway?

[december]

I find this article frightening. Jay Bookman is evidently a crackpot, yet he’s the deputy editorial page editor of the Atlanta Constitution. Here’s a blow-by-blow analysis. (Some bloggers call this a “Fisking.”)

<<The official story on Iraq has never made sense… In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.>>

The possible link between Iraq and al Qaeda was never the sole reason to attack them. Iraq has violated their commitments to the Security Council, they have invaded neighboring countries, they have used WMDs on their own people, and they’re working on nukes. Surveys show that a majority of American agree with Bush on this issue. Congress just voted overwhelmingly in support of Bush’s position. The Security Council is likely to vote in support of Bush soon. Yet, according to Bookman, not only are all these people wrong, they’re supporting a position that doesn’t even make sense. :rolleyes:

<<This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the “American imperialists” that our enemies always claimed we were. >>

Ooh, there’s a secret plan for taking over the world that’s been in existence for 10 years or more! Note that Bookman mistakenly equates global empire with {i]planetary policeman.* There’s a big difference. The US has played the role of planetary policeman for years. E.g, fighting Hitler, fighting the Cold War, fighting al Qaeda, Kosovo, efforts toward Middle East peace. There’s nothing new about this. But, in none of these cases did the US form an empire and seek to make these conquered nations into colonies.

<<Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? >>

Yet another falsehood. Articles recently have discussed US plans for Iraq post Saddam.

<<Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. >>

It’s just wrong to make this kind of accusation without any evidence.

<<In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations’ territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq. >>

What is his point about our bases in Germany and Japan? Is he alleging that we control those countries by our military presence? If not, what’s the significance of his comment?

<<And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we. >>

This violates Occam’s Razor. There are many reasons to force a regime change in Iraq other than desire for empire.

<<Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide “Pax Americana,” or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition. >>

Thank goodness Luke Skywalker is here to explain the true extent of that ambition.

That’s enough for now

[Eva_Luna]

*Originally posted by december *
**

<<Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? >>

Yet another falsehood. Articles recently have discussed US plans for Iraq post Saddam.

**

Very quickly, as the masses are huddling on my desk, yearning to breathe free:

Articles? Where? I’ve been keeping my eyes quite open for them, and haven’t seen anything emanating from the administration. Links, please? I’m honestly curious.

More later, I promise.

[december]

*Originally posted by Eva Luna *
**Articles? Where? I’ve been keeping my eyes quite open for them, and haven’t seen anything emanating from the administration. Links, please? I’m honestly curious. **

Here’s one.

**U.S. Plans Post-Saddam Iraq **
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, June 6, 2002
WASHINGTON – The United States is drawing up extensive and detailed plans for a post-Saddam Hussein government in Iraq.
The Bush administration intends to fund exile organizations that will draft legislation for a transitional regime, and to establish formal relationships with Arab governments.

Documents obtained exclusively by United Press International reveal the State Department plans to allocate $410,000 over the next year to Iraqi Jurists Association. One aim of the group, according to a State Department summary of their activities, is to “focus on the drafting of key legislation and legal decrees, to be readily available to a post-Saddam administration.”

Here’s another.

White House works on planning for a post-war Iraq
ASSOCIATED PRESS October 12, 2002

 The Bush administration is working on postwar plans for Iraq that could include using American and other foreign troops as a stabilizing force until a new government is formed, the Pentagon said yesterday.

 "Clearly, security would be a concern in the early months" after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein, said Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke.

 Any plan would include a Defense Department role in finding and securing any weapons of mass destruction, she said.

 "The United States will not cut and run," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "The United States and our allies are committed to find a way to help preserve the stability and maintain the peace of the region and particularly Iraq as a unified country in the event military force is used."

 He said the United Nations might be called upon to help stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq, and did not rule out U.S. forces being part of an international effort.

 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has told foreign governments the United States would be committed to assisting postwar Iraq develop a democratic government, but had not taken up any specific plan with them, a senior U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

 President Bush says he has not definitely decided on a military invasion to achieve his goal of ousting Saddam. But among a range of proposals being developed is the Pentagon's role and, for instance, whether a force might be American or comprise whatever coalition joins in a war against Iraq. There also have been suggestions that an Iraqi government-in-exile be set up before any invasion so it could be ready to take power.

 The plan is being developed by a number of U.S. government agencies.

[SuaSponte]

Another problem with the thesis …

Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

This contradicts the arguments by many anti-Iraq war pundits who argue that the US isn’t doing enough in Afghanistan to control and stabilize that country. Afghanistan also borders Iran, as well as several other oil-rich countries.

If this is America’s plan, why aren’t we doing in Afghanistan what
Bookman claims we plan to do in Iraq?

Sua

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

What Sua and december (gasp!) said.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

i can’t believe i agree with december

I find the article frightening, too, although it is clearly labeled “Opinion”, so it’s an editorial.

Still, I’m sorry, but the guy’s a conspiracy theory loony.

It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the “American imperialists” that our enemies always claimed we were.

I mean, what? Shades of the Illuminati.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration:

< snip >

The report’s repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

I see that he’s got some of the “brilliant and powerful architects” of America’s plans for world domination listed on a sidebar (strange–he seems to have omitted Dr. Evil’s name).

Rebuilding America’s Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush’s foreign and defense policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton

Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen

Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department’s policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby

Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president’s chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim

Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone

Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

I have NEVER heard of any of these people [ah, but that’s the way of the Illuminati, isn’t it? BWAHAHAHAHA!!]

Anyone care to address this?

And finally:

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy – he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project – [says], "You saw the movie ‘High Noon’? he asks. “We’re Gary Cooper.”

< snip >

“People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react,” he notes. “Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up.”

Um, it has? The Saudis have stopped complaining about things? Yassir Arafat is being a good boy all of a sudden? It’s “God Bless America” week in Cairo? Really?

Baretta? Used to talk about “The Street” all the time…“Put the word out on The Street…”

and how does a Yale professor of classical greek history know what the “arab street” is thinking?
Oh wait, I know, “he could tell me–but then he’d have to kill me”…
Or, no, it’s “highly placed Washington sources”…
Or, no, he just got back from a secret mission to the “arab street”, the one where he got to use the Bic pen nuke on a falafel vendor…

[elucidator]

Well, Sua, first and foremost, Afghanistan is a basket case. It may very well be the first member of the set “Fourth World”, that is, a Third World country who’s resources and infrastructure have been destroyed.

Iraq, on the other hand, has highways, military air bases (a very big plus for US, who has been forced to project its air power largely from aircraft carriers…think of the country as one very very large aircraft carrier) and many of the other advantages of a comparatively developed country.

And, of course, there is the fact that the dirt under Saddam bin Laden’s feet is virtually drenched in light sweet crude. We are assured that this is irrelevent. Yes. Quite.

By the by, does anyone else find it outrageous that the Administration apparently witheld the news about N. Korea’s nuke capacity until the Iraq resolution was safely through Congress? Has anyone heard even a remotely credible explanation?

[december]

*Originally posted by elucidator *By the by, does anyone else find it outrageous that the Administration apparently witheld the news about N. Korea’s nuke capacity until the Iraq resolution was safely through Congress? Has anyone heard even a remotely credible explanation?

I heard Colin Powell say that the news had been shared with people on “both sides of the aisle” in Congress before it was made public. He didn’t provide a time line, but it is possible that Congress (or some in Congress) may have had this information before they voted.

Powell denied that the timing of the news had anything at all to do with the Iraq vote. He also said that the North Korea news would have tended to bring greater support to the use of military action in Iraq, since negotions turned out to have failed in North Korea.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

The real reason, IMHO, is that George W. panicked.

Yes, panicked. The instant he saw his first image of the Twin Towers burning, he lost it completely.

His eyes took on a ferret-on-crack-with-PMS-in-Hell look, & he began bludgeoning everything that was a threat.

Other people held him back from turning this into a penultimate bloodbath, but I’ll bet it took some doing.

Now, Iraq & North Korea are possible threats, & soon he will begin flailing away, in a sick, blind, fear-frenzy.

His behavior is not ambition–he’s already riding the tiger. His problem is that he’s too weak for the job.

[JDM]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**I see that he’s got some of the “brilliant and powerful architects” of America’s plans for world domination listed on a sidebar (strange–he seems to have omitted Dr. Evil’s name).
I have NEVER heard of any of these people [size=0][ah, but that’s the way of the Illuminati, isn’t it? BWAHAHAHAHA!!]

**

Are you serious when you say that you have never heard of Wolfowitz or Bolton? Not to mention “Scooter” Libby? These guys, along with Richard Perle, are the architects of the entire Bush foreign policy. “Scooter’s” other claim to fame is of course being the main advocate for President Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich. Spend a bit of time Googling, and you will probably have to change your underpants. JDM

[El_Kabong]

I’ll agree that there is certainly an element of overreaction to 9/11 in the current march toward the official spanking of Iraq. I’m also willing to believe that GWB is simply unable to understand that there may be significant differences of intent between al-Queda and the Ba’ath party. Part of a ten-year plan to establish an American Empire, though?

Can’t say I’m buying what Mr. Bookman is selling, exactly, but the administration has made it clear since this past summer that pre-emptive military action against other states perceived as hostile is now considered a legitimate option. If nothing else, this sort of thing has certainly sparked a personal interest in seeing the contents of that National Security Strategy document.

Well, Sua, first and foremost, Afghanistan is a basket case. It may very well be the first member of the set “Fourth World”, that is, a Third World country who’s resources and infrastructure have been destroyed.

I would have said that dubious honor goes to Chad or Somalia, but I guess it depends on when one assumes they began their respective plunges into the abyss.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Well, Sua, first and foremost, Afghanistan is a basket case. It may very well be the first member of the set “Fourth World”, that is, a Third World country who’s resources and infrastructure have been destroyed.

Iraq, on the other hand, has highways, military air bases (a very big plus for US, who has been forced to project its air power largely from aircraft carriers…think of the country as one very very large aircraft carrier) and many of the other advantages of a comparatively developed country.
**

So, because Afghanistan doesn’t have a highway system and existing military bases we aren’t capable of buiding ones there? :rolleyes:

Sua’s argument is a valid one. If we were so desperate to have more bases in the middle east then we could simply build them in Afghanistan. We wouldn’t need to invade Iraq. We do have a corp of engineers that are quite good at such things.

**
And, of course, there is the fact that the dirt under Saddam bin Laden’s feet is virtually drenched in light sweet crude. We are assured that this is irrelevent. Yes. Quite.
**

You really can’t get a single post into a thread without mentioning oil, can you? The amount of oil in Iraq has nothing to do with our intentions there. If we wanted the oil we could simply buy it all from them. If we are so hungry for resources, then why not invade Switzerland and empty the bank accounts? The US is the richest nation on earth. The idea that all the reasons for regime change in Iraq are a smokescreen for Bush’s desire for oil is absurd.

Speaking of absurdity, do you agree with the articles points, elucidator? You take a shot at Sua’s opinion, but as usual don’t offer one of your own.

[SuaSponte]

elucidator, you have heard of a little thing called geography, right?

Bases in amazingly sophisticated Iraq aren’t going to be much help if we need to project power into Turkmenistan - which IIRC has amazing shitloads of natural gas (or is that Uzbekistan?)- 'cause Iraq is really, really far away from Turkmenistan (and Uzbekistan).

Central Asia has become an really important part of the world, largely because evil Big Oil is spending billions in the belief that it is the next Saudi Arabia. Wouldn’t the American Empire love to have an “aircraft carrier” right in the middle of the area, so that would could project power and dominate all that lovely oil - even if we had to build the infrastructure for that aircraft carrier ourselves?

El_Kabong, you left out Congo-Zaire.

Sua

[Clu]

i’ve lurked on this board for a few months. i’m hesitant to post w/ all of the big-hitters as this board is more demanding of cites/accuracy/knowing what you’re talking about than other boards on the internet however…

even with that in mind i have to say that, with only minimal evidence or cites, the content of that article is no surprise @ all.

re: some things brought up in december’s post:
if the US really wanted to play a role in the middle east peace process, they would rethink their policy regarding israel. regardless of who is right or wrong, that is a simple truth. while intervention in kosovo/WW2 had good intentions, u.s. policy towards israel lets the arab world know where we really stand. it is for this reason that we’re concerned about saddam’s WMD. not because he’ll use them, but because he’ll give them to someone who will.

also, i’m not sure that the author is stating that we’re unconcerned about an exit plan & as a result we don’t have one, but rather, these plans haven’t been discussed openly until recently. we can argue the costs/benefits of discussing these plans early, but i think it’s safe to say that the public might have had a different impression of the war in iraq if it had been brought up in the past.

as far as presence of military bases in japan & germany, i think the author is using this to assume that we’ll do the same thing in iraq. while it will obviously be necessary in some form to keep the peace if saddam is toppled, there is an important question of how much presence the US will maintain there if all we’re trying to do is establish a democracy.
re: Duck Duck Goose’s statement regarding the names referenced in the article, if you google search for the names, you’ll find more than a few pages that either confirm who these ppl are & the positions they hold.

i hope my ranting doesn’t derail the thread, but i have to add that the US govt saw fit to renege on treaties made with native americans as recently as 150 yrs ago (gold in the black hills). i have no doubts that the attitude used to justify that behavior persists in america today.

[Shodan]

Eva Luna -

Does it strike you as plausible that the US would be secretly plotting to invade Iraq as part of a scheme for world conquest, and yet have no plans on how to integrate its great prize into such an empire?

And yet you post that a lack of such plans is evidence for the coming world empire.

Bookman sounds like a paranoid nut to me. Why the hell didn’t we start with Kuwait? Lots of oil, far more plausibility for the US if we set them up as a province, a huge initial advantage in popularity for us as the people who liberated them - but still we boogied out the instant we thought Iraq was subdued.

For such a deep-laid plan, it doesn’t seem all that well thought out. Even a nut on the Internet like me can do better.

Regards,
Shodan

[racekarl]

Other people held him back from turning this into a penultimate bloodbath

So what will the final bloodbath be?

:wally

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Are you serious when you say that you have never heard of Wolfowitz or Bolton? Not to mention “Scooter” Libby?

OH. MY…GAWWWDDD!!

You don’t mean that he’s…that “Scooter” Libby? Oh, geez, << gasp >> it IS them, how could I not have KNOWN, I LOOOVE O-Town–but they’re always just “the one with the beard”, “the one with the hat”…

So, which one is Scooter?

Spend a bit of time Googling, and you will probably have to change your underpants.

Sorry, don’t see the point of this remark. Are they such political powerhouse hotties, collectively, that I’ll be a-soilin’ me trousers in fear and trepidation?

I doubt that. I didn’t crap in my pants all during the Reagan Adminstration, I doubt I’ll do it now…

Yo? M le Kabong?

If nothing else, this sort of thing has certainly sparked a personal interest in seeing the contents of that National Security Strategy document.

Further proof of the sheer stupidity of your average Global Domination SuperVillain–the clueless dweebs have actually posted it on the Internet. Is that dumb or what?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/

Bon apetit!

BTW, here’s Clinton’s National Security Strategy, from February 1996. Compare and contrast (for one thing, it’s oodles shorter…)

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm