The Empire Frame of Mind

There is so much (supposedly) coming to light about Sept. 11, 2001; Bush House spin on the "march to war;" Israel targeting Hammas leadership; US setting up permanent military bases in Iraq; and on and on. Certainly these are somewhat disparate though related issues. The question becomes one of weaving a way through.

Let's start with Iraq. We know (and have known since Bush claimed the Presidency) that the plan was to oust Saddam Hussein and claim Iraq. This is no surprise. It was clear from the Rebuilding America's Defenses:Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century which was put out by the neo-con "think tank" Project for a New American Century. This document became the foundation for G. W. Bush's defence and foreign policy doctrines -- or should we say offence and empire policies?

Paul O'Neill brought this up in his little expose of his time in the Bush White House, and Clarke, brings it up in his account of the events immediately following Sept. 11. It was also in Rumsfeld's private notes immediately following 9/11/01. It is clear the administration wanted to come go into Iraq before ever setting foot in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and that 9/11/01 provided a pretext to set that up. Not to mention the invasion of Afghanistan. Apparently, the U.S. OK'd plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11 (MSNBC, 3/23/04).

In attempting to figure out whether the attacks of 9/11/01 could have been prevented, the Commission is examining both the Clinton and Bush Jr. knowledge and actions. The question keeps coming up of why Clinton and Bush didn't act against al Qaeda sooner. The basic answer for both is that neither the Congress or the people would have supported launching an all out military assault. Not to mention that Clinton was hamstrung by the Republican and press on both the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations. The reality is also that GW seems to have not been too concerned about al Qaeda prior to 9/11/01. He had other fish to fry - literally since he was on vacation for over half of his first 9 months in office.

I find it more than surprising that what was considered the most "effective" plan was to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Apparently Afghanistan was on the top of the Bush to do list. Colin Powell was in Afghanistan with a check to the Taliban for $43 million in "humanitarian aid" in July of 2001 (Madsen, CRG, 1/23/02, Afghanistan, the Taliban
and the Bush Oil Team.). One has to wonder about the nature of that visit as apparently the warning was given that Afghanistan would be invaded by mid-October 2001 (US 'planned attack on Taleban', Arney, BBC, 9/18/01). Guess what? The US invaded in the middle of October. Wasn't it fortuitous that 9/11/01 happened to justify that invasion? It most likely would have been very difficult to get UN Security Council support otherwise, and the invasion of Afghanistan (like that of Iraq) would have been illegal under international law.

While it is clear that Hussein had no relationship to al Qaeda, the spin certainly was that they did. Much was made of this in spinning the US (and the rest of the world) into a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. I asked one of my classes at the beginning of March 2003 whether they believed that Hussein was directly involved in the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Over 70% thought that this was a fact. This is despite broad coverage at that time that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda. Roughly the same number thought that the terrorists on those planes were Iraqi.

Which brings us to the question of legality. The US has taken the strategy of pre-emptive war and assassination as viable strategies to protect US interests. Israel is certainly on the same page with the Palestinians. assassination of foreign diplomats and heads of state is not legal under international law. Both the US and Israel are openly engaging in this strategy. Israel targeted Sheik Ahmed Yassin and killed him, and Israel 'targeting entire Hamas leadership' (Oliver, Guardian, 3/23/04). Meanwhile, Bush Backs Israel on Self-Defense (Kessler & Lynch, Wa. Post, 3/23/04). The UN is considering sanctions for Israel for the assassination. Israel, Palestinians clash in UN Security Council (McCool, Reuters, 3/24/04), and Israel argues the hypocrisy of not condemning the suicide bombings.

The reality is that the murder of Yassin, and the open plans to go after others, are rousing the entire Middle East. If it was tense before, it is definitely explosive now as was seen by the 100s of thousands of protesters in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq (to name a few). Further, the US support of Israel on this attack is being responded to with even more anti-American sentiment. Bush started his "war on terrorism" with Christian rhetoric of the Crusades. Israel's murder of a spiritual leader and Bush support of that murder, only reinforces the perception that it is Islam under attack. In my opinion, this can only bring more Muslims to the side of the Islamists. It seems clear that the perception of a war on Islam will be met with fierce resistance and even violence.

Meanwhile, the march to empire continues. While saying that the US is turning over authority in Iraq on June 30th, the US is setting up 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq (Spolar, Chicago Tribune, 3/23/04). The US has launched a new offensive in Afghanistan with 35,000 plus troops, and is mobilizing troops in Northern Africa. The US has been implicated in the Aristide coup in Haiti, and has been active in ongoing attempts to oust Chavez in Venezuela.

The Bush administration has talked a lot about regime change, and has certainly shown the utmost disdain for both the UN and the international community. Apparently the umbrella of that disdain extends to Israel as well. This is not surprising as the neo-cons also support Israel. One has to ask whether international law will eventually come to bear on illegal activities, and what the US would do in the event of such an action by the international community. If the international community through the vehicles of the UN or NATO declared the US a rogue state, what would that mean? Could sanctions be enforced, or would we have a "regime change" in the US?

What is clear is that both the US and Israel are in violation of numerous international agreements. Much of the rest of the world seems aware of this and it is reflected in the meteoric drop in international negativity about the US. It is also behind the dramatic increase in perceptions that suicide bombings are justifiable against the US (Pakistan went from 36-46%, Morocco 27-66%, and Jordan 24-70% as reported by the PEW survey). What seems clear is that while Bush and Co. may be intent on creating the empire of the 21st century, the rest of the world will not submit without a struggle.

Posted by rowan at March 24, 2004 11:04 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |