Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
February 19, 2001
BOMBS OVER BAGHDAD: THE BLAIR FACTOR
Brits and Israelis lobby for Mideast war
As bonnie Prince Charles arrived in Saudi Arabia on a private visit, US and
British warplanes launched their first major attack on the outskirts of
Baghdad, signaling a new and more aggressive Anglo-American stance in the
Middle East – with the emphasis on the Anglo. To read the British papers, one
gets the definite impression that it was the Brits who really pulled off the
raid – "WE BOMB BAGHDAD" exulted the Sun, a British tabloid – and indeed
there seem to be grounds for believing that the initiative came from Downing
Street rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. The London Times averred, in a
headline, that "Britain urged Bush to launch raids on Iraq," and from the
somewhat bewildered look on George Dubya's face as he answered reporters'
questions about the raid, it seems the White House was largely out of the
loop on this one. As the Times tells it, "bitter" complaints from Royal Air
Force commanders were communicated to the Americans during a 20-minute
meeting between foreign secretary Robin Cook and Colin Powell. The RAF was
"demanding" – as the Times phrased it – that the choice of targets be
widened to include targets outside the "no fly zone." The Iraqis had been
taking numerous potshots at British warplanes, of late – even going so far as
offering a large bounty for the downing of one – and their misses were
getting closer. The Brits evidently felt that they were bearing too much of
the burden, and taking too many risks without garnering enough of the glory.
DO YOU HAVE A RESERVATION?
Being in charge of an empire is a lot like being a waiter – we rush about the
world fulfilling the demands of our client states. Do the Germans want a
slice of the former Yugoslavia? Then bomb Belgrade. Are the Israelis having
trouble with their Palestinian helots? Then broker a "peace" agreement that
gives them cover once it fails. Will petrol prices bring down Britain's
socialist government and lead to a European-wide petro-tax revolt? Then, by
all means, let's drop more bombs on Iraq. That will drive petroleum prices
much higher, of course – but then they can always blame it on the satanic
Saddam Hussein, a villain for all seasons and all reasons.
TONY THE TIGER
When the Motherland called, it took less than two weeks for Washington to
answer, a rapid reaction that is a testament to Blair's political skills. For
the British Labor Party rank-and-file is appalled by the Republican victory,
and US secdef Donald Rumsfeld had already signaled his stance when he met
with the Tory "shadow" defense secretary. But Blair turned that around. The
Clinton-Blair dog-and-pony show on the international stage clearly had the
latter in the role of the militant, egging Clinton on in Kosovo and openly
calling for the introduction of ground troops. Now, in Iraq, Blair is doing
an encore: while the Bushies are tight-lipped about their future plans,
British officials are openly saying that the Iraqis can expect more – and
soon. And so Blair is allowed to take the lead once again: but there is, of
course, a price to pay.
A PRICE TO PAY
Waiters don't really have it so bad: they don't get much of a salary, if any,
but where they really make their money is in tips. If Blair wants to continue
to dine at the Cafe USA – which has just hired a new head waiter – then this
time he must be sure to leave an especially generous gratuity. This comes in
the form of Blairite support for "Star Wars," the "missile defense" panacea
championed by the Rumsfeld faction of the administration: In the interests of
advancing the project, Blair has reportedly even agreed to a US military base
on British soil, a proposal that is bound to provoke rumblings on the British
right as well as opposition from the far left.
MOONIES AT WAR
On the other side of the Atlantic, expressions of dissent on either the left
or the right were few and far between. The New York Times endorsed the
bombing raid, echoing the puerile argument that we attacked in "self-defense"
– as if any action taken by the US and Britain in Iraqi airspace could
possibly be described as even remotely "defensive." On the other side of the
political spectrum, the Washington Times – flagship newspaper of Beltway
conservatives in full cold war mode – – celebrated "Bombs Over Baghdad."
They drag out, first of all, the old "weapons of mass destruction" argument,
but this is just a ritual incantation, as far as Iraq is concerned, as
everyone knows that the Iraqis have long since lost the ability to produce
any such thing. Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM inspector who dealt with the
Iraqis many times, recently told CNN: "In terms of large-scale weapons of
mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or
dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996, so by 1998 we had
under control the situation on the ground." Saddam, says Ritter, poses no
immediate threat.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
But, of course, that begs the question: a threat to whom? The Washington Times
doesn't even bother asking the question, because to their editorial writers
the answer is obvious: Israel. In their own words:
"Saddam's aggression against Israel must be checked. He has made his support
for the Palestinians clear over the past weeks, calling on his 6.5 million to
prepare for a jihad on Israel, and preparing what he calls a "Jerusalem army"
from an Iraqi military brigade and other volunteers. By doing this, Saddam
tested his limits, and British and American forces did not look the other
direction."
THAT SON OF A BUSH
Nowhere in their litany of reasons for supporting what they grotesquely call
"the 'thank you' bombings on Iraq" does the phrase "American interests" come
into their argument: it's all about Israel. "Saddam's attempt to make his
attack an Arab-Israeli issue cannot continue," they natter, when the obvious
question is: and why the h*ll not? After all, this escalation in the bombing
takes place against the backdrop of not one but two major new leaders
strutting onto the world stage. The Arab world – perhaps naively – expected
better from that son of a Bush, but the really big change is the ascension of
Ariel Sharon. If America's protectorate in the region is embarked on an
expansionist course of building "settlements" and expelling Arabs from their
bulldozed homes, on the one hand, and this is accompanied by the escalation
of the Anglo-American air war on Iraq, then blaming Saddam for making this
"an Arab-Israeli issue" seems disingenuous and self-serving at best. It is US
policymakers in both parties who have framed the issues in these terms, in
word and deed, and it seems more than a little whiny to complain about the
leverage gained by the Iraqi leader on the Arab "street – since we are giving
it to him.
FIFTH COLUMNS, YESTERDAY AND TODAY
This kind of America-last sentiment dominates the politics of the Middle
East. If it isn't the Brits bossing us around – it's no fun being "the
indispensable nation" – then the Israelis are calling in all their chips, and
plenty more besides. They want Marc Rich and Jonathan Pollard, Jerusalem and
the Golan Heights, and they won't take no for an answer. It used to be that
all the agents of a foreign power were on the Left, with American supporters
of the Soviet Union wielding tremendous influence not only in the media, and
among intellectuals, but also in government, as Harry Hopkins, Alger Hiss,
and their comrades in the Roosevelt administration – literally thousands of
them – penetrated the federal government and even the small circle of FDR"s
closest advisors. Today, with the Soviet Union gone, the only kind of
old-time fellow-traveling that we see is something like Ted Turner's
otherwise inexplicable affection for Fidel Castro's Cuba. Aside from the
dwindling sandalista brigade, the only fifth columnists in America today are
all on the right side of the spectrum. In the fast-developing religious war
that seems about to break out in the Middle East, the Washington Times, the
New York Post, the Weekly Standard crowd, and the plethora of foreign
policy-oriented thinktanks sponsored by defense contractors and Republican
fat-cats are already lined up behind Israel. That's why it was so great to
hear Bob Novak on Meet the Press this [Sunday] morning, giving poor little
Bill Kristol the willies by asking the unaskable: why not make a deal with
Saddam? After all, it's been 10 years, he said, and what're we getting out of
it?
ALL HAIL BOB NOVAK!
God preserve Novak, who is getting on in years, his graying mane marking him
as the old lion of the Right: not a neoconservative, but a man of the Old
Right who always put America first and was always wise to the propaganda of
fifth-columnists, left and right. On Crossfire the other day, he was
magnificent, shocking his guest, Richard Perle, a leading interventionist who
is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, with this blunt
question: "Why don't we take up the Iraqis on the willingness to negotiate,
and perhaps get out of this constant state of war that we have been with them
for all these years, these last 10 years?" Novak cited the Iraqi foreign
minister, Nizar Hamdoon, as saying – even after the bombing – that "Iraq
welcomes any diplomatic approach, any meaningful approach that goes beyond
the bombing and use of force." Somewhat taken aback by this peremptory
challenge to the conventional wisdom, which posits that the Iraqis are
international untouchables, and certainly unapproachable, Perle could only
answer that Hamdoon should be "ashamed of himself," because "He works for one
of the great thugs of 20th century, for a man who has used poison gas against
innocent civilians. He is part of a Mafia- style administration." One of the
"great thugs" of the century? Really? Up there with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and
the Khmer Rouge, who, together, killed multi-millions? Novak gave him a
skeptical look, all the while smiling sweetly. It was a defining moment, with
the whole program – Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute facing off with
Mr. Perle – dramatizing the stark contrast between the Old Right and the
neo-conservative Right on the question of the Middle East, and foreign policy
in general.
A REVOLUTIONARY EMBEZZLER
When Perle segued into a whole riff about the glories of the Iraqi National
Congress, and how we should overthrow Saddam by creating Iraqi "contras," so
to speak, I kept waiting for Carpenter to let him have it with the lowdown on
INC leader Ahmed Chalabi – an ex-banker who is wanted in Jordan for embezzling
tens of millions of dollars from his Petra Bank. A Jordanian court sentenced
Chalabi to 22 years in prison, and he has been on the lam ever since. His
latest victim is the US government, which is giving a convicted embezzler –
and a fanatical pro-Iranian Shi'ite Muslim, to boot – $90 million-plus to
play around with. But it was Novak who really cut to the crux of the matter,
citing the Israeli-Saddam dichotomy noted above and asking Perle:
"Isn't this disconcerting from the standpoint of American foreign policy that
we are losing support in Islam, that the Muslim countries are turning against
us, that the recent murder of Palestinian demonstrators by armed Israeli
troops, again, has increased an anti- American sentiment? Isn't that
something for an American foreign policy to worry about?"
THE QUESTION
How does alienating not only the entire Arab world, but also most of Europe,
serve America's national self-interest? This is a question that no one in the
present administration – or the previous one – can answer, nor have they
ever felt a need to address it. Since they are not answerable to Congress, or
to the people, when it comes to the conduct of US foreign policy, they can
afford to be as tightlipped as they like. This is the one question that
right-wing fifth columnists of the Israel-first persuasion could never even
acknowledge, let alone answer. Perle's smooth evasion was pure neocon-talk:
the Arabs, he said, respect only power, and they will "follow a winner." We
have only to increase the sadistic brutality of our relentless assault on the
Iraqis, and the rest of those spineless Arab butt-boys will wallow in their
own self-abnegation. Whatever the merits of this repulsive view of life as
one big S-&-M orgy, if I were Perle, I wouldn't count on it. For someday –
perhaps as a result of pure demographics, or due to the power of accumulated
resentment – the two sides may switch polarities, with M's turning into S's
and Arabs persecuting Israelis – at which point we'll have to ask Mr. Perle
if the same principle of pure power applies
