Stop
Us Before We Kill Again!
By Bernard Weiner
19 April, 2006
Crisis
Papers
The
essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be
boiled down to this: We'll continue doing whatever we want to do until
someone stops us.
So, if you're wondering whether
the U.S. will back off from attacking Iran, or whether corporations
will no longer be given the ability to dictate Administration environmental
policy, or whether domestic spying on U.S. citizens will cease, or whether
Scalia might recuse himself on cases he's already pre-judged -- if you
still harbor any or all of those illusions, forget about it.
Since Bush&Co. openly
carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody being able to prevent
them from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's almost as if their
unconscious is screaming out for a political intervention, reminiscent
of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer: "Stop Me Before
I Kill Again!"
But consciously, as they
sense their time in power may be coming to an inglorious end and as
they read their quickly-sinking poll numbers, they can't help themselves
from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare: "Stop me if
you can, losers!"
This big-A "Attitude"
started long before Inauguration Day, when Karl Rove & Dick Cheney
were devising their strategy and theory of governance. It goes something
like this: We need only one vote more than the other guys -- on the
Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the popular vote totals in key states.
Once we get our victory by whatever means necessary, we are then the
"legitimate" rulers. We can claim The People Have Spoken and
that we have a "mandate" for action and can do whatever we
want. If you don't like it, tough. If you're foolhardy enough, you can
try again at the next election and see where that gets you, suckers
-- our side counts the votes!
THE POSITIVES & NEGATIVES
The Bushistas look around
and, though not happy with how their policies have fallen out of favor,
they can be somewhat sanguine. After all, their fundamentalist base
of about 33% is still hanging in there with them. The mainstream media
-- most newspapers, Fox News, radio talk-shows, cable pundits -- are
still more or less in their pockets. The bothersome Democrats remain
in the minority, marginalized in Congress and far away from the levers
of power. The votes are still tabulated by a few Republican companies,
many from e-voting machines that are easily manipulatable by company
technicians, even from remote distances. Another major catastrophe --
a new war, a huge natural disaster, a major terrorist attack -- can
re-focus the headlines away from Bush&Co.'s current and ever-growing
scandals.
On the other hand, a determined
prosecutor Fitzgerald is still out there, deeply knowledgeable about
what really went down in the manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence.
The military establishment is rebelling against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
war policies, openly in the case of those generals who resigned to speak
their minds, and covertly in the case of those actively serving who
are leaking their opposition to Jack Murtha, Sy Hersh and others. More
and more conservative and moderate Republicans are backing away from
too-close association with BushCheney, and there have been a number
of embarrassing defeats for the Administration in Congress. Revelations
of one Bush&Co. scandal after another keep coming (Katrina, Abramoff,
domestic spying, WMD lies, torture, Plamegate, Unitary Executive dictatorship,
and on and on).
Given all that -- and one
suspects that is just the tip of the criminality iceberg -- one would
expect that Bush and Cheney would be approaching the impeachment dock
shortly. But while a majority of the public is willing to consider or
support making Bush and Cheney accountable for their lies and corruption
and incompetency, the weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to even consider
a censure resolution, let alone to pass one authorizing impeachment
hearings. In short, the Democrats have chosen not to put up a real fight
for either the future well-being of the Constitution or their own political
survival, preferring instead to watch from the sidelines as the Republicans
implode in corruption, scandal and disarray.
And so, with no effective
opposition in their way, Bush&Co. simply keep moving forward. Next
stop: Iran.
THIS IS NOT JUST SABER-RATTLING
Though there is some speculation
that all this talk about Bush attacking Iran is so much saber-rattling
to get the Iranians to back away from pursuing their nuclear ambitions,
I don't buy it.
Bush&Co. want this war
for a variety of reasons: to further their deeply-held goal (and Bush's
sense of "legacy") of altering the geopolitical makeup of
the greater Middle East; to control the vast oil reserves in the region;
to provide yet another demonstration model to Muslim rulers in the area
not to mess with U.S. desires and demands; and, of course, to wrap Bush
in the warrior flag yet again as a way of deflecting attention away
from his domestic and foreign scandals by counting on the public's fascination
with footage of laser-guided "precision" bombs striking the
"enemy's" buildings and radar batteries.
("Precision" is
in quotation marks because by now we know to anticipate thousands of
dead and wounded civilians when the missiles and bombs go off-target.
And, let us not forget, we haven't even brought up the subject of the
radiation effects that might ensue if, as is being planned, Bush uses
"tactical" atomic bombs, the so-called mini-nuke "bunker
busters," to get at Iran's deep-underground labs. If such WMD are
employed by the U.S., hundreds of thousands could be killed or badly
damaged by radiation, and the area contaminated into the far future.)
The propaganda barrage being
laid down by Administration spokesmen these days is so utterly identical
to the fog of lies that preceded the attack on Iraq that it seems all
Rumsfeld and Rice have to do is simply re-use the original press releases
and change the last letter of the target country, "n" instead
of "q." We even get ye olde "mushroom cloud" image
hauled out again, supposedly warning us about Iran's non-existent nuclear
weapons; this time, that mushroom cloud could well be one effected by
the U.S. bombers and missiles.
Even the fantastical expectations
are as out of whack as what we were told would happen in Iraq. There,
we were promised, the American forces, in a "cakewalk," would
be greeted as "liberators," with kisses and flowers. In Iran,
we're told, much the same will occur, and the oppressed Iranians, chafing
at the harsh rule of the fundamentalist mullahs running the country,
will rise up and topple their repressive government. Seymour
Hersh writes: "One former defense official, who still
deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that
the military planning was premised on a belief that 'a sustained bombing
campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the
public to rise up and overthrow the government.' He added: 'I was shocked
when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?'")
NUCLEAR BUNKER-BUSTERS?
These predictions of a popular
Iranian uprising, which arise out of neo-con ignorance and desire, simply
ignore the realities on the ground. Imagine, for example, how U.S. citizens
would feel -- even those opposed to the Bush Administration -- if a
bullying foreign power bombed the hell out of our country's scientific
and industrial laboratories, killing a lot of our citizens in the process,
and badly hampering our economic progress for decades to come. If the
attack included nuclear bombs, multiply those angry reactions (and the
resulting radiation deaths) by a thousand per cent. How would the citizens
react? Of course: The American people would unite behind their leaders,
beloved or despised, in resisting the attackers. Much the same reactions
should be anticipated from Iran's citizens.
In Iran's case, given that
it's the major Muslim military and political power in the region, that
resistance might well lead to retaliation where it hurts. Israel, America's
one surefire ally in the region, probably would be attacked, thus widening
the already red-hot conflict; U.S. warships in the area would be targeted
by Iranian missiles; oil sales to the West would be greatly reduced
or cut off entirely, and perhaps other oil fields in the region might
be bombed; the Straits of Hormuz, which control entry into the Persian
Gulf, might be blocked to sea traffic; Iranian assault troops might
enter Iraq to support the insurgency, which would have redoubled its
attacks on U.S. forces; Iran-sponsored terrorists would hit American
targets both in the region and perhaps even inside the United States.
Plus, the Law of Unintended Consequences would lead to even more ruinous
events not even contemplated here as other Islamic nations become involved.
Surely, Iran knows how much
the U.S. military is stressed these days in Iraq and Afghanistan, how
thin the troop strength is around the globe, how so many U.S. troops
are going AWOL or are not re-upping, how National Guard troops and commanders
are reacting negatively to their overuse outside America's boundaries,
how many in the Pentagon brass are opposed to Bush policy, etc. The
aim of the Iranians, in this scenario, would be to get the U.S. bogged
down in yet another land war in the region.
In short, it's not just the
ineptly-managed quagmire in Iraq that is behind much of the opposition
from high-ranking officers and retired brass in America's military command.
Clearly, they are speaking out now because of the prospect of another
disaster about to unfold in Iran, which will get young American troops
slaughtered and tied-down in yet another military adventure.
(Let us be clear. The military
brass currently in revolt against Rumsfeld and his superiors -- the
unnamed Cheney and Bush -- are not liberal activists energized by the
issues of whether these wars are moral or legal or even well-advised;
they are arguing, for the most part, on how best to properly manage
such conflicts, how to more effectively conduct such imperial adventures
while keeping their troops safe. But, whatever their motives, progressives
should welcome any dissent that weakens the hold of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
triad on the levers of uncriticized power.)
WHY IRAN WANTS NUKES
Do I believe that Iran's
rulers are nice, progressive guys who deserve our active support? Of
course not. Ahmadinejad mirrors Bush as a close-minded, backward-looking,
religiously-influenced fundamentalist leader, and Iran's senior mullahs
likewise. Do I believe Iran wants uranium-enrichment purely to build
nuclear power plants? Of course not. They desire to be the big power
in the neighborhood, plus they've seen how defenseless Iraq and Afghanistan
were treated, and how this differs from how the U.S. behaves toward
North Korea, Pakistan and India, all recent members of the nuclear-weapons
club.
If for no reason other than
their own protection against the two atomic powers in the region (the
U.S. and Israel), the Iranian government's goal is to possess some nuclear-tipped
missiles. Their atomic program is taking its first babysteps these days.
America's own intelligence analysts believe it would take anywhere from
five
to ten years to get to the point of Iran having a nuclear
arsenal. And, if both sides possess nuclear weapons, the world may return
to the days of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, as a brake on rash
action.
The Bush doctrine of "preventive"
or "pre-emptive" war is to hit potential enemies before they
can even get on the track of building up their weaponry. Hit 'em while
they're weak and vulnerable, even if they have no plan of attacking
anybody (such was the case with Iraq) -- that's the operating principle.
The Islamic states are weak and vulnerable right now; hit 'em. Iraq
is weak and vulnerable; take it. Iran doesn't yet have a fully developed
nuclear program; blast it.
THE APRIL 29TH ANTI-WAR TEST
Nobody is sure when the U.S.
attack on Iran will come. Given the resistance inside the American military
to launching such an attack, the Bush propaganda machine may feel it
needs a few more months to soften the public's attitude to the "inevitability"
of the move on Iran. (And to obtain the international fig-leaf of a
vaguely-worded U.N. Security Council authorization vote for war.) Or
they could judge that the situation requires a "the-sooner-the-better"
approach, before too much opposition develops in the American body politic
and around the globe. Since this will not be a ground invasion, the
air assault could happen at any moment. I'm guessing we have maybe a
month in which to head this madness off at the pass.
Before the attack on Iraq
in 2003, more than ten million people worldwide marched in opposition
to that imminent invasion. Three years later, there seems very little
organized resistance to the impending war on Iran. Only now is the possibility
of such a U.S. attack coming onto most folks' radar screens. The peace
movement seems puny in its ability to organize masses of demonstrators
these days, whereas the march of immigrants across the country brought
out millions.
We'll have a better sense
of the strength of the peace movement on April 29, when the big anti-war
march (the war being opposed is the one in Iraq) will happen in New
York City, this one organized by United for Justice & Peace. Will
those in the anti-war movement see the larger picture and alter their
approach and rhetoric and actions accordingly? We shall see.
Copyright 2006, by Bernard
Weiner
Bernard Weiner,
Ph.D. in government & international , has taught at various universities,
worked as a writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently
is co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
For comment:
[email protected]