LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  March 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE March 2003

Subject:

A Wilful Blindness

From:

Ian Pitchford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:13:12 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (179 lines)

A Wilful Blindness

Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything
to do with US global domination.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 11th March 2003

  The war in Afghanistan has plainly brought certain benefits to that country:
thousands of girls have gone to school for the first time, for example, and in
some parts of the country women have been able to go back to work. While over
3000 civilians were killed by the bombing; while much of the country is still
controlled by predatory warlords; while most of the promised assistance has not
materialised; while torture is widespread and women are still beaten in the
streets, it would be wrong to minimise the gains that have flowed from the
defeat of the Taliban. But, and I realise that it might sound callous to say
it, this does not mean that the Afghan war was a good thing.

What almost all those who supported that war and are now calling for a new
one have forgotten is that there are two sides to every conflict, and therefore
two sets of outcomes to every victory. The Afghan regime changed, but so, in
subtler ways, did the government of the United States. It was empowered not
only by its demonstration of military superiority but also by the widespread
support it enjoyed. It has used the licence it was granted in Afghanistan as a
licence to take its war wherever it wants.

Those of us who oppose the impending conquest of Iraq must recognise that
there's a possibility that, if it goes according to plan, it could improve the
lives of many Iraqi people. But to pretend that this battle begins and ends in
Iraq requires a wilful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context
is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself.

In this week's Observer, David Aaronovitch suggested that, before September
11, the Bush administration was "relatively indifferent to the nature of the
regimes in the Middle East"1. Only after America was attacked was it forced to
start taking an interest in the rest of the world.

If Aaronovitch believes this, he would be well-advised to examine the website
of the Project for the New American Century2, the pressure group established,
among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis
Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom (except the president's
brother) are now senior officials in the US government. Its statement of
principles, signed by those men on June 3 1997, asserts that the key challenge
for the United States is "to shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests"3. This requires "a military that is strong and ready
to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that
accepts the United States' global responsibilities."4

On January 26 1998, these men wrote to President Clinton, urging him "to
enunciate a new strategy", namely "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from
power."5 If Clinton failed to act, "the safety of American troops in the
region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and
a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
They acknowledged that this doctrine would be opposed, but "American policy
cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN
Security Council."6

Last year, the Sunday Herald obtained a copy of a confidential report
produced by the Project in September 2000, which suggested that blatting Saddam
was the beginning, not the end of its strategy. "While the unresolved conflict
with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein."7 The wider strategic aim, it insisted, was "maintaining global
US pre-eminence". Another document obtained by the Herald, written by Paul
Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, called upon the United States to "discourage
advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role"8.

On taking power, the Bush administration was careful not to alarm its allies.
The new president spoke only of the need "to project our strength with purpose
and with humility"9 and "to find new ways to keep the peace"10. From his first
week in office, however, he began to engage not so much in nation-building as
in planet-building.

 The ostensible purpose of Bush's missile defence programme is to shoot down
incoming nuclear missiles. The real purpose is to provide a justification for
the extraordinarily ambitious plans - contained in a Pentagon document entitled
Vision for 2020 - to turn space into a new theatre of war, developing orbiting
weapons systems which can instantly destroy any target anywhere on earth11. By
creating the impression that his programme is merely defensive, Bush could
justify a terrifying new means of acquiring what he calls "full spectrum
dominance" over planetary security.

Immediately after the attack on New York, the US government began
establishing "forward bases" in Asia. As the assistant Secretary of State
Elizabeth Jones noted, "when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave
Central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region"12. The US
now has bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Georgia. Their presence has, in effect, destroyed the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which Russia and China had established in an
attempt to develop a regional alternative to US power.

In January, the US moved into Djibouti, ostensibly to widen its war against
terror, while accidentally gaining strategic control over the Bab Al Mandab -
one of the world's two most important oil shipping lanes. It already controls
the other one, the Strait of Hormuz. Two weeks ago, under the same pretext, it
sent 3000 men to the Philippines. Last year it began negotiations to establish
a military base in Sao Tomé and Principe, from which it can, if it chooses,
dominate West Africa's principal oilfields. By pure good fortune, the US
government now exercises strategic control over almost all the world's major
oil producing regions and oil transport corridors.

It has also used its national tragedy as an excuse for developing new nuclear
and biological weapons13, while ripping up the global treaties designed to
contain them. All this is just as the Project prescribed. Among other
enlightened policies, it has called for the development of a new generation of
biological agents, which will attack people with particular genetic
characteristics14.

Why do the supporters of this war find it so hard to see what is happening?
Why do the conservatives who go beserk when the European Union tries to change
the content of our chocolate bars look the other way when the US seeks to
reduce us to a vassal state? Why do the liberal interventionists who fear that
Saddam Hussein might one day deploy a weapon of mass destruction refuse to see
that George Bush is threatening to do just this against an ever-growing number
of states? Is it because they cannot face the scale of the threat, and the
scale of the resistance necessary to confront it? Is it because these brave
troopers cannot look the real terror in the eye?

  .........

 I have decided from now on to attach references to my articles. These may not
always appear immediately, due to time constraints. The references for this
article are as follows:

1. David Aaronovitch 9 March 2003. Thank the Yank. The Observer.

2. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

3. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

4. ibid

5. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

6. ibid

7. Since publishing this article, I've been given the URL for this document,
which turns out to be publicly available. It is called Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, and it can be
downloaded at http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

8. Cited by Neil Mackay, 15 September 2002. Bush planned Iraq 'regime change'
before becoming President. Sunday Herald.

9. Remarks By The President To State Department Employees, February 15, 2001.
The White House.

10. Remarks By The President To Students And Faculty At National Defense
University, May 1, 2001. The White House.

11. http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace

12. Sergey Ptichkin and Aleksey Chichkin, 22 January 2002. Russia 'Encircled'
by US, NATO When Afghan Operation Over. Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

13. See for example Paul Richter, March 9, 2002. U.S. Works Up Plan for Using
Nuclear Arms. The Los Angeles Times; and Edward Hammond, 21 September 2001.
Averting Bioterrorism Begins with US Reforms. The Sunshine Project.
http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pdf/pr190901b.pdf

14. On page 72 of the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (ibid)is the
following sentiment: "And advanced forms of biological warfare that can
 "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool. This is merely a glimpse of the
possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise
prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military
affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be
profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces
already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms
of intelligence, command and control, and longrange precision strikes. Indeed,
these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an
"interim," short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating
new force designs and operational concepts - designs and concepts different
than those contemplated by the current defense program - to maximize the
capabilities that already exist."

http://www.monbiot.com/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager