Evidence Mounts That Bush
Wants New Wars
By Bill Christison
17 November, 2005
In this his time of troubles, Bush seems to be moving deliberately and rapidly toward new wars of aggression in an unforgivable gamble to overcome his troubles. His speech on Veterans' Day, November 11, 2005 at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania leads to this conclusion more clearly than any of his previous speeches and activities. The new wars would be the start of a world war initiated by Bush and radical Christianity against what he calls radical Islam, but in truth the wars would be waged against all Islam.
To repeat, despite Bush's arguments to the contrary, the "clash of civilizations" would consist of wars started by us. The killing of innocent people in these wars is likely to be massive, and the wars could at any time turn nuclear. If the people and the politicians of America allow these wars to take place, the stain on the morality of Americans will last for generations.
Let's note some of the statements Bush made in this speech of November 11. Many are not new, and some were foreshadowed in a speech by Bush a month ago, but their volume and intensity in the Veterans' Day speech are noteworthy.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism . . . These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision."
" . . . these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions."
" . . . these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."
" . . . the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation."
"The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They've been sheltered by authoritarian regimes -- allies of convenience like Iran and Syria -- that share the goal of hurting America and modern Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West, on America, and on the Jews."
"The government of Syria must do what the international community has demanded . . . The government of Syria must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy."
"Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder."
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses."
"Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life."
"These militants are not just the enemies of America or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and they are the enemies of humanity. And we have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before -- in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields."
"Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples -- claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent."
"And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom . . . this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible . . . And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt . . . Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future."
" . . . we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally guilty of murder."
"We don't know . . . the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice, we do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history, and we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail."
We cannot be sure how much of this is bluff by Bush -- to what extent he hopes or believes that Muslim nations will surrender to him without a fight. The prudent assumption is that not much of it is bluff, and that Bush, the radical Christians, the Christian Zionists, the nation's military-industrial conglomerates, and their Israeli allies -- all of whom today call the tune in U.S. foreign policy -- are willing and in some cases actually wish to involve the United States in further wars.
The people and the politicians of this country should rise from their apathy and shout, "No." The time is past for useless analysis and discussion. We Americans, accounting for no more than five percent of the human inhabitants of this globe, should decide here and now whether we are going to be moral or immoral in our future relationships with the rest of the world.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.