double plus bad

[Guest guest]

June 8, 2006

 

Proving the Case

War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants

By BILL CHRISTISON

Former CIA analyst

 

George W. Bush. " Dubya. " In the media, the practice of using the W to

distinguish the current president from his father is common. George

Senior has two middle initials -- H and W -- but few media flacks seem

to use them. Nevertheless, two beats one, and adding to the fetid

miasma constantly enveloping Washington these days is the old but

oft-repeated rumor about a dominating motivation of Bush Junior -- that

he would do almost anything to assure that his own reputation surpasses

that of his father in historians' future rankings of presidents. It

seems to me that we might in common courtesy push him a little more

quickly than might otherwise occur, at least in the name game, toward

equality with (though not superiority over) his father -- by giving him

the honor and dignity of two middle initials. We should decree that

henceforth the son shall be known as George P. W. ( " Perpetual War " )

Bush. Instead of just " Dubya, " how about calling him " Pee Dubya? "

 

Is it unfair to label the current president " Pee Dubya? " No, it is not.

Let's look at a little background. Back on March 16, 2006, the White

House published a new document, The National Security Strategy of the

United States of America. This replaces or, more properly, supplements

an earlier document with the same title that the White House put out in

2002.

 

Most people in the U.S. and elsewhere did not pay much attention to the

new version of this document, because it is loaded with clichés and

much of it reads like the propaganda put out by far too many current

Bush administration spokesmen these days. It is not an inspired piece

of writing. The first two pages contain a cover letter from George W.

Bush to " My fellow Americans " that seems particularly propagandistic.

In these two pages, the words " democracy " or " democratic " appear

seven

times; the words " freedom " or " free, " eleven times.

 

But the document is nonetheless important. Perhaps the major difference

between the 2006 and the 2002 version is the greater bluntness with

which the new version proclaims that the U.S. is in a struggle that

will last for many years and defines who our alleged principal enemy

is. Several recent speeches of Bush had already presaged this

bluntness, but the new White House document puts the same thoughts into

the most prestigious and official foreign policy pronouncement that the

present administration makes public.

 

In the very beginning of the paper, immediately following Bush's

covering letter, the " ultimate goal " of the U.S. is described as

" ending tyranny in our world. " A cliché? Of course, but noteworthy for

its arrogance. The paper then continues, " Achieving this goal is the

work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long

struggle. . . . The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over

the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology

now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in

the perversion of a proud religion. " Later in the document, this

statement appears: " The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is

the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century. "

This comparison of 20th century threats with 21st century threats makes

it quite clear that the Bush administration foresees new world wars in

the 21st century that may be every bit as bad as the world wars of the

20th. And there are no statements that the U.S. will make any great

efforts to avoid such wars. " Pee Dubya " just doesn't seem to care.

 

Nowhere in the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy were such

comparisons of 20th century fascism and communism with 21st century

" militant Islamic radicalism " made, although a formulation almost as

blunt did appear in a very high-level U.S. publication (for the first

time that this writer can recall) -- in the 9/11 Commission Report

released in July 2004.

 

The 9/11 Commission, consisting of both Republicans and Democrats

appointed by the leaders of both parties, issued a report that

contained absolutely no dissents or even hints of disagreements. The

commissioners unanimously concluded, in what was a key passage of the

report, that " the enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. . .

.. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. . . . Bin Ladin and

Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the

font of all evil, the 'head of the snake,' and it must be converted or

destroyed. . . . [This] is not a position with which Americans can

bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground -- not even

respect for life -- on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be

destroyed or utterly isolated. . . . This process is likely to be

measured in decades, not years. " The only things missing from this

diatribe were the comparisons with fascism and communism.

 

So, from 2002 to 2004 and then to 2006, there was a progression -- a

gradually increasing willingness at top levels of the government to

talk explicitly about Islamic extremism as the cause of all our

troubles and to talk more openly and bluntly about a conflict lasting

for " decades " or " generations. " At lower levels around Washington,

among mid-level neocon officials and media representatives of the

neocons such as Charles Krauthammer, such bluntness has been in

evidence for a considerably longer period. But by 2006 the bluntness

was also an open part of the presidentially-approved dogma in the

highest level U.S. documents.

 

All this seems intended to provide Bush a stronger reason to support

the " clash of civilization " notion originally conceived by the neocons

and long backed by many Christian fundamentalist leaders in the U.S.,

as well as by Israeli right-wingers. And since this conflict will last

for " generations, " won't it also promise great profits for those

arms-makers who are among Bush's strongest supporters and largest

contributors? And isn't it also intended to make it easier for the Bush

administration to continue giving its close ally Israel a free hand to

do whatever it wants to those " Muslim extremists " who recently won a

democratic election in the West Bank?

 

Let's look more closely at this picture of a conflict lasting for

decades that the Bush administration wants to drag us into. Some among

us, including me, would argue the contrary case, that if the U.S.

actually changed its foreign policies, ceased its drive for political

and economic domination over areas of the world that Arabs and Muslims

consider to be theirs, and seriously addressed their legitimate

grievances on the Palestine-Israel issue, we could reduce the threat of

terrorism against us and our allies in far less time. Taking a moral

stand for a change, if only by backing away from imperialism, would

have the dual benefit of being moral -- a nice change of pace -- and

pragmatically of vastly enhancing the U.S. image around the world and

undermining the terrorists' anti-American case.

 

Let's look more closely also at the claim that Islamist terrorism is

the great danger of the present. Danger to whom? If you were a Muslim,

might you not figure instead that the greatest danger to you was U.S.

and Israeli aggression and Christian fundamentalist extremism, given

some of the statements certain fundamentalist leaders in the U.S. have

made about Islam? Put another way, might you not see the greatest

danger to you arising from the alliance of Christian and Jewish

fundamentalism arrayed against your world?

 

Let's take one more example. One of the action recommendations in the

9/11 Commission's report is this: " The problems in the U.S.-Saudi

relationship must be confronted, openly. . . . [An effort should be

made to work toward] a shared interest in greater tolerance and

cultural respect, translating into a commitment to fight the violent

extremists who foment hatred. " If we say that about the U.S.-Saudi

relationship, should we not ask that problems in the

U.S.-Israeli-Muslim relationship be confronted just as openly? If you

were a Muslim, would you not regard it as equally important to global

peace that the U.S. work for tolerance and cultural respect in both

America and Israel as well, and work toward translating that into a

commitment to fight extremists who foment hatred of Islam in both

nations?

 

The new 2006 version of the National Security Strategy paper also deals

with U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Syria. It will not be news to

readers that there is nothing in the document about the timing of even

a partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Every reference to Iraq

is written in a manner intended to persuade readers that U.S. forces

will remain in the country indefinitely. Nor will it be news that the

administration plans to continue employing preemptive military action

in the region whenever and wherever it decides to do so. The paper

contains no serious restrictions on any future U.S. preemptive military

actions.

 

Syria and Iran are lumped together as " allies of terror " in the 2006

version, and they are told that " the world must hold these regimes to

account. " The document contains nothing on specific U.S. plans for

Syria, but Iran receives considerably more detailed treatment. The U.S.

alleges that Iran " has violated its Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)

safeguards obligations " and says that " we may face no greater challenge

from a single country than from Iran. " The paper threatens

" confrontation " if diplomatic efforts do not succeed and goes on to say

that the U.S. also has " broader concerns. . . . The Iranian regime

sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East

peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its

people for freedom. " How much of this is bluff and how much is not is

impossible to know for sure, but at the least, the document

intentionally leaves the impression that some form of U.S., or

U.S.-Israeli, military action against Iran, possibly involving nuclear

weapons, is likely in coming months.

 

A digression is necessary here. This writer's belief is that the only

long-term hope the world has of avoiding a quite widespread further

proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations in the coming

decade is for the U.S. to undertake honest and serious multilateral

negotiations aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons everywhere. In the

specific case of Iran, if we in the U.S., without launching a war,

seriously want that country to forgo nuclear weapons, we should

understand that Iran, despite its present denials, almost certainly

wants a capability to acquire such weapons in the future, just as the

Bush administration believes. Iran wants them, or will want them,

first, because Israel has them; second, because the U.S. has them; and

third, because numerous other nations have them. As a proud country,

Iran believes it is equally entitled to them, and that belief will not

change. Furthermore, in the eyes of most Muslims around the world and

many other people too, Iran, with a population of close to 70 million,

clearly has as much right as Israel, with a population less than

one-tenth as large, to have nuclear weapons.

 

To reemphasize the essential point, in a world where the dominant

system of governance continues to be based on sovereign nation-states,

the only hope, without a war, of persuading Iran to stop its nuclear

weapons program is for the U.S. to end its own monumental hypocrisy on

nuclear weapons. The U.S. government itself would have to undertake a

major change of policy. It would have to accept the proposition, very

publicly, that until the U.S. is willing to eliminate its own nuclear

weapons, other nation-states around the world, including Iran, have

just as much right to them as the U.S., Israel, Russia, China, England,

France, India, Pakistan -- and yes, North Korea. Then, as already

mentioned, the U.S. would have to begin negotiations to eliminate

nuclear weapons everywhere, and it would have to stop immediately all

planning to expand the varieties of weapons in its own nuclear arsenal.

It would also have to stop Israel from doing the same.

 

>From here on, what would happen next becomes even more speculative.

Assuming it was possible to convince most of the major powers including

the U.S. to begin multilateral talks on nuclear disarmament, the

negotiations would undoubtedly require several years. In the end, the

United Nations or some new international organization would most likely

need a strong international military force, not dominated by the U.S.,

to enforce and verify any agreement, with respect to both nation-states

and non-state entities. Under any circumstances, such negotiations

would be exceedingly difficult.

 

As a simultaneous and indispensable step in this scenario, parallel

negotiations on a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East,

including Israel, would also have to be undertaken simultaneously with

the global nuclear disarmament talks. Most Arab nations in the past

have already supported a nuclear-free zone, while Israel has been the

stumbling block. But the U.S. would have to refuse to be a partner of

Israel in these negotiations, because to do so would cause the

negotiations to fail miserably. Instead, we would deliberately and

openly have to change our policy toward Israel and put whatever

pressure on that country might be necessary to bring about a

nuclear-free zone. Specifically, the U.S. would probably have to

announce that future U.S. aid to Israel would be tied to the successful

establishment of such a zone. Stringent enforcement and verification

measures would be needed.

 

Now let's come down to earth. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to

envisage a situation in which any conceivable U.S. administration would

at present accept even step one of this scenario -- that is, even

beginning a process of negotiating away its own nuclear weapons.

 

Therefore, any Iranian government will in the end consider that it has

as much right as the rest of us to have its own nuclear weapons,

regardless of the fact that it has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty.

It could quite truthfully charge that the U.S. itself had already

violated the NPT, and that therefore Iran was entitled to do the same.

Even if Teheran, under pressure, were to sign new agreements, now or in

the future, to forgo such weapons, the new agreements would be

meaningless as long as the U.S., Israel, and other nuclear nations

insisted that they could keep and expand their own nuclear arsenals.

 

Many people are aware that the critical bargain reached in the 1970 NPT

-- the bargain that made the treaty possible -- was a trade-off: the

acceptance of continued non-nuclear-weapons status by states without

those weapons, in return for the simultaneous agreement by states

possessing nuclear weapons to pursue good-faith negotiations on

nuclear, as well as general and complete, disarmament, " under strict

and effective international control. " These provisions had no teeth,

and certainly many " realists " in the U.S. foreign policy establishment

thought the provisions were so unrealistic that they would not and

could not be enforced. And in truth they never have been. Nevertheless,

the existence of these provisions was necessary to the NPT's

ratification by numerous countries, and they give any state

dissatisfied with progress toward nuclear disarmament -- including Iran

-- an excuse to abrogate or ignore the treaty.

 

While the niceties of international law on this issue may not be a

major concern to most people, another question truly is vital. Which is

more important -- stopping the further proliferation of nuclear weapons

to Iran, or stopping the U.S. government and/or the government of

Israel from instigating a war against Iran? If it is impossible to do

both without military action, this question must be addressed. To this

writer, the answer is crystal clear: The single most urgent objective

right now is preventing a war, possibly nuclear, from being started by

the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran. Such a war would be disastrous,

and we should be doing whatever we can, with the highest possible

priority, to prevent it from ever happening.

 

>From 1945 until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. never once took

military action to prevent other nations from simply acquiring nuclear

weapons. And numerous other nations did in fact acquire them.

Washington relied instead on deterrence and containment to prevent

other nations from using such weapons after they had been developed.

Deterrence and containment may not be perfect policies, but they have a

successful track record and can probably be applied more successfully

than other policies to subnational groups as well as nation-states. It

is also quite likely that Iran itself, whenever it decides that it must

have its own nuclear weapons more quickly than it now seems to want

them, will conclude that it too needs them for deterrent rather than

preemptive and aggressive purposes against the U.S. and Israel. The

point is that for Iran as well as the U.S., deterrence and containment

turn out still to be better policies than the recklessness of

preemption. We should therefore strongly reject any U.S.- or

Israeli-initiated military actions or coup attempts against Iran. The

consequence of such actions would almost certainly be a new world war.

 

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a

National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of

Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial

Crusades, CounterPunch's history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

He can be reached at Kathy.bill

 

I don't wanna be no war hero

Don't want a movie made about me

I don't wanna be no war hero

Just get away from the madness I see