The essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be
boiled down to this: We'll continue doing whatever we want to do until
someone stops us.
So, if you're wondering whether the U.S. will back off from attacking
Iran, or whether corporations will no longer be given the ability to
dictate Administration environmental policy, or whether domestic spying on
U.S. citizens will cease, or whether Scalia might recuse himself on cases
he's already pre-judged -- if you still harbor any or all of those
illusions, forget about it.
Since Bush&Co. openly carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody
being able to prevent them from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's
almost as if their unconscious is screaming out for a political
intervention, reminiscent of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer:
"Stop Me Before I Kill Again!"
But consciously, as they sense their time in power may be coming to an
inglorious end and as they read their quickly-sinking poll numbers, they
can't help themselves from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare:
"Stop me if you can, losers!"
This big-A "Attitude" started long before Inauguration Day, when Karl Rove
& Dick Cheney were devising their strategy and theory of governance. It
goes something like this: We need only one vote more than the other guys
-- on the Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the popular vote totals in key
states. Once we get our victory by whatever means necessary, we are then
the "legitimate" rulers. We can claim The People Have Spoken and that we
have a "mandate" for action and can do whatever we want. If you don't like
it, tough. If you're foolhardy enough, you can try again at the next
election and see where that gets you, suckers -- our side counts the
votes!
THE POSITIVES & NEGATIVES
The Bushistas look around and, though not happy with how their policies
have fallen out of favor, they can be somewhat sanguine. After all, their
fundamentalist base of about 33% is still hanging in there with them. The
mainstream media -- most newspapers, Fox News, radio talk-shows, cable
pundits -- are still more or less in their pockets. The bothersome
Democrats remain in the minority, marginalized in Congress and far away
from the levers of power. The votes are still tabulated by a few
Republican companies, many from e-voting machines that are easily
manipulatable by company technicians, even from remote distances. Another
major catastrophe -- a new war, a huge natural disaster, a major terrorist
attack -- can re-focus the headlines away from Bush&Co.'s current and
ever-growing scandals.
On the other hand, a determined prosecutor Fitzgerald is still out there,
deeply knowledgeable about what really went down in the manipulation of
pre-Iraq War intelligence. The military establishment is rebelling against
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war policies, openly in the case of those generals
who resigned to speak their minds, and covertly in the case of those
actively serving who are leaking their opposition to Jack Murtha, Sy Hersh
and others. More and more conservative and moderate Republicans are
backing away from too-close association with BushCheney, and there have
been a number of embarrassing defeats for the Administration in Congress.
Revelations of one Bush&Co. scandal after another keep coming (Katrina,
Abramoff, domestic spying, WMD lies, torture, Plamegate, Unitary Executive
dictatorship, and on and on).
Given all that -- and one suspects that is just the tip of the criminality
iceberg -- one would expect that Bush and Cheney would be approaching the
impeachment dock shortly. But while a majority of the public is willing to
consider or support making Bush and Cheney accountable for their lies and
corruption and incompetency, the weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to
even consider a censure resolution, let alone to pass one authorizing
impeachment hearings. In short, the Democrats have chosen not to put up a
real fight for either the future well-being of the Constitution or their
own political survival, preferring instead to watch from the sidelines as
the Republicans implode in corruption, scandal and disarray.
And so, with no effective opposition in their way, Bush&Co. simply keep
moving forward. Next stop: Iran.
THIS IS NOT JUST SABER-RATTLING
Though there is some speculation that all this talk about Bush attacking
Iran is so much saber-rattling to get the Iranians to back away from
pursuing their nuclear ambitions, I don't buy it.
Bush&Co. want this war for a variety of reasons: to further their
deeply-held goal (and Bush's sense of "legacy") of altering the
geopolitical makeup of the greater Middle East; to control the vast oil
reserves in the region; to provide yet another demonstration model to
Muslim rulers in the area not to mess with U.S. desires and demands; and,
of course, to wrap Bush in the warrior flag yet again as a way of
deflecting attention away from his domestic and foreign scandals by
counting on the public's fascination with footage of laser-guided
"precision" bombs striking the "enemy's" buildings and radar batteries.
("Precision" is in quotation marks because by now we know to anticipate
thousands of dead and wounded civilians when the missiles and bombs go
off-target. And, let us not forget, we haven't even brought up the subject
of the radiation effects that might ensue if, as is being planned, Bush
uses "tactical" atomic bombs, the so-called mini-nuke "bunker busters," to
get at Iran's deep-underground labs. If such WMD are employed by the U.S.,
hundreds of thousands could be killed or badly damaged by radiation, and
the area contaminated into the far future.)
The propaganda barrage being laid down by Administration spokesmen these
days is so utterly identical to the fog of lies that preceded the attack
on Iraq that it seems all Rumsfeld and Rice have to do is simply re-use
the original press releases and change the last letter of the target
country, "n" instead of "q." We even get ye olde "mushroom cloud" image
hauled out again, supposedly warning us about Iran's non-existent nuclear
weapons; this time, that mushroom cloud could well be one effected by the
U.S. bombers and missiles.
Even the fantastical expectations are as out of whack as what we were told
would happen in Iraq. There, we were promised, the American forces, in a
"cakewalk," would be greeted as "liberators," with kisses and flowers. In
Iran, we're told, much the same will occur, and the oppressed Iranians,
chafing at the harsh rule of the fundamentalist mullahs running the
country, will rise up and topple their repressive government.
Seymour
Hersh writes: "One former defense official, who still deals with
sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military
planning was premised on a belief that 'a sustained bombing campaign in
Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise
up and overthrow the government.' He added: 'I was shocked when I heard
it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'")
NUCLEAR BUNKER-BUSTERS?
These predictions of a popular Iranian uprising, which arise out of
neo-con ignorance and desire, simply ignore the realities on the ground.
Imagine, for example, how U.S. citizens would feel -- even those opposed
to the Bush Administration -- if a bullying foreign power bombed the hell
out of our country's scientific and industrial laboratories, killing a lot
of our citizens in the process, and badly hampering our economic progress
for decades to come. If the attack included nuclear bombs, multiply those
angry reactions (and the resulting radiation deaths) by a thousand per
cent. How would the citizens react? Of course: The American people would
unite behind their leaders, beloved or despised, in resisting the
attackers. Much the same reactions should be anticipated from Iran's
citizens.
In Iran's case, given that it's the major Muslim military and political
power in the region, that resistance might well lead to retaliation where
it hurts. Israel, America's one surefire ally in the region, probably
would be attacked, thus widening the already red-hot conflict; U.S.
warships in the area would be targeted by Iranian missiles; oil sales to
the West would be greatly reduced or cut off entirely, and perhaps other
oil fields in the region might be bombed; the Straits of Hormuz, which
control entry into the Persian Gulf, might be blocked to sea traffic;
Iranian assault troops might enter Iraq to support the insurgency, which
would have redoubled its attacks on U.S. forces; Iran-sponsored terrorists
would hit American targets both in the region and perhaps even inside the
United States. Plus, the Law of Unintended Consequences would lead to even
more ruinous events not even contemplated here as other Islamic nations
become involved.
Surely, Iran knows how much the U.S. military is stressed these days in
Iraq and Afghanistan, how thin the troop strength is around the globe, how
so many U.S. troops are going AWOL or are not re-upping, how National
Guard troops and commanders are reacting negatively to their overuse
outside America's boundaries, how many in the Pentagon brass are opposed
to Bush policy, etc. The aim of the Iranians, in this scenario, would be
to get the U.S. bogged down in yet another land war in the region.
In short, it's not just the ineptly-managed quagmire in Iraq that is
behind much of the opposition from high-ranking officers and retired brass
in America's military command. Clearly, they are speaking out now because
of the prospect of another disaster about to unfold in Iran, which will
get young American troops slaughtered and tied-down in yet another
military adventure.
(Let us be clear. The military brass currently in revolt against Rumsfeld
and his superiors -- the unnamed Cheney and Bush -- are not liberal
activists energized by the issues of whether these wars are moral or legal
or even well-advised; they are arguing, for the most part, on how best to
properly manage such conflicts, how to more effectively conduct such
imperial adventures while keeping their troops safe. But, whatever their
motives, progressives should welcome any dissent that weakens the hold of
the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad on the levers of uncriticized power.)
WHY IRAN WANTS NUKES
Do I believe that Iran's rulers are nice, progressive guys who deserve our
active support? Of course not. Ahmadinejad mirrors Bush as a close-minded,
backward-looking, religiously-influenced fundamentalist leader, and Iran's
senior mullahs likewise. Do I believe Iran wants uranium-enrichment purely
to build nuclear power plants? Of course not. They desire to be the big
power in the neighborhood, plus they've seen how defenseless Iraq and
Afghanistan were treated, and how this differs from how the U.S. behaves
toward North Korea, Pakistan and India, all recent members of the
nuclear-weapons club.
If for no reason other than their own protection against the two atomic
powers in the region (the U.S. and Israel), the Iranian government's goal
is to possess some nuclear-tipped missiles. Their atomic program is taking
its first babysteps these days. America's own intelligence analysts
believe it would take
anywhere from five to ten years to get to the point of Iran having a
nuclear arsenal. And, if both sides possess nuclear weapons, the world may
return to the days of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as a brake on
rash action.
The Bush doctrine of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war is to hit potential
enemies before they can even get on the track of building up their
weaponry. Hit 'em while they're weak and vulnerable, even if they have no
plan of attacking anybody (such was the case with Iraq) -- that's the
operating principle. The Islamic states are weak and vulnerable right now;
hit 'em. Iraq is weak and vulnerable; take it. Iran doesn't yet have a
fully developed nuclear program; blast it.
THE APRIL 29TH ANTI-WAR TEST
Nobody is sure when the U.S. attack on Iran will come. Given the
resistance inside the American military to launching such an attack, the
Bush propaganda machine may feel it needs a few more months to soften the
public's attitude to the "inevitability" of the move on Iran. (And to
obtain the international fig-leaf of a vaguely-worded U.N. Security
Council authorization vote for war.) Or they could judge that the
situation requires a "the-sooner-the-better" approach, before too much
opposition develops in the American body politic and around the globe.
Since this will not be a ground invasion, the air assault could happen at
any moment. I'm guessing we have maybe a month in which to head this
madness off at the pass.
Before the attack on Iraq in 2003, more than ten million people worldwide
marched in opposition to that imminent invasion. Three years later, there
seems very little organized resistance to the impending war on Iran. Only
now is the possibility of such a U.S. attack coming onto most folks' radar
screens. The peace movement seems puny in its ability to organize masses
of demonstrators these days, whereas the march of immigrants across the
country brought out millions.
We'll have a better sense of the strength of the peace movement on April
29, when the big anti-war march (the war being opposed is the one in Iraq)
will happen in New York City, this one organized by United for Justice &
Peace. Will those in the anti-war movement see the larger picture and
alter their approach and rhetoric and actions accordingly? We shall see.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard Weiner
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international , has
taught at various universities, worked as a writer-editor with the San
Francisco Chronicle, and currently is co-editor of The Crisis Papers
(www.crisispapers.org). For comment:
>>
crisispapers@comcast.net
<< .
