By Rowan Wolf
Are you shaking your head over the recent US actions in Iraq, and President Bush's decision to fully support Sharon's new "plan," and the support for the assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi by Israel? I'm not. The course of action of the Bush Administration is clearly not one of over, or under, estimating. It is not one of misjudgement. It is not stupidity or accident. The policy has to be meant to create a "war" to fight. The actions and decisions have to be aimed at provoking strikes at the US. The purpose is perhaps two-fold, to embroil us before the Presidential election, and part of a larger plan. This is not a "conspiracy theory." It is just the only explanation that makes sense to me. Bush may not be very smart, but many of the people in his administration, and his closest advisors are smart. They are also single-minded and largely reflect a neo-conservative strategy. These advisors have sometimes been referred to as the "neo-conservative cabal." I hear folks decrying the stupidity of Bush's plans and actions. The US has a history of repeating the same stupid strategies over and over (overthrowing democratically elected governments, supporting dictators, inserting provocateurs, funding "rebel" forces) that both fly in the face of what the general public thinks the US is about, and "blowback" to become the heart of even larger conflicts later. There has to be a "gain" in this somewhere, and so it is with the Bush actions throughout his rule thus far. The most recent conflagration in Iraq which is rapidly uniting Iraqi's in opposition to US occupation is an excellent example of "wmd" all over again. Purportedly, the recent fighting was sparked by the closing of Sadr's newspaper because it was "printing lies and calling for violence against US forces." This is not the case. While the US occupation leadership, the Bush administration, and the US media have promulgated this (arguably legitimate) reason for shutting down the paper, it is a lie. As Norman Solomon discusses in How the "NewsHour" Changed History (4/18/04 CounterPunch) emphases mine:At a March 30 press conference, Dan Senor of the CPA charged that Al Hawza had tried to “incite violence.” That was very much in keeping with what the April 5 New York Times reported -- that while “the American authorities said false reporting, including articles that ascribed suicide bombings to Americans, could touch off violence,” nevertheless “the paper did not print any calls for attacks.”So why was the paper shut down? Was it hoped that it would be the final straw that escalated an increasingly tense situation into outright violent action? If so, it has been wildly successful. Of course, the attack on the "contractors" and the widely covered mutilation of their remains, also called for "revenge" on the part of the US. But there was obviously more going on here than meets the eye. Obviously the anger preceded its _expression in that horrendous act. Why were those folks off course and into an ambush. My understanding was that the supply run they were on was standard and scheduled. Surely at least some had made this trip numerous times before. Surely they were familiar with the route and the city. Why did they go off course and directly into an ambush? There was clear and dramatic video coverage of the event. Are there camera crews stationed all over the place and they just "happened" to capture the atrocity on tape? If so, why do these ever ready camera crews not capture other equally important events? So US forces are out for blood while Iraqi's are (deliberately?) inflamed to unify across tribal and religious factions to engage in armed resistance to the US. A "truce" is called while fighting continues. Non-combatants, including children, end up wounded and dead, while Kimmitt talks of the "precision" of the US military response. Interestingly, the term "collateral damage" has dropped from the official lexicon, which leaves the suspicion that the reports of non-combatant losses are an exaggeration or an outright lie. In the midst of "truce" the US issues a "wanted dead or alive" notice on Sadr. Certainly this is a move that inspires trust and de-escalates the situation. Given that the cease fire was declared and then the broad announcement about targeting Sadr, the credibility and dedication to finding a solution is called dramatically into question. Another "whoops?" I don't think so. So things are exploding (literally) in Iraq, but what about the broader policy? The Bush Middle East Policy? The Bush Israel-Palestine "road map?" Well that went gloriously out the window as well. In a move that could do nothing but inflame the situation, Bush decides to back Sharon's "plan" to the hilt. That plan involves, removing some Israeli settlements from Gaza, while expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It involves, denying the right of return to refugee Palestinians. It involves an ongoing policy of assassinating Palestinian leadership. Bush's support of the new plan removes the US from any suggestion of being an mediator in the conflict, and that conflict (and the US role in it) is critical in the Middle East and the so-called "Muslim World" in general. I am not alone in this perception of Bush's new approach: From DEBKAfiles - an Israeli intelligence company - Bush’s 2004 Middle East Vision Could Be Israel’s Nightmare (4/14/04) and Sharon’s Plan Presages “Little Iraq” in Gaza Strip and West Bank, 4/17/04; From the LA Times - Bold Risks Mark Bush's Policy on Middle East, 4/18/04; From Zunes for CommonDreams - Bush Endorsement of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law, 4/15/04; From Slavin at USA Today - Bush's tone may hinder Mideast plan, 4/15/04; From Greenberg at the Chicago Tribune - Palestinians upset with Bush, 4/15/04; From Reuters - Saudi Arabia Criticizes U.S. Mideast Policy Shift, 4/16/04; And then what? Israel kills the new Hamas leader by a missel (that kills and injures others, and Bush comes out in support of the action (Hamas leader assassinated in Gaza by Israeli missile strike, Macintyre, Independent/UK, 4/16/04). Bush is widely seen as giving Sharon a "green light" and the threats against the US escalate in response (Bush Sealed Hamas Leader's Fate - Palestinians, al-Mughrabi, Reuters, 4/16/04; Rantissi assassination defended by US, slammed by Europe, Middle East, AFP, 4/18/04). And this morning from the Associated Press Hamas Appoints New Leader After Killing:
Hundreds of thousands of mourners thronged the streets of Gaza City, chanting ``revenge, revenge'' and throwing flowers at the men's bodies as they were carried through the streets in a funeral procession.A broader strategy indeed is involved, but it is clearly not aimed at creating peace and security. It seems a strategy aimed at creating war and (perhaps hopefully) direct strikes against the US and those seen as allied to it. It seems meant to stimulate a broader war to legitimate a policy of US imperialism. It seems timed to embroil the US in high risk in the run up to the election, and if they can act fast enough, to take the 9-11 Commission and the rising questioning of policy, out of the public eye. Recommendations There are some excellent recent analyses out on the intent and impact of US policy. Jim Lobe, FPIF, 4/09/04, From Iraqi Occupation to Islamic Reformation: Neocons Aim Beyond Baghdad David Ross, ZNet, 4/17/04, Plan War and the Hubbert Oil Curve Edward Herman, CRG, 4/13/04, We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It