-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.counterpunch.org/schor0506.html
> One Pentagon study pointed to an "acceptable" death rate of
> 20,000-30,000 US soldiers.
This is what they said in 1990-91, too. But, they didn't go very far into Iraq.
A<>E<>R
}}}>Begin
May 6, 2002
Invasion of Iraq
It's Sooner Than You Think
by Fran Schor
Over the last several months news reports of Bush Administration plans concerning
the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein have appeared with relative
frequency in the mainstream media. However, with very few exceptions those reports
have emphasized either that these are contingency plans that have not been
operationalized or the target date has been postponed until next year. In light of
some recent circumstantial evidence and on-going signals from the White House,
the later story especially, published in the New York Times, now seems like a case of
Pentagon disinformation. The invasion of Iraq may be sooner than we are being led
to believe by the propaganda machine.
Among the more telling signals not discussed yet in the mainstream media is the
revelation that a number of MASH units are being called up to report for duty in July.
These same units will be committed up to a 6 month period from the July date, that
is, through the fall congressional elections. Added to this is the increasing reserve
call-up of troops and the deployment of more warships to the region, including war
games in the coming weeks with India. Further evidence of a push for a late
summer/early fall invasion is the churning out of weapons, including the so-called
"low-yield" nuclear bunker buster bomb.
With the White House still publicly committed to a "regime change" in Iraq, is there
any doubt that the Bush Administration is undeterred by the lack of support anywhere
in the international community for a war against Iraq? Even the Blair government,
with potential back-bench trouble, is nervous about a war with Iraq, especially
because it was unable to generate any hard evidence against Saddam Hussein's
complicity with Al-Qaeda networks. Given the continuing unilateralism of the Bush
Administration, there is no reason to believe that the Pentagon hasn't been given a
green light for its invasion plans.
Of course, the conflict in Israel/Palestine may be seen as a complicating factor.
Certainly, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, all staunch US allies, have made very
vocal their criticisms of the Sharon government and the need for a just settlement for
the Palestinians. Nonetheless, several factors have further underscored the
reluctance of the Bush Administration to push Israel into accepting the Saudi and
Arab League peace proposal. Among those factors are the hard-line congressional
supporters of Israel and the just completed pro-Sharon Joint Congressional
Resolution. Also, Pentagon hawks see Israel as the key ally in the war of terror in the
Middle East. Hence, it's just as likely that Sharon's visit to Washington will consider
Israel's role in the invasion of Iraq since Israel's military power may be required to
keep the Arab states occupied during a US full-scale attack on Iraq. In fact, a
recently published story by an Israeli military analyst suggests that Sharon would
attempt to capitalize on the war against Iraq to settle scores with other Arab states
and even to begin a horrific "transfer" of Palestinians to Jordan.
While Colin Powell and the State Department are making noises about an
international summit on the Middle East, given the intransigence of the Sharon
government, it's possible such a summit would provide a convenient forum to
present dramatic new "evidence" of some violation by Saddam Hussein that would
warrant a military response by the US. Given the recent involvement of the US in the
attempted coup of the Chavez government in Venezuela, is it also not probable that
a pretext to invade Iraq could be manufactured with the covert aid of US agents?
This pretext would also provide a cover under the "war against terrorism" to
circumvent the necessary Congressional debate and declaration of war. (Given the
craven responses by the Congress in this area, it's hard to imagine there would be a
majority to oppose such a war!)
The domestic fallout from a war against Iraq in the late summer/early fall would be to
once more use the drumbeats of mindless militarism and punitive patriotism to
dominate the political agenda and muffle any sound of dissent. Given the fact that
some Democrats are beginning to criticize the Bush Administration on domestic
policy, shifting the spotlight to waving the flag could effectively silence the
Democrats
and give the politically bankrupt Republicans the only forum through which they could
effectively attempt to marginalize the electoral opposition. Of course, such a war
could also potentially criminalize dissidents and a fledgling peace movement.
Certainly, the Patriot Act has put in place all the repressive instruments for
punishing
anyone who gives aid and comfort to suspected terrorists.
While no one can predict any scenario with absolute certainty, there should be some
clear understanding of why this Administration is hell-bent on a war with Iraq. Beyond
the transfer of massive amounts of tax monies to the wealthy, the only real
substantive imperative pushing policy for the Bush Administration is expanding the
military and elaborating further the role of US hegemony throughout those areas of
the world where oil is a fundamental resource. With so many members of the Bush
White House bathed in the politics of oil (George W., Cheney, Rice, etc.), there is
certainly an economic interest in taking out Saddam Hussein and putting in power a
more pliant regime, ala Afghanistan. Also, given the conflicts of interest inside this
Administration with the military-industrial complex (e.g. the Rumsfeld-Carlucci-Carlyle
connection), there is an overwhelming push for deploying more and more weapons
and troops around the world.
Of course, there should be no illusions that an invasion of Iraq would be an easy
"victory." One Pentagon study pointed to an "acceptable" death rate of 20,000-30,000
US soldiers. The arrogance of such chilling scenarios is further compounded by the
lack of estinates of the number of "acceptable" Iraqi deaths. Given that this and
previous Administrations have been willing to sanction the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians by the withholding of vital medicines and materials, what
number of actual deaths by missiles, bombs, and even potentially "low- yield" nuclear
weapons would the Bush Administration tolerate? What level of disruption in the
Middle East and potential blowback would be tolerable? Given the near-religious zeal
of Pentagon hawks and evangelical fervor by Bush himself in fulfilling his destiny to
rid the world of one of the linchpins the "axis of evil," it's not difficult to
imagine the
moral blindness and near insanity of such policy-makers in their pursuit of war
against Iraq.
The final question remains whether the citizens of the United States would tolerate
such a maniacal war in their name. Certainly, the passions of the Middle East will be
inflamed. No doubt what's left of the left in Europe will be in turmoil over an
invasion
of Iraq. How quickly and effectively an opposition will mobilize in the US will, to
some
extent, determine how homicidal the Bush Administration will be in its warmaking.
Unfortunately, unless there is some totally unforeseen circumstances, there will be
an invasion of Iraq sooner than later. And the sooner we plan to try to stop the war,
or, at least, deter the worst ravages of such a war, the better for all concerned.
Fran Shor teaches at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is an anti-war activist and
member of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights. He can be reached at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
