"Washington: Iraq isn't cooperating enough, see, the scoundrels! We want to inspect the presidential palaces (and we can spy if we wish) or else we INVADE!!Iraq: Ok they can inspect the palaces, without notice, any time they want.
Washington: What?? You Agree?? Iraq isn't cooperating at ALL! We need to be able to interview scientists in private
Iraq: Ok, fine..go ahead..
Washington: You agree?! You can't agree!..."
INTRODUCTION TO THE "PLAY"
The key point is that Iraq is not a threat, while Bush's war plans are a major threat (http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/bush-is-threat.html)
We have also exposed elsewhere the complete dis-connect of logic in the seemingly reasonable sounding sound-byte that "Iraq must be disarmed" (http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html)
Here, we focus on the motives of the Bush regime. This is a subject normally garnering less attention by citizen activists, since an immoral, illegal, and dangerous policy is immoral, illegal, and dangerous, no matter what the motives might be.
Nevertheless at this juncture the transparency of the motives behind the hell-bent drive for "war" by the Bush regime has reached such heights that a few comments are in order, if only so that history can record that no one can claim the innocence of "I didn't realize" that the not only unnecessary but extremely dangerous "war" was just that.
(we put the term "war" in quotes; it is not an accurate word for a unilateral assault against a 5th-rate military power and 3rd world county at the edge of economic survival, launched by the world's only superpower with more firepower than France, the UK, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, Korea, and a dozen other nations, combined. That is high-technology slaughter, not "war")
= = =
ACT I: GAMES
What is there to say? After all, everyone knows that Bush was hell-bent to invade Iraq over a year ago.
The Bush administration (we'll keep to polite terms and avoid calling it a "Regime") -- declares that "Regime change" in Iraq is their goal, so it can hardly be more obvious that their supposed worries about "WMD" are nothing but a cover for invasion, particularly when the evidence for the Iraqi so-called "threat" has been known by arms experts, former inspectors, the CIA, and virtually everyone outside the Bush administration and its small circle of control and nations bought off, threatened, or both (http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/bush-is-threat.html)
So what more is there to say?
Bush's Games:
Since the beginning Washington's motives have been self-evident for Americans and others willing to open their eyes. First, "secret evidence", which they didn't want to share with even the UN inspectors. Then, a "dossier" that proved to be based on the PhD thesis of a graduate student writing about the state of Iraq a decade ago. Then "documents" that Iraq was trying to import nuclear capabilities, "documents" which turned out to be "in-authentic", a polite term for fakes.
If in fact Bush had any useful evidence of any evasion, unknown arms, etc, by Iraq, then if disarming any WMD in Iraq was *remotely* their purposes, their obvious actions would have been to inform the inspectors (without necessarily telling Iraq) so that, armed with these (we are told) important and fundamental pieces of satellite photos etc, the inspectors could have -- on their own terms (since Iraq wouldn't know just how much the inspectors know -- confront Iraq with specific questions about where was this item, what happened at that date at that place, etc.
As far as sites, and WMD concerns, Washington continued to play games. Insisting it "knew" of missing items that it refused to mention to Iraq or the UN. If disarmament was remotely, remotely the real motivation, you would, obviously, list everything openly that you wish to have Iraq destroy or prove it had already destroyed. Notice that whether Saddam "wants" to fully disarm or not is irrelevant: the key and only meaningful question is not what Saddam "Wants" but whether the inspections can achieve their purposes regardless of the "Attitude" of "wants" of those in power. History shows that the arms inspections regime after the Gulf War of 1991 have proved far more effective in disarming Iraq than the Gulf War itself, and since then, the destruction of the Al Saud missiles are only the latest example of the success of the inspections.
To point out the obvious: We all know what would have been the case if war was launched a month ago (or many months ago as Bush preferred): those missiles wouldn't be dismantled, they would have been launched in response to the invasion.
= = = =
ACT II: BUSH/POWELL HYSTERIA:
More dramatically, is the hysterical reaction every time Iraq cooperates. Instead of being happy, they get angrier and angrier. Like a comedy:
Washington Demand: Let the inspectors return.
Iraq: Ok, but we want the weekly US/UK bombing raids that kill civilians, to stop, and to have something specific, not vague, in writing what the specific conditions are to life the sanctions. Then ok, let the inspections resume.
Washington: We continue bombing you whenever we want, even though no war is declared, and we will not put anything in writing so we can continue the sanctions as long as we like no matter WHAT Iraq does. But inspectors resume, or we INVADE.
Iraq: Caves in
Washington: Iraq isn't cooperating enough! We want to inspect the presidential palaces!
Iraq: Will you spy on us to try to assassinate or gather information for war, like you did in the previous inspections as reported in the Washington Post and New York Times?
Washington: Iraq isn't cooperating enough, see, the scoundrels! We want to inspect the presidential palaces (and we can spy if we wish) or else we INVADE!!
Iraq: Ok they can inspect the palaces, without notice, any time they want.
Washington: What?? You Agree?? Iraq isn't cooperating at ALL! We need to be able to interview scientists in private
Iraq: Go ahead..
Washington: You agree?! You can't agree! Not enough are saying yes!! MAKE them say yes!
Iraq: Ok, we've succeeded in convincing several scientists to be interviewed, in private. Ok, go ahead.
Washington: What?!?! You agree?!?!? Iraq is totally, totally, flagrantly violating everything! We must invade! They are sneaky, and wont' allow U2 spy planes which might, coincidentally, help us gather information for war, and could be used to manufacture an "incident" of shoot-down or could cause an accidental one, all giving us an excuse for war...BUT if they refuse it PROVES they are trying to evade!
Iraq: Ok, ok, have the U2 spy planes.
Washington? WHAT?!?!?!?!? YOU ARE AGREEING?!?! Damn it! Um, we mean, "Damn it, why can't the world see that Iraq has completely and utterly ignored and violated every single instance, every single change we have given it, we have bent over backwards trying oh, so very hard to avoid war, it's hopeless, we must INVADE!
UN: The inspections continue to work well. Recently Iraq shared information with us on a missile, which they brought to our attention. We believe it might be a proscribed weapon, in which case they will need to destroy it.
Washington: You found a weapon they were hiding? Good! Bomb Iraq! Now!
UN: No, we didn't find it, they brought it to our attention, thanks to the inspection process which is working well. We have found that yes, it is proscribed, and must be destroyed.
Iraq: We agree to destroy the El Saud missiles. We will begin destroying it immediately, despite the army of quarter-million and weapons at our borders and an attack by the US any hour now, we'll start to destroy them right away.
US/UK: This is a cynical ploy (A direct quote from the BBC quoting a senior official, not a made up line)
In other words: if they say no, BOMB, if they say yes, it's a "cynical ploy" because they are doing exactly what they are being asked to do; if they didn't do what they were asked to do... Nice catch-22
= = = =
ACT III: THE FRENCH/GERMAN/RUSSIAN PLAN:
Even more transparent is the Bush/Powell hysterical reaction to the French/German/Russian plan. This plan would have a vastly increased number of inspectors, backed up by armed UN security forces, thought the entire country.
Obviously, if finding any possibly hidden WMD is your goal, a far larger number of inspectors backed by the force necessary to go anywhere anytime unannounced and destroy by themselves whatever they find that needs destroying -- is a dream come true, it is exactly the execution of the key goal of disarming, of finding anything that is hidden, and of destroying anything that is illegal and must be destroyed.
For Bush/Powell this was not a dream but a nightmare. It could stop the unilateral invasion they had planned since Day One.
So what the German-French-Russian would do, namely vastly increase the pressure on Iraq, vastly increase the number of eyes on Iraq, vastly increase the capabilities on the ground to find, and destroy any weapons, is somehow seen as anything other than the vastly powerful tool for disarming Iraq that it is -- and what did they "See"? It would "protect Saddam"
True, if your plans are to invade no matter what, having lots of UN troops and inspectors would "protect" Saddam (along with, roughly, 23,999,999 Iraqis who are not Saddam Hussein, by the way, including civilian women, men, children, and babies, by the way) from the invasion you are hell-bent to carrying out no matter what Iraq does or does not do, no matter if Iraq is disarmed down to the last metal (non-plastic) dinner knife being taken away, you still want to invade and seize power of what just coincidentally happens to be the world's second largest reserve of oil, just coincidentally that is not why your father Bush the elder and Rumsfeld before him were deeply in bed being good pals with the just-as-brutal Saddam of pre-1991.
In summary, it is clear as day that if Bush/Powell meant a WORD of what they say about wanting to disarm Iraq they would be thrilled with the French/German/Russian plan. Their reactions speak volumes about the true motives
= = = = =
ACT IV: MAKE SURE "SUCCESS" IS NOT AN OPTION
Lastly, for those intending to stop the world sole rogue superpower from unilaterally attacking another nation unprovoked to seize it's resources, France and Germany might be making their worst tactical mistake right now, if they continue talking about "a list of specific conditions" instead of the original plan of a large increase in inspectors with the backing of troops.
Let us ask one last time what one does if disarming Iraq is the goal, and what one does if looking for an excuse for an invasion is the goal.
If you want to disarm Iraq, you take steps that allow YOU to do whatever is necessary to carry out the disarming FOR Iraq (without needing them to "want" to be disarmed)
You DON'T take steps that leave it up to Iraq to make all of the decision, and then "see what happened"
This is the entire point of the latest attempt by Washington to find a fig leaf for the unilateral invasion planned for months. The second UN resolution was intended to be that fig leaf, anything to allow them to say, "this is under international law, not just an Anglo-American invasion".
But tough-talking Bush who says he most of all wants Iraq to disarm, for some mysterious reason is desperately, desperately trying to avoid a situation in which WE are free to take whatever steps WE deem fit to disarm Iraq: again, that is obviously eh massively increased inspectors (again, backed by the UN troops) already discussed. That would disarm Iraq the rest of the way, to 100%, if they are not at 100% compliance right now.
The only "problem" with this is that inspections-and-disarmers would then succeed, and you're army of a quarter-million is not one you are planning to just return home without the war and invasion you lust after. You're not going to announced, "Gosh, that's great! Iraq is not disarmed, we can go home" You can't allow the inspections, let along suped-up inspectors (with UN troop backing) to succeed.
Because then you won't have an excuse to invade.
The only way out: have our "tough" Bush decide that SADDAM, not WE, should do things (a very strange position for the "Tough" side to take, while the "Softie" side says no, we will have the inspectors-with-troops go everywhere and dismantle it ourselves) No, Bush's plan, instead is that we sit on our hands for some period of time (the shortest possible one) and then he can declare (you can bet your house on this) that Iraq did NOT do enough on its own, so we are "forced" (shucks and darn it) to INVADE.
This is the most glaring aspect of the transparent motives.
The tactics might shift, there might be nuances, if this drags on, but whatever happens, Bush/Powell will NOT want to allow any path that would lead to SUCCESSFUL disarming, whether a report that things are going well from Blix, or whether a vastly increase number of inspectors to make sure we didn't miss anything, as France/Germany suggest, you will NOT allow a success. Just protesting over and over again how Iraq never, ever seems to do enough, and there is always no choice but to invade. Or give "one last chance" and then surprise, surprise, announce when the timeline is over, that the actions were "not enough" during that last chance so we must (surprise, surprise) INVADE..
= = = =
Information, resources, analysis, and strategies to stop the war:
http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/
Including how to stop the war with a little-known Resolution 377:
http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/377.html
= = = =
Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts, but welcome email.