Bush's free-falling madness

[Guest guest]

T

Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:19:26 -0800 (PST)

 

 

Bush's free-falling madness

 

 

 

 

Bush's free-falling madness

 

by Gary Leupp

 

January 25, 2005

 

 

 

President Bush, in his second inaugural address, made no reference at

all to Iraq. Nevertheless it was all about Iraq. Its simple theme -

that the United States must promote " freedom " and " democracy "

throughout the world in order to eliminate " terrorism " and ensure the

continuation of freedom in this country - is intended to justify the

attack and the costly, bloody occupation of Iraq.

 

The war was initially justified as absolutely necessary to rid the

world, and especially the threat to New York, of Saddam's weapons of

mass destruction and to end the alleged long history of Iraq/al Qaeda

ties. These excuses, rationally rejected all along by most governments

and thinking people, have fallen apart. The war resulting from what

the United Nations Secretary General matter-of-factly terms " illegal, "

and which the Vatican condemned as such from the outset, is now

defended mainly as an effort to " liberate " the oppressed Iraqis.

 

This, despite overwhelming evidence that life for most Iraqis is worse

now than under Saddam; that truly democratic institutions cannot be

established under an occupation that has provoked entirely

predictable, legitimate resistance; and the occupiers' own polls

indicating that the majority of Iraqis want the invaders out, now.

 

Make no mistake. This ringing call for " freedom, " in the context of

the Iraqi disaster and relentless administration efforts to promote

" regime change " in Iran, Syria and elsewhere, is really a call for the

American people to endorse expansion of the U.S. imperial project in

Muslim Southwest Asia.

 

It is an effort to prettify that project, which includes permanent

military bases, control of the flow of oil from the region, and

general geopolitical advantage in the global chess game that has

little to do with freedom or morality.

 

" Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose, " sang Janis

Joplin. The word " free " is used/abused in lots of ways, and all

through the Cold War it meant nothin' but pro-United States policy.

The " Free World, " which we were taught to imagine confronting the

Communist menace, included Suharto's Indonesia, Mobutu's Zaire,

Franco's Spain, Marcos' Philippines, Papadopolous' Greece, Pinochet's

Chile, Salazar's Portugal, Selassi's Ethiopia, Duvalier's Haiti,

Park's South Korea, Diem's South Vietnam, Rios Montt's Guatemala,

Samoza's Nicaragua, Paraguay's Stroessner, Botha's South Africa and

many, many more " free " countries. Now we are told that Afghanistan and

Iraq are " free, " and encouraged to expect that more nations will be

freed by Emancipator Bush during his second term.

 

There are many indications that the United States, perhaps in concert

with Israel, will attack Syria and Iran. They include the passage of

the Syria Responsibility Act, for which the administration lobbied

heavily in an effort to get Congress behind " preemptive " action

against Damascus; United States co-sponsorship of UN Security Council

resolution 1559, which without naming Syria, demands its withdrawal of

its military forces from Lebanon (even though these are deployed with

Arab League approval and the resolution was not sought by Lebanon

itself); official approval of Israel's strike against Syria in October

2003; administration rhetoric denouncing Syria as being " on the wrong

side of history " ; ongoing accusations of Syrian assistance to Baathist

officials fleeing Iraq, involvement of Syrian banks in funding the

Iraqi resistance, Syrian failure to stem the flow of resistance

fighters across the Syrian-Iraqi border, and Syrian support for

Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other organizations regarded by

the U.S. State Department as " terrorist. " Reports of plans for U.S.

missile strikes or cross-border raids are routinely leaked to the press.

 

Iran, meanwhile, long vilified as a sponsor of Palestinian and

Hezbollah terrorists, has been accused of " interfering " in Iraq (as

though nobody else were doing so in Iran's next door neighbor), of

supporting the Iraqi resistance, of funding Iraqi political parties,

of infiltrating agents into Iraq, and (quite absurdly) of meaningful

links to the passionately anti-Shiite

 

al Qaeda. It stands accused, too, of seeking to acquire nuclear

weapons, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency concludes

there is no evidence for the charge.

 

The IAEA's refusal to validate U.S. claims has led to Washington's

(failed) efforts to force agency head Mohamed El Baradei to resign his

post. The administration is infuriated that the IAEA has not issued a

report that would prompt UNSC sanctions against Iran and legitimate

U.S. actions to produce regime change. Vice President Cheney has

recently stated that if " the Israelis became convinced the Iranians

had significant nuclear capability ... the Israelis might well decide

to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up

the diplomatic mess afterwards. "

 

This statement strikes some, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, as a green

light for such an attack, part of a division of labor in a joint

effort to remold the region. Is there any doubt as to whom Cheney

thinks should " clean up? "

 

But wait, you say. So bogged down and overextended in Iraq, how could

Bush possibly contemplate a widening of the war? The question

resembles that which many of us asked before the attack on Iraq. " Even

if Saddam really has weapons of mass destruction, why would he use

them against the U.S., knowing it would produce a horrific

counterattack on his country? " " Because he is MAD, " we were told.

Well, actually, Saddam was not mad. Stupid and cruel, but not crazy.

 

It would be crazy for this administration to pursue the neo-con

scenario for empire building in what they call the " Greater Middle

East, " even if they might sell it to some, for a while, as a heroic

crusade in support of democracy. But that does not mean they will not

try it.

 

There is, to use Shakespeare's phrase, a method in their madness, and

some of the deluded crazies think they hear God's voice calling them

to smite " Evil " and - even end it - during our time. They have an

enthusiastic amen-choir in a section of the unthinking public. The

watching sane, paying careful attention, should struggle to restrain them.

 

Gary P. Leupp is a Professor of History in the School of Arts and

Sciences.

 

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/vnews/display.v?TARGET=printable & article_id=41f5c930a4\

f6c