I was sent this the other day:
[[ President Bush has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to get out of town or face war. But the reasons battle is now at hand have nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001, even though President Bush, in pressing his case for an attack, mentioned the terrorists' attacks several times during his March 6 news conference. It's not about ties to al-Qaida because, no matter how much the Bush wants it so, no hard or even soft evidence exists to suggest an Iraq alliance with Osama bin Laden's group. And, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, either.
These have been convenient excuses for advocating the ouster of Saddam by military action. But, what is being advanced now is a policy formulated at least five years ago, before Sept. 11, 2001, before al-Qaida became a household name, before inspections resumed, before Mr. Bush was elected. And the keys to understanding the effort to get Saddam lie in oil, Israel and, if not global domination, at least global egotism that only the United States knows what's best for the world.
Let's start with some familiar justifications for war:
-- "We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
-- "We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades U.N. inspections."
-- "It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
-- "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
-- "We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing U.N. resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interest in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the U.N. Security Council."
These excerpts come, not from the current debate over war against Iraq, but from a letter sent to President Clinton on Jan. 26, 1998, by the Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org). Among the signers, and their current job titles:
-- Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs.
-- Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state.
-- John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
-- Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs.
-- Zalmay Khalilzad, White House special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis.
-- Richard Perle, chairman, Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.
-- Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense, international security affairs.
-- Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.
-- Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.
-- Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. trade representative.
There may yet surface a legitimate reason for military action against Iraq, but, thus far, the ones being cited by the Bush administration are meant to whip up emotions and not appeal to logic.
The American public is being asked to support a devastating war against Iraq and America's sons and daughters have been placed in harm's way, not because Iraq has links to Sept. 11, 2001, or ties to al-Qaida, or weapons of mass destruction. Instead, a clique of conservatives decided more than five years ago that the toppling of Saddam should be the aim, above all, of American foreign policy and as a first step toward making their beliefs and their way of life the only relevance in the world.
As the Project for the New American Century's statement of principles, dated June 3, 1997, points out, "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles."
In short, they alone must rule the world.
Oh, among the signers of the 1997 statement of principles are two other familiar names: Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. ]]
sKally