The New American Century

The Republican documents written in the year 2000 describe plans for the occupation of the Caspian sea area, which took place during the Afghan war, and describe the need to deal first with the 'axis of evil', Iraq, Iran and North Korea, before setting up an empire which will rule the world for a hundred years. (No kidding...no folks it is not 'the war on terrorism' but rather September 11th is being cynically manipulated to dupe the American public into supporting a plan the Republicans never dared to run on in the election...

The WSWS has published a piece in which in a few paragraphs they satarize the apologists for Washington, using in the example below, Christopher Hitchens as an example...

One of the most cynical pieces was the handiwork of former “extreme leftist” and currently ultra-right-winger Christopher Hitchens, headlined “The rat that roared.” One of Hitchens’s specialties—in fact, perhaps his only specialty—is detailing the crimes of various regimes around the world (Milosevic, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hussein)—unfailingly former allies or agents of Washington—and prescribing American imperialist military intervention as the only possible remedy.

Hitchens has now turned his attention to France and Jacques Chirac. After describing the heroic side of French history and national character, Hitchens wrote: “There is of course another France—the France of Petain and Poujade and Vichy and of the filthy colonial tactics pursued in Algeria and Indochina.” It takes someone as politically depraved as Hitchens, now a favorite of the neo-fascist right, to write this on the eve of a US assault on Iraq, as “filthy” and “colonial” as anything the French ever carried out, with a great deal more murderous fire-power at its disposal.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/fran-f15.shtml

The point is well made in that Bin Laden and his Al Queda movement were what were known as 'CIA assets'. One could call Bin Laden the 3 Billion Dollar man, since this is reportedly how much Al Queda was paid for their services in Afghanistan. As for that other creation of the Reagan White House, and thus the current administration, since these same people have been in power repeatedly since the Nixon administration, well Reagan referred to the Taliban as the equivalent of the 'Founding Fathers', not terrorists, but 'Brave Freedom Fighters' and the leader of the Taliban he nicknamed 'George Washington.' And should it be neccessary to remind people of that other American ally, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who, if he remains 'armed and dangerous', was certainly a lot more armed when the American government was arming him, in particular when the Reagan administration was arming him with those biological and chemical 'weapons of mass destruction' which have now suddenly become such a concern. Look, Saddam could not have gassed the Iranians without American help, and the help Washington provided at the time included the equipment needed to manufacture the delivery systems for these agents, which one must assume includes those left over empty shells that turned up recently. He just couldn't have done it without them, and now Hitchens, who summairizes most of the right wing commentators in the country, is calling for American military intervention, and the hue and cry is for an invasion in support of the freedom and democracy of the Iraqi people.

This one can compare to putting a fox in charge of guarding the hen house, but this one simple fact seems to elude people, although it is hard to see how it could be ignored. Really it is nothing but empty propaganda and it is clearly targetted at that majority of the American population that polls suggest support an invasion of Iraq, with the caveat that there is international support and it will be over as quickly as the previous Gulf War. No Vietnam war please, and it is hard to imagine how one can engage in urban war fare in a densely populated modern metropolis without ordering body bags, but then we have heard about that rain of cruise missiles pounding Baghdad for two days, which might go a long way to shortening the war, and avoid dragging America into a grinding, blood soaked battle for Stalingrad, even though such a course will, of neccesity, create enormous civilian casualities. The public, who support this invasion, are no doubt swayed by the arguments made by the right, democracy, freedom from tyrants, protection from the terrorist threat, for the most part because they either do not know that this is simply America cleaning up their own Al Queda mess and taking care of just one more American installed dictator, armed to the teeth of course, in better days, which following this reasoning, now justifies the military industrial complex, because you know how dangerous the world is now that dictators are armed to the teeth. (The logic is compelling is it not...who could resist it?)

It really is an interesting, not to mention mindless scam. That a fox should guard the hen house is a novel idea, the main point being put forward by the extreme right, and that it should be exactly the same fox that was causing the chickens so much trouble before is apparently a moot point, not deserving of a good public airing, no doubt because it is such a good point. You see you don't silence people and dogmatically promote a single line unless that single line stands on weak foundations. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thorough going debate take place, and let every voice be heard, and then at the end of it all let the truth prevail. That does not happen here, democracy though it is said to be, and thus worth exporting at the end of a gun barrel, rather we have a sordid attempt being made to let an untruth prevail, mostly by perpetually promoting it, and silencing any damaging criticism, for this particular point of view can only maintain its great strength if it is allowed to exist in a kind of pristine isolation.

The fact that such de facto censorship exists is the clearest indication of just how weak the arguments being put forward really are. Propaganda has always relied on the crushing of dissent, historically the preferred method, over the short term, being the crushing of dissenters, but then this method has always proved less desirable over the long term, since there is nothing like matyrdom to start fires and spread sparks, and thus we now have 'democracy' combined with de facto censorship, since this particular delusion is more or less effective as a means of that terrible fire control that was such a problem in the past when human civilization resorted to burning heretics until finally learning that this was counterproductive and produced undesirable results.

The WSWS has published another interesting piece on the economic concerns underlying the attack on Iraq, quoting an interview with media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch then describes the possible economic impact of a war in the Gulf. In the short term, strong US growth was unlikely, he predicts: “I think that while there is any doubt about Iraq, people are going to withhold investment decisions and, because of the uncertainty, I doubt if you will see much growth this quarter.”In the event of a US victory, however, new vistas will open up: “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”If Bush delivers this bonanza, then this will assure him a second term, at least if Murdoch has anything to do with it. “He will either go down in history as a very great president or he’ll crash and burn,” he comments. “I’m optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1.... Bush has surprised everyone. Even his opponents have a great deal more respect for him than they did when he was elected. One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/murd-f15.shtml

These statements probably come closer to describing the real reasons for a war against Iraq than the justifications being put forward by the right wing apologists and commentators. What we see here is not, as propaganda would suggest, a fight for the freedom of the people of Iraq, the best evidence for this being the fact that what we see unfolding here is going according to pre-established plan. The propaganda is just the public front, the sales job, much in the same way as marketing is used to peddle soap and breakfast cereal.

A Project for the New American Century report, whose contributors included members of the current administration, and which was written in 2000 (although it is heavily based on documents written in 1992 during the first Bush administration) describes a plan to establish an American imperial empire around the globe, with America maintaining an unchallenged position of Global pre-eminence, playing the role of world cop and establishing the Pax Americana (the 'American peace'). This would involve America paying for the huge expense of maintaining empire, while other countries pay instead for such things as health care instead, but nevertheless it remains a real good idea.

The report is quite candid in stating that America must establish a military presence around the world. Iraq is the nation of choice when it comes to establishing a military base from which to control the entire Middle East. According to the report Iraq, Iran and North Korea formed the principle rogue nations, and not surprisingly, since this administration is following their own plan, detailed in the document, we now have Iran, Iraq, and North Korea labelled the 'axis of evil.'

A piece published in the Atlanta Constitution Journal, which came to my attention recently, does a fine job of summarizing the point to be made here, and that is that the war against Iraq is not about 'terrorism' or September 11th, and certainly not about democracy in Iraq, as the behavior of the United States government in creating Bin Laden, backing the Taliban, and arming Saddam with weapons of mass destruction in the first place clearly indicate. Al Queda, Saddam, and bin Laden were just pawns, and remain pawns, only their position on the board has changed. The current war in Iraq is in fact about what all American wars and interventions are about, being part of American strategy for the globe, just as Al Queda, Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam were also, during their brief and temporary time in the spotlight, their short time of being protected by the favor of Washington, were also just pawns in the great game played by great powers, with the planet and everything on it being chess pieces.

America is playing power politics once again, just as they did when they created Bin Laden and Al Queda and propped up the Taliban and armed Saddam, and those right wing apologists are either aware of this, if they are politically conscious right wingers (thus making them shrewd and very scheming propagandists) or they are unconscious patsies who are being left to scream bloody murder and raise a big fuss about 'the poor Iraqi people' and the 'threat of terrorists' thus helping to promote a much bigger game in which the people they support created the problems in the first place, but now, as I said, like the fox stepping up to guard the chickens from foxes, are now to be peddled as the saviors of the world, the Bright Knight in Shining Armor out to save the world from evil doers. (It is all so cynical it barely merits comment, but there it is.)

As the article mentioned above put it :

FAMILIAR THEMES

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'CONSTABULARY DUTIES'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

Quoted from THE PRESIDENT'S REAL GOAL IN IRAQby Jay Bookman [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02], and yes that is 'mainstream media' - remarkable isn't it....

What is suggested by all this is that in a real debate, should one ever occur, either in the independent media, on the TV screens and in the newspapers of the world, or in the United Nations Security council (where no genuine debate takes place, at least not that I have seen), it is required that those who wish to defend the war go beyond the kind of slander, base accusations, and meaningless trolling, and certainly go far, far beyond the typical White Knight and Shining Armor myths and metaphors, combined with the typical moral outrage at those who defy such a righteous and pure crusader, and get down to business and discuss and defend the empire, both its methods and its rational. Just be blunt, be politically conscious for a change, be aware, and be truthful, which would be a refreshing change of pace. Since a fox is in charge of taking care of the chickens, this will also have to be rationalized and explained and defended. Should the creator of Al Queda, bin Laden's sponsor to the tune of 3 billion, and Saddam's ally and his arms supplier and tutor in the creation, manufacture and delivery of weapons of mass destruction now suddenly be transformed into the White Knight in Shining Armor? The obvious answer is NO, certainly not, but rather we should be debating properly by discussing empire, and the great New Rome, and from now on right wing apologists can become the defenders of the Empire, and the massive debts and huge expenses involved in playing the part of Rome around the globe, not to mention the price in blood, you know, the bloodshed involved in discplining the colonies, not to mention the bloodshed involved in cleaning up all those dirty messes left by the empire in its wake. White pawn today, black pawn tomorrow, and someone will have to be brave and noble enough to step up the plate and fix that thing up now won't they. This is something to keep in mind, as, if you study history, you will notice that the empire will always be cleaning up after itself, this being an ongoing problem, and thus we can expect to be regularly buried under a deluge of simple minded propaganda while the empire does so, because no one is going to want to call a spade a spade in that particular instance...

There has been no real debate taking place that I have heard, not a real debate on the critical issues. For example I have not heard French and German governments discussing the real issues, the secret issues, and that is that they are less than keen about that rising new Rome, under which France and Germany will be provinces, big ones mind you, but provinces and outposts of the Roman Empire, which is what is really bothering those people. I have also heard churches protesting the war, but while marching in lockstep with the official agenda, playing along with that 'terrorism fighting' myth, and the agenda of 'disarming tyrants' and so on, while either remaining oblivious to what is really going on, or just being to 'tactful' to want to bring such matters up. They will fail, of course, and the reasons for failures experienced by churches when they raise banners being the fault of churches, at least according to my analysis of the past, in that churches do things like pull their punches, they try to straddle the fence, and they often wind up expressing the concerns and thus the limited understanding of the issues typical of suburbia. As for the Vatican, their objection seems simply to be an 'anti-war' agenda, and this in and of itself is also destined to fail, just as the Jubliee 2000 debt relief campaign failed, since it did not go far enough, was not truthful enough about the real conditions that caused poverty in the world (gross inequality and the war in poor countries between the small wealthy elite that owns almost everything in the country and the poor). They didn't touch that thing with a ten foot pole, leaving people to believe that poverty is just an unfortunate, but unavoidable world problem, caused perhaps by mother nature or some other tragic but unavoidable event, much like the weather. This sort of limited analysis is typical of churches and leads to their defeat again and again. As for the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, they gave a forum to the White Knight Propaganda, are vociferous in their promotion of this war, and just about anything else Ceasar does, including cutting welfare, for example, on the grounds that people need to show 'personal responsibility for their own poverty', this in spite of the fact that there is always a stubborn umemployment rate, so there will always be people, who no matter how much effort they put into correcting their own lazy condition, are just going to be ruined in this society, but nevertheless must be punished and persecuted. But then Christian Television, and the kind of extreme right wing point of view they expound, is not really a kind of Christianity, nor is it a debating society, since only a single point of view is ever heard, a sure sign of a weak position by the way, when in fact the entire church is diverse, although you would never know it based on this single minded, oppressive media presence.

The real debate, the legitimate debate, is not a debate about 'terrorism' or 'weapons of mass destruction' or 'bringing the gift of democracy to the planet.' The real debate centers on the establishment of the American Empire, the New Rome, the New World Order (as Bush senior called it, his handlers apparently forgetting how paranoid his right leaning religious supporters are about that phrase). Certainly the Taliban were not democratic, and neither was Saddam, and the sudden concern the administration has about weapons of mass destruction is something new, since they were never to worried about it before. In this case the right wing will not be able to dredge up that thing where they try to blame the problem on 'a previous administration' (provided they can tar and feather some Democrats for the problem), since it is the current administration that is presently involved in disciplining their own unruly children, the Taliban, Bin Laden, and Saddam, those three former Republicans in good standing, who have now been moved to the other side of the chess board.

The New American Empire is not really concerned with 'democracy' or saving the world. Well, at least not over the last year, anyways. Maybe next year they will show their true colors, but this year they must be keeping their essential goodness and their White Shining Armor in a locker somewhere.

Let me give you one really classic example of what I mean. For example, the churches are still working and slaving away at that Jubliee 2000 campaign which failed. Not much is being accomplished. Activists are still working against the agenda of the IMF, with limited results (most of the heavy lifting is being done in the countries suffering the most, but for the most part people around here remain pretty ignorant about it all). If you ask people, you will find that they have agendas, but you know, sometimes I think people put to much confidence in those agendas of theirs, to much stock in their own activities as being the THING THAT WILL MAKE THE BIG DIFFERENCE. Well, you know sometimes, I think the thing that makes the biggest difference of all is to just let people carry on, and let them destroy themselves. Sure, it can be pure hell while you are waiting for the inevitable to take place, as one horror after another assails you, one act of wickedness rises up into your nostril like a rotting stench day after day after day. But looking back over it all, I have to say, that even given all this, it is still well worth the wait, and there we have the absolutely best way to achieve an ultimate end. You sometimes just have to let your opponents do all the really heavy lifting themselves, thus helping you out a lot. This strategy works everytime you take a principled stand against the unprincipled. Ultimately it works against the empire too, as you can tell by that whole Al Queda, bin Laden deal. When people sin, their undoing is always just a little further down the road. This is an insight I think people lack, which is why I bring it to your attention. History, and yes, the present, today, tells us that this always works every single time. It just takes a while...

Now consider the following. Close to forty million human beings are about to die, in one of the most widespread famines of modern times. 12 myths about Hunger and Starvation

This is not just your regular famines like the famines we have had before. This one is widespread, in country after country, covering continents. Yes, it is an exceptionally exceptional famine. The reason is that 'neo-liberalism' forced onto countries by the IMF. For example, you cannot now have government intervention in the food market place. That would be wrong. It is not free market, and neither is it the free trading way of doing things. It involves social programs, which is also wrong, and the IMF won't let any countries do that anymore either. They must slash all those programs and then give tax cuts to the rich, following the principles of the unregulated, unrestricted market which is the ideal for all humanity at all times. Now in the past countries could ride out a famine by dipping into their social programs, you know their food stock piles, but now that the market must regulate and run the entire food chain, thus making it perfect, up to date, and dogmatically correct, and well there just aren't any social programs left, and there just aren't any food reserves left, and what with those high, high interest payments on those loans, and the tax cuts for the rich and everything, there just isn't any money left, and you can only squeeze an extra quarter out of the poor so many times before the well runs dry, as the civil war in Bolivia against the IMF demonstrates so clearly (they just aren't going to let that IMF cut taxes for the rich and then one more time, force governments to take a few more quarters from the poor to keep up those interest payments on those loans...this same rising revolt is boiling up around the world by the way, Bolivia being just the tip of a giant ice berg, which relates directly to that plan for the American Empire, by the way ... they better hurry up and get that empire set up if they want to keep a (militaristic) lid on that thing ... but then there are always third world tyrants, right, dictators to put onto those countries, should the empire find its military stretched a little thin, you know if it finds it has more bite than it has chew...thus making the New American Century just like the old one, only with a lot more problems to deal with...) Now to return to the point, the war the IMF and their imperialistic, colonial powers that be are waging against the poor of the world is resulting, this spring, in 40 million civilian casualities, more than the total for world war two, and the shooting wars of the coming Pax Americana hasn't even really got started yet. (and people worry about civilian casualities in Iraq).

Yes it is pretty cynical to listen to all this talk of compassionately saving the innocent civilians of Iraq, when Eritrea is about to be almost completely destroyed in the war, a 70 per cent civilian casualty rate. It is now to late to save Eritrea, and provided that the average American for example, can find Eritrea on a map, well you might want to cover over where it says 'Eritrea' with some of that duct tape, thus keeping that map up to date until they come out with a new print run.

Don't you just love that myth of the White Knight in Shining armor out to fight the evil doers of the world, which is the clarion call of the right wing and the defining, limiting factor in what passes for debate in this place. Notice how everyone always debates in and around the White Knight myth. We can expect further cynical manouvering in the future, as the Empire carries on with its predefined agenda, and in its wake we can expect further one sided 'debate', one sided in that the little debate that there will be will be carefully contained within the limits of the official agenda, and those doing the debating will use the officially sanctioned language, will debate whether or not we are most effectively fighting the terrorists, or whether this is the best way to bring democracy to Iraq, or whether the United Nations arms inspectors are the best way to ensure that Iraq 'disarms', (While around the world the military industrial complex continues to arm those, who, in the future, should the pawns be moved, will also require 'disarming'), this type of agenda following debate being something that happens almost everytime you hear what is supposed to be a debate in this place, and is far to chronic even among those most opposed to what is going on.

But there are two reasons for that. One is stubborness, a weird kind of stubborness, something that you sometimes see in churches, as just one example, but also among others who are wedded to ideologies, in that they just stubbornly resist anything that goes outside the boundaries established by a certain agenda, and thus they become not only like those they oppose, they also shoot themselves in the foot again and again.

There also needs to be some consciousness raising done in this place, so that people become aware of just where they really are and what they are really doing, what is really going on in the world, and what they are really debating. Only in this way can people, both those supposedly 'for the war' and those who are against it, stop being pawns themselves, little players who follow the official agenda and move in lock step with those who imagine themselves to be big players, agenda setters, and the movers and shakers of the world (and you would think that churches, at the very least, would understand how questionable that self conception can really be...)