A Wilful Blindness

Monbiot on US imperialism's medium-range planning 
 
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 (UK National Daily Newspaper)

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". 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 Century, 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". 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."


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." 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."


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." 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".


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" and "to find new ways to keep the peace".
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 earth. 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". 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 weapons, 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 characteristics.


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?

www.monbiot.com

11th March 2003