by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
February 17, 2001
PRELUDE TO WAR
The politics behind the Iraq airstrike
It was just another "routine mission" in Iraq, said President Bush, as 24 US
and British aircraft bombed the outskirts of Baghdad for the first time since
1998. But is it just another day in the neighborhood, as Mr. Rogers would
have it, or is it the first phase of Desert Storm II? The sense that we are
being talked down to, like children, increased as a Pentagon spokesman
averred that the US was acting in "self-defense": "It reached the point that
it was obvious to our forces that they had to conduct the operation to
safeguard those pilots and the aircraft. In fact (it was) essentially a
self-defense measure," said Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold. Iraq, it seems,
had lately been challenging US airflights over the so-called "no flight
zones" that trisect Iraq. Why, they even had the temerity to lock their radar
on to US and British warplanes, who were merely asserting their God-given
right to violate the sovereignty of any country. But please don't think that
this was an act of war, oh no: while "we will enforce the 'no fly' zone, both
south and north," said our spanking brand-new (and clearly nervous)
President, "our intention is to make sure the world is as peaceful as
possible." That's why we're gonna bomb the h*ll out of anyone who contests
our peaceful intent. Furthermore, says Bush, we'll make damn sure Saddam
doesn't have "weapons of mass destruction" – you know, like the nukes Ariel
Sharon has pointed at Baghdad.
IN THE NO SOVEREIGNTY ZONE
Our pilots were "in danger," the administration avers, and therefore we had
to "respond." It is, of course, useless to point out to such people that our
pilots were intruders in Iraqi airspace: since national sovereignty is a
concept that the US no longer recognizes (not even in regard to itself), then
how is it possible to answer such an Orwellian argument? We are "defending"
ourselves halfway across the earth, in the name of a "no-fly zone"
unilaterally declared by us, with only the fig-leaf of a vaguely-worded UN
resolution to cover the nakedness of our aggression. There is, of course,
only one way to eliminate the danger to our pilots, and that is to stop
violating Iraqi airspace, cease the relentless pounding of Iraq, and – while
we're at it – lift the sanctions that have decimated an entire generation of
Iraqi children. Such a rational policy, however, will obviously never be
adopted by this administration.
FEELING QUEASY?
I must admit, though, that our rookie President did seem rather queasy at the
prospect of having to announce a US attack on Iraq while in the middle of his
visit to Mexico: in his comments Bush went out of his way to emphasize that
he had made the decision, all by himself: "It was a mission about which I was
informed and I authorized." Well, yes, at least we hope so, but obviously
there was some question about that, not least of all in the President's own
mind. Of course, you say, I couldn't know what is going on in the
presidential brain. But faces reveal emotions, and often much more. The look
on Bush's face, as he answered questions about the bombing, betrayed what
seemed to me like an enormous reluctance: one wonders if his advisors told
him that Friday is a holy day in Iraq, like Sunday is here, and that people
are generally out on the street walking with their families. Probably not.
TESTING GROUND
This airstrike was used as a testing ground in two senses: first, as an
experiment to see how the new "standoff" weapons that allow long-distance
targeting work. Since US policymakers have discovered that war is tolerable
to Americans just as long as all the casualties are on the other side,
military technology has been developed to achieve just this result: I guess
we'll have to wait for the smoke to clear to see how the testing went, but in
the meantime what is striking is the utter cowardice of this attack. As in
the Kosovo war, where NATO warplanes bombed from 30,000 ft., hitting plenty
of civilian targets in the process, Americans want to "stand off" while they
inflict mass destruction on their demonized "enemies": it is a vicious,
strangely womanish strategy, entirely motivated by political considerations
and fear: it is as if our leaders fully realize that the entire Middle East
isn't worth a single American life – and they don't want anyone else to
realize it, either.
RUN IT UP THE FLAGPOLE
Secondly, the airstrike is a test run to see how much political support there
is for a more extended conflict. The results, so far, must be heartening to
the War Party: here in the supposedly "leftist" Bay Area, where "antiwar"
sentiment is alleged to be strong, our congressional delegation was
interviewed on the local news, and all three – Nancy Pelosi, Mike Honda, and
some other liberal Democratic swine – supported the attack, with few if any
reservations. People interviewed in the street seemed surprised, and
generally clue-less: one burnt-out San Francisco flake opined that it was
"scary" because "look who's president!" Then the TV cameras panned across the
pathetic scene of the International Action Center holding a "protest" against
the bombing at the corner of Market and Powell streets, where the cable-cars
turn around: the plaza, on this cold afternoon, was practically empty, with
no more than half a dozen placard-carrying protesters milling aimlessly
about. Score one for the War Party.
TWO FRONTS, ONE WAR
The Iraqis link the Baghdad raid to the stepped-up Israeli attacks on the
Palestinians: Sharon's renewed assault on the PLO and the Anglo-American
assault on Iraq are different fronts in the same war, and the prelude, they
say, to a wider war, spearheaded by Israel and supported by the US and Great
Britain. While this scenario may be somewhat overstated, they have a point.
This is a regional struggle, and an Israeli attack on Iraq is not out of the
question: it has, after all, happened before. But why should the Israelis
drop the bombs when their American and British cat's-paws are perfectly
willing to fight their battles for them? And that, in short, is what this
whole confrontation with Iraq is about: Saddam is not a threat to any of his
Arab neighbors, as the administration admits, because Iraq doesn't have the
military capability. Israel, alone, is threatened, not so much militarily as
politically: Saddam has taken up the Palestinian cause, paying $20,000 to the
families of each and every martyred Palestinian and becoming the hero of the
Arab "street" as a symbol of fighting resistance to Western domination and
Israeli arrogance. Keeping this in mind, then, let's put the escalation of
the war on Iraq in context.
KEEPING SCORE
That this is happening just as the Marc Rich scandal is beginning to break
is, I suppose, a very convenient coincidence. Suddenly the headlines about
Israeli officials manipulating Clinton in the final hours of his presidency,
and growing outrage at the pardon a crook at the behest of a foreign power,
are swept off the front pages. Now the airwaves are filled with speculation
about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction," replacing not only the image of
the fugitive crook and Israeli spy, but also pushing news of Israeli
helicopter gunships shooting down Palestinian teenagers to the back pages.
Score another one for the War Party.
NOVAK DISSENTS
Conservative Republicans were enraged by the use of our armed forces as means
to divert attention away from the more embarrassing moments of the last
administration: but will they hold George W. Bush to the same standard? Some
of them will, but many others, I fear, will not: they have too much invested
in believing that, this time, things are going to be different. This, of
course, is an ironic position for conservatives to take – since they, above
all, exhort us to learn from history, abjure utopianism, and distrust
grandiose claims of "newness" on general principles. It was great, however,
to see good old Bob Novak on Crossfire disdaining the whole nonsensical
premise of our policy in the Middle East, which is that America's national
interest is, somehow, served by making war on Iraq, and alienating the entire
Arab world. As a backdrop to all this, the market dropped like a stone at the
news of the attack – an ominous taste of what is to come if the War Party
gets its way.
THE ARROGANCE OF POWER
As we watch this administration in action – denying that this represents an
escalation, denying their aggression, denying that it is our Israel-centric
Middle East stance that put our soldiers stationed overseas in mortal danger
– there is a sinister, tortuous quality to their evasive explanations. If we
make war, in Bush's words, it's because we want "to make sure the world is a
peaceful as possible." If we suddenly ratchet up the military campaign
against Iraq – less than a week after Bush declared his "reluctance" to go to
war – then all of this is "routine" according to an annoyed-looking
Condolezza Rice, whose opaque patrician arrogance defines this
administration's developing style.
A QUESTION OF TIMING
That this is the first phase of a long-range plan to "take out" Saddam
Hussein, and "solve" the Iraqi Question once and for all, seems beyond
question. Regular readers of this column know that I have been harping on the
near inevitability of this prospect for months, now – nay, years! – and so
none of this comes as a shock. But what is, indeed, a little shocking is the
timing of all this: it not only drives the Marc Rich scandal off the front
pages, but also occurs on the eve of secretary of state Colin Powell's trip
to the Middle East, where he will try to bring our Arab allies back into the
US fold. The airstrike did not make an already difficult task any easier, and
this raises an interesting question.
THE WAR AT HOME
It seems clear, first of all, that there are distinctive factions within the
administration: one, centered in the Defense Department, with secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and certainly Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy, behind a major move
in the Middle East. The other faction, centered around the State Department,
is not so enthusiastic about the prospect of Desert Storm II: Powell, they
say, was opposed the first time around, and what is different now except that
the circumstances are even less auspicious? It could be that the origin of
this "routine" escalation lies in the factional dynamics of the Bush
administration: that this was an attempt to undercut not only Powell's first
diplomatic foray, but his whole position within the administration as the
authoritative voice on foreign policy. Could a factional war within the Bush
administration spark a shooting war in the Middle East? It may already be
happening.
