|
Editor’s
note: This is part 2 of a series of articles that examine how
the war manifested itself, how the proponents pushed the war
agenda, and the tools they used to convince a domestic and
international audience. (Click
here to read Part 1.)
In
late September 2003, intelligence sources, scientists, and
international weapons inspectors provided mounting evidence that
Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction nor the
programs to assist in procuring such illicit weaponry.
Political
leaders in the US continued to call on President George Bush to
explain how the CIA, NSA and FBI continued to believe that Iraq
had those weapons and why the weapons inspectors were not given
enough time to conclude their UN mandate.
North
American media has started to insinuate that the threat Iraq
posed to the world was exaggerated and manipulated post 9/11 to
convince a fearful public to wage war.
The
9/11 connection to Iraq began to wane and weaken as both
President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
said that they had never claimed Iraqi President Saddam was
connected to the terrorist attacks.
In
the UK, PM Tony Blair faced increasing calls for his resignation
amid the controversial Hutton Inquiry, established to determine
whether the government “sexed-up” evidence against Iraq.
So,
how did a war come about? What factors or parties proved
instrumental in paving the way to war?
In
September 2000, as the Palestinian Intifadha raged, a blueprint
for US foreign policy and strategy was drawn up by a prominent
US think-tank. The blueprint, titled Rebuilding America’s
Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century,
went largely unreported in US media, but is available online.
The
report was drafted for Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush
(President George Bush’s brother and current Florida
governor), Paul Wolfowitz, and Lewis Libby (then Cheney’s
chief of staff) before the 2000 US elections. Today, Cheney is
US Vice-President; Wolfowitz is Deputy-Secretary of Defence to
Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence. Together, the three pushed,
labored, and stressed the necessity to pursue an invasion of
Iraq.
The
invasion of Iraq, and control of the Arab Gulf region, is
clearly defined as a central strategy in the report:
The
United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent
role in Gulf regional security. 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
report pinpointed the UK as “the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership,” playing a
vital role in the “fight” to “decisively win multiple,
simultaneous major theatre wars;” and it sees the UN as a
weak, bureaucratic offset of America’s political will:
peace-keeping missions are “demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations.”
The
report further stressed that US strategic interests required
that “even should Saddam pass from the scene,” bases in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently - despite
domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US
troops - as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US
interests as Iraq has.”
The
report also forecast the emerging unity of European markets as a
liable threat against US interests; subsequently, all industrial
nations must be discouraged from rivalling or challenging the
US.
Consequently,
the US public was (and continues to be) fed massive
misinformation by a right-wing conservative, ultra-unilateralist
faction that is obsessed with:
1)
Ensuring that the majority of the world’s energy supplies are
under their dominance,
2)
Ensuring that Russian oil companies stay out of Iraq, and more
recently, Kuwait, where Russian Lukoil had been in negotiations
with Kuwaiti oil companies,
3)
Solving the Palestinian problem by “asking the Palestinians to
leave” and declaring a homeland in Jordan, or possibly western
Iraq, by 2004,
4)
Dividing the oil fields of Iraq with Israel and the United
Kingdom (the possibility that the latter may be stiffed is quite
high),
5)
Surrounding Iran by setting up military advance vanguard bases
in Iraq, the former Soviet Republics, and Afghanistan,
6)
Applying sufficient military, economic, and diplomatic pressures
leading to the division of Saudi Arabia into four sectors,
7)
Going after any irritant to Israel, including Hizbollah and
Syrian-backed factions.
A
quick read of recent various Washington-based think tanks
reveals a deep animosity towards Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The non-ethic of pre-emption is a means to an end, or several
ends as listed above.
Much
effort has gone into achieving the above goals, but the
overwhelmingly pivotal first step was the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, with the other pieces to follow like the
domino effect.
The
invasion of Iraq required a massive disinformation and
propaganda effort not seen since the Third Reich brainwashed its
own people into believing that the Jews were to be eradicated in
a Final Solution and that all of Europe was to fall under German
Aryan subjugation.
In
the modern era the Final Solution is for the Iraqis in the small
scale; the Arabs who get out of line, in the greater scale.
The
disinformation initiative began well before September 11, 2001,
with carefully selected articles making their way into
mainstream media. The proponents of this initiative included
CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The
National Review, and a bevy of syndicated columnists, such as
Ann Coulter (“let’s invade their countries, kill their
leaders, and convert them to Christianity”), Charles
Krauthammer and William Safire, as well as political heavies
like Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, and former CIA chief
William Woolsey.
The
list also included various “experts,” military personnel,
and Iraqi dissidents residing in the US who believed supporting
the Bush Administration would make their lives easier in the New
World. British Member of Parliament George Galloway publicly
called these Iraqi dissidents as “bought and paid for by the
Americans” (BBC - September 24, 2002).
The
disinformation was perpetuated through the guise of a “free
press.” Unfortunately, North American free press is about as
free as the press in Myanmar (formerly Burma). No one in North
American media questions the official line; rather, they tout it
hook, line and sinker.
What
role did the media play in propagating the invasion of Iraq?
Were certain elements missing or over-emphasised in appraising
the Iraq portolio? Next week, Firas Al-Atraqchi dissects the
conduct of the media and the particulars of their coverage.
Firas
Al-Atraqchi is a Canadian journalist of Iraqi heritage.
Holding an MA in Journalism and Mass Communication, he has
eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and
gas markets, and the telecom industry. You can reach him at firascape@hotmail.com
|
