Iraq: The Bush Administration’s Weapon Of Mass Destruction
By Cathryn Crawford (03/28/03)
We all know the Bush administration's stated reasons for going to war: Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his proliferation of WMD's, his attempts to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also know the argument of the protestors: that this entire war is based on the United States’ lust for control of an oil rich nation.
However, there is another premise, one that deserves much more attention than it has received. The basic theory is this: that the Reaganites, hawks, neoconservatives – however you wish to classify them - in the Bush Administration are using the downfall of Iraq as their own private weapon of mass destruction - the mass destruction of any government in the Middle East that they deem to be a threat to democracy and stability within the region.
The hawks, characterized by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby, found themselves at a distinct advantage after September 11, 2001. Suddenly they had a fully legitimate reason to do exactly what they had wanted to do for so long: completely restructure the Middle East. Consider the change in rhetoric concerning the regime in Saudia Arabia; our relationship with them went from being characterized as America’s "good friend in the Middle East" on September 10, to the Saudi family being suspected Al-Qaeda supporters on September 12. Coincidence? I don't think so. The hawks are using public rhetoric and private recriminations to set up the public for a series of American led attacks – whether they be financially, diplomatically, or militarily – on certain governments in the Middle East.
The chances of the current Operation Iraqi Freedom expanding into a regional war seem to be astounding. And the influential hawks that produce America's foreign policy have no qualms about admitting it. Richard Perle, resident fellow at AEI and one of Donald Rumsfeld’s main advisors at the Pentagon, says that with victory for the United States in Iraq, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.' " Perle is a man who know of which he speaks, as he was actively involved in the Pentagon before, during, and after the first Gulf War. The implication of that statement is that regimes like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia could be the first to fall, followed shortly by Libya and Sudan...and so on and so forth.
The strategy in and of itself is brilliant. It began with the downfall of the Taliban. Do you remember all the talk of Afghanistan being ‘only the beginning’? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company were quite serious when they said it. They were preparing the American people for a long campaign against dictatorships in every Middle Eastern country, with the long-term goal being the spread of democracy.
The Bush Administration has begun a chess game of monumental proportions. It is breathtaking in its sheer audacity. The premise is that America can and will reshape the Middle East in the coming years, and, thereby, reshape the entire world. The entire issue of worldwide American-imposed peace is a volatile one. Many countries view us as a bully, pushing our democracy and values on other nations. However, the real question is: Which is preferable - Pax Americana, or less-than-perfect and sometimes brutal governments?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cathryn Crawford
