Plan Thornett
Many wars are fought on bogus grounds, since those waging them are generally reluctant to ell the truth. In the case of the looming war on Iraq, so eluctant are Britain and the USA to reveal heir real objectives, that the resolutions abled for the UN security council and for he Commons debate deliberately avoid all eference to the use of force. And when they try to explain why tens of housands have to die, and billions have to e spent in a war, these same people refuse co admit that their war is designed as a grab or markets, or resources, or whatever. With this war we have not just been presented with one war aim but three - all false.
First we were told that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. When that could not be sustained, we were told that it was a matter of the 'weapons of mass destruction' held by Saddam Hussein. - When these could not be found, and scept e cism as to their existence mounted, Blair decided that what the war was really about e was the liberation of the Iraqi people from the barbarity of Saddam Hussain!
So the last resort of an isolated leader has been to attempt to argue a 'moral', if bogus, case for war.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
f Bush and Blair were really concerned
about the Iraqi people, why have the
Western powers kept Saddam in power for so long? Why did they provide him with his weapons of mass destruction in the first place - as well as all the other weaponry which he has used against the Iraqi people?
Why did they arm and protect him politically and militarily in the Iran-Iraq war? Why did they enforce a sanctions regime which protected his power base?
You could also rightly ask why do they continue to protect a range of other brutal regimes and dictators in power - from the brutal, feudal oil sheikhdoms in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, to Russian President Putin and his oppression of the Chechens -if what they are about is ridding the world of those who oppress and butcher the people they control.
Even more to the point, we should note that the "liberation' of the people from the Taliban was one of the pretexts for the recent war against Afghanistan. Women were going to be freed from the burkha and allowed back into education. Did it happen? No it did not.
In Afghanistan today, outside of Kabul, little has changed. The people were handed over to the Northern Alliance, who have
reintroduced all the old oppressions and
restrictions. The difference between the
Taliban and the Northern Alliance was never over women's liberation but on control of territory, or the drugs trade.
If we look at what the USA got out of speak its name DONT FREEDOM their invasion of Afghanistan, other than demonstrating the effectiveness of their military, it was strategic bases around the Caspian oil fields.
They now have bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Georgia. It was their own strategic interests they had in mind, not the welfare of the Afghan
And there is no reason to assume that it will be any different in Iraq. You cannot liberate people when your motivation is crude self interest. It is mutually contradictory.
Afghanistan was a dry run for Iraq. Caspian oil reserves are in any case tiny when compared to Iraq - which are the The hypocritical 'morals of a war that dare not
STOP THE WAR COALITION FOR PALESTINE ment in Venezuela to remind us of the old days of "destabilisation".
Now the US wants Iraq's oil, not only because Texas oil is on the wane, but because control of oil is control of power.
In US Republican circles the aim is "full spectrum dominance" - or world dominance by the USA at the military, economic, and the geo-political level. They want to reshape the world to the advantage of the USA for the foreseeable future - some argue 50 years. It is a frightening prospect.
The world has turned against the war before it has started. Europe is split between those who want to subordinate Europe to US interests and those who are opposed to such domination.
Bush and Blair are counting on a quick victory and a welcome into Baghdad so that they can claim that they have 'liberated' the Iraqi people, and can hope to defuse the massive opposition to their war which exists all around the world. If they don't get that they will face big problems at home - in particular Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi.
f they get their quick victory, Bush is
already making it clear that he will put
a US general in charge of Iraq for as long as necessary, and will use it to impose a settlement on the region - and on the Palestinians.
It is already clear from their treatment of minorities within Iraq how the US will operate if they occupy the country. In order to get the agreement of Turkey to open up a northern front against Saddam, the US has not only agreed to pay a staggering $26 billion to the Turkish government, but also agreed that Turkish troops can enter the Kurdish areas of Iraq once the war starts.
Then there is the issue of who is next on Bush's list once Iraq is out of the way.
"Regime change" appears to be firmly on the agenda against a growing list of US-designated "rogue states". Iran and North
Korea have been defined as part of the "axis
of evil" if Bush chooses to go that way.
But US troops are consolidating their
position in other parts of the globe,
Colombia and the Philippines in particular,
with an eye to major prizes like the vast
Chinese market.
In the face of this build-up, the "moral"
cause of eliminating alleged weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq is exposed as a total
nonsense, led as it is by the world's most
lethally-armed super-power, which in turn
connives at actual nuclear weapons held by
Israel, India and Pakistan.
Now, even as he claims to be disarming
Saddam, Bush has ordered the development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons with so-called "battlefield function" like the blasting out of deep bunkers
which cannot be reached in another way.
With the US itself safely protected behind
its new star wars shield, this is what Bush
sees as the basis of US world power for several generations.