Why Bush is Hell-Bent on War With Iraq

August 2, 2002

Leaders around the world are shaking their heads in disbelief at US insistence on invading Iraq. Russia, Iraq's traditional arms supplier, is against it, as is China. Europe is particularly averse to this seemingly irrational fetish of America's cowboy president, for several reasons. First, International pariah Saddam Hussein is still ruling Iraq because of US bungling by Bush's father in the Gulf War, whereby US forces, under orders from the White House, failed to pursue the war to its full conclusion by removing Hussein. Second, Saddam Hussein currently seems to be behaving himself and even offering to allow some weapons inspections as long as the US doesn't control the process. Third, the West's sanctions and "containment policy" on Iraq has led to a humanitarian disaster of major proportion for the Iraq people, and finally, Europe is tired of constant US intervention around the world, dragging them into every conflict like a dog on a chain. It's as if US policy makers are facing a new anti-war movement on an international scale. Even Britain, America's predictable ally is getting cold feet on the subject of an Iraqi invasion. But, Prime Minister Tony Blair will do whatever it takes to deliver Britain's support, though it may well cost him the next election. Basically, America has to plan on going this one alone.

The hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is based on suspicion rather than hard evidence. Frankly, I don't doubt that Saddam intends to develop and field anything he can so as to be able to stand up against the US's technically and numerically superior forces, but no one knows how far advanced his preparations are. We have vastly more evidence about Russia's and China's secret development programs than Iraq, but there is, naturally, no move to attack these more powerful predators.

If WMD were the real issue, the US would be planning an attack on Iran rather than Iraq. It is Iran that has the most vigorous and blatant program for building WMD including an arsenal of medium and long-range missiles to deliver them--all with the open assistance of Russia and China. There aren't even any effective sanctions on Iran, even though Iran has been listed as one of Bush's "axis of evil" nations.

Even the US Senate is getting into the act of scrutinizing the administration's plans for attacking Iraq. This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the administration's plans. What was telling about the hearings, however, was that the makeup of the roster of "experts" called to testify resulted in a confusing and mixed outcome--ensuring that the Senate would not be able to come to a definitive conclusion either way. Iraq's foremost defector from Hussein's weapons program, Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear physicist who defected in 1994, testified about the futility of containing Saddam Hussein or searching out his weapons. According to the NY Times, he stated that "It is unlikely inspectors could uncover hidden weapons-development programs...With no large, easily distinguishable nuclear sites and little or no human intelligence, it is difficult to see how any measure short of a regime change will be effective," But Hamza left no doubt about Saddam's concerted efforts to develop WMD. He also made a compelling case that a "containment policy" could not work because of Iraq's vast network of business contacts in Europe and the Middle East. The US would have to police the whole world. His failure to mention Russia as Iraq's main ally in weapons acquisition was a conspicuous omission, indicating a narrow focus to his presentation. Basically, his "containment is impossible" message backed up the administrations case for war against Iraq.

More ominously, more than one analyst testifying said that a post-Hussein Iraq would require a US presence in Iraq for years at a cost of billions of dollars--something like a Kosovo protectorate. Worse, an invasion and occupation of Iraq by US forces would be very unpopular with other Arab nations. Professor Shelby Telhami of the University of Maryland added that, "Even if the Iraqi people have a happy outcome, I believe that most people in the region will see this as American imperialism." Perhaps such an impression is intentional.

The bigger question is why?

There are several possibilities:

1) There might be some "method to the US madness," both in its intention to prosecute such a war, and in its appearance of bungling regarding the Pentagon plan leaks. No one doubts that Iraq has no illusions about the coming battle, which assures that Iraq will be primed for its own defense. If Saddam has WMD he certainly has every motive to use them. That may well be part of the US intent--to drive Saddam into some limited use of weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons are the most likely)--so as to get the "genie out of the bottle" and force the world to become accustomed to this new level of threat. A super-patriotic, warring mentality in the US as well as tremendous future restrictions on civil liberties could then be justified, as a whole new extension of the "war on terror" is instigated in response to the use of WMD.

2) The US may be attempting to pre-manage the inevitable larger Middle East conflict to come by paring down the size of the military opposition to Israel. Taking out Iraq now would keep the coming regional war on a conventional scale. This doesn't mean that the US really intends to defend Israel's sovereignty, but neither does it want Israel's total destruction. The planned international "final solution" is the reduction of Israel to the status of a UN protectorate, and the division of Israel into 3 sectors of control (Arab, Jewish, and Catholic) under UN supervision.

3) Lastly, but certainly not least, the US appears to be intentionally contributing to its own image as a reckless antagonist and warmonger among the world of nations--to induce a future backlash of huge proportions. First it was Bosnia and Kosovo, which antagonized all the Slavic nations, and now Afghanistan and Iraq, creating a huge enemy of the Muslims. Even George W's growing image as a jingoistic, brusque, and tough talking cowboy President lends credence to this problematic image. He makes it easy for the world to blame US irrational behavior on its rogue and blustering president.

This is especially crucial for globalist planners at the Council on Foreign Relations (who exercise behind-the-scenes control over all US administrations, whether Democratic or Republican) to set the atmosphere for a major world war with the US as the prime target. In the wake of US bullying for a decade and a half, there will be few who will mourn a major retaliation against US military hegemony. The growing hatred of Amerika in Slavic and Islamic regions will eventually bring on a Russian/Chinese pre-emptive nuclear strike on US military targets, which will give surviving US globalist leaders a dramatic opportunity to convince a vastly weakened America to join together in a NWO to fight the reborn Communist menace. The sudden elimination of the US as policeman of the world will inevitably lead to a panic among lesser surviving nations. Thinking only of survival, they will readily cede whatever liberties necessary to join in the new global coalition. Under the guise of euphemistic titles and promises of democracy, the new global war making machine will offer no real protections for civil rights for those who oppose the order. Conservative Christians who oppose the loss of Constitutional protections will be the ÎJews' of WWIII. Even if you don't buy the evidence of a globalist conspiracy to create war, you ought to fear this NWO just the same. As simple review of its laws and civil and criminal procedures will convince you that it will be anything but benevolent. An ominous example is detailed below in the latest revelations of abuse in the Îwar crimes' trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

http://www.JoelSkousen.com