Was It All Planned? Iraq and Empire-Builders.

[JohnyCanuck]

Was It All Planned? Iraq and Empire-Builders

by Jon Basil Utley

"It all began when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, effectively ending the Cold War and prompting the Pentagon to undertake a search for a new set of principles, in part to prevent Congress, then controlled by the Democrats, from slashing the defense budget. The key participants were Cheney, Wolfowitz and Colin Powell – the three men worked closely together on forestalling cutbacks." Zalmay Khalizad, a Wolfowitz aide, authored the 12 year old Defense Planning Guidance Memo. Cheney was most pleased with it, saying "You've discovered a new rationale for our role in the world!" See details and more in Washington Post Report (3/7) by James Mann's from his forthcoming book, Rise of the Vulcans.

The original document, leaked to the New York Times, had "stressed the need to prevent the emergence of any rival (even regional) power," the so called, Wolfowitz Doctrine. The document had created a furor in Japan and Europe as other nations were "less than thrilled at the notion that the United States might try to limit their military and economic power." (Ibid). It encouraged China (as we have since learned) to restart its long dormant strategic missile projects. "Presidential candidate Bill Clinton's spokesman said that the document represented an effort by the Pentagon "to find an excuse for big budgets instead of downsizing." (ibid)

Khalizad (who is now U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan) had his memo downsized by Wolfowitz top aide, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby (now Cheney's top aide) who made "a subtle, crucial change." (ibid). The revised draft said "America had to be ready to protect its critical interests abroad "with only limited additional help, or even alone, if necessary." The new version didn't mention preemption specifically, but noted that "sometimes a measured military action can contain or preclude a crisis." Another neocon, John Bolton, who now is Asst. Secretary of State for International Organizations, added, "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so – because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." Insight magazine, 1999

However, there is a major gap in Mann's article. Let's go back to the first Iraq war in 1991. Mann's information is the missing link from earlier strange goings on. When Saddam first invaded Kuwait there were unexplained reports about how U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie had told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts such as your dispute with Kuwait" and "Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." This was backed up by testimony to Congress by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that Washington was not taking sides in the dispute between Kuwait and Iraq. Could Saddam have been played a sucker? He knew little of the outside world and had the megalomania of most dictators and didn't understand the imperialist elements in Washington.


More at: http://antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=2189

[soleft]

1. Excellent piece

[Zorra]

2. Yes.

[Viking12]

3. I found the following link

at the www.antiwar.com website.

Coming from the cneter of conservative thought, I found this to be a pretty interesting prophecy on the perils of the neo-cons misguided view of foreign policy serve up in the collection of essays, Present Dangers. Essays are by Kristol, Kagan, Wolfie, and Perle, among others. (Warning gratuitous Clinton bashing also present).


"the conservative internationalist vision offered in Present Dangers is neither wise nor particularly conservative, and should be rejected as a guide for the future of American foreign policy."

-snip-

"The remedy Kagan and Kristol prescribe is a muscular foreign policy aimed at preserving and extending America's hegemonic position in the international system. In essence, this is a strategy of active engagement, designed to structure the international environment in a manner favorable to U.S. interests and values. To achieve this end, they offer a plan that is unquestionably bold."

-snip-

"While certainly worth reading and pondering, Present Dangers outlines a foreign policy that is a recipe for disaster."

http://reason.com/0106/cr.wr.foreign.shtml


Sadly, we're sampling the unpleasant taste of the recipe with our Iraqi adventure.

[Disturbed]

4. A Set Up

Saddam needed to be cut down to size. None of his neighbors wanted a devil they didn't know to rpelace Saddam but the US and Allies realized Saddam was getting to powerful. Bush 1 stated that going all the way would not be prudent. Obviously, Shrub didn't agree with Dad.

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. Who ARE these people?

I mean, I know who they are, but who ARE they? How do they manage to insinuate themselves among the powerful -- and how do they get to be powerful? How do they gain influence and get to be influential? Did they gather together and anoint themselves with Crisco, as John Ashcroft did? At least with kings and noblemen, their claims were straightforward enough: they were born on the right side of the sheets. What can these people claim?