Currently, a small group of ideologues called the neoconservatives play a deciding role in shaping the policies of the Bush administration. Previously largely unknown, the march to war in Iraq has brought them out of the shadows into the public eye.

Early on a group of these neoconservatives, working within the American Enterprise Institute and its associate Project for the New American Century, wrote a blueprint for continued US dominance as the sole superpower, stating that it must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Accordingly, a document was written in the late 1990s, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”, and was the basis for the Bush administration’s “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.”

It clearly defined the invasion of Iraq and control of the Arab Gulf region as part of its central strategy: “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.” Therefore, Saddam or no Saddam, eyes were set on Iraq, in the initial salvo on the Middle East.

Several articles that explore the intellectual underpinnings of the neoconservatives have been written, giving an insight into their political thinking. They have probed the writings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss and his disciples, as a number of them studied under him. The three main notions that emerge from this study are the role of elites, deception as a tool of diplomacy, and the need to have an external threat.

William Pfaff, quoted above, has done the most exhaustive study. He notes that Strauss believed that “essential truth about human society and history should be held by an elite and withheld from others who lack the fortitude to deal with truth.”

Secondly, since the elites have to protect the truth, “it has been necessary to tell lies to people about the nature of political reality… The elite gives it insight and… power that others do not possess.” In that respect, disinformation was started well before September 11, 2001, with carefully selected articles released into the mainstream media through a number of corporate outlets. Iraqi dissidents were bought and paid to make the claims more credible, and all was broadcast under in guise of “free press.” While the American media normally toes the official line in foreign policy, and any criticism of the president is generally considered unpatriotic, any conscientious Democratic congressman or senator who spoke out was immediately “shot down.”

Little did the neocons realize that in the information age, with the availability of the Internet and rapid communications tying the world into one community, little could remain hidden for long, and truth ultimately overcomes falsehood; this can be clearly witnessed now in the unraveling of the neoconservatives’ schemes and hidden agenda.

Thirdly, following Machiavelli, “if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.” The members of the Bush administration who were part of the neoconservative camp - such as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Undersecretary of State for Disarmament John Bolton - were aware of this difficulty in pursuing their strategic plans, and admitted in a report before the 2000 elections that this objective would be difficult to realize without creating “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Thus, with the September 11 attacks and the widespread fear they generated, the Bush administration knew it could create the emotional maelstrom that would allow them to pursue their foreign policy objectives.

Let us take a few salient examples to examine what the US administration has really done so far in fulfillment of its promise of democracy and development in the Middle East.

Afghanistan

In its reaction to the 9/11 attacks, the US naturally gained world sympathy, and launched a massive high tech attack on the ragtag Afghan army, on the pretext of punishing al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters. But then, it widened the scope of its war on terror to include the imposition of its global imperialist agenda.

In the initial stages of the war on Afghanistan it was often suggested that, with the country impoverished and devastated by both the decade-long Soviet occupation and its internal fighting, something on the scale of the Marshall plan would be needed for its reconstruction. Now, with its further devastation by the US, what actually followed was US Secretary of State Colin Powell calling for a meeting of donor countries in Tokyo, which yielded a pledge of $4.5 billion over five years, with one billion promised for the first year. But it was all forgotten, to the extent that the Bush administration failed to allocate any money for it in its budget for the year 2002, until amended by a Republican Congressman from Arizona, Jim Kolbe. And the major part of what the US has given so far is meant for training a secular Afghan army, subservient to its designs in that part of the world: The US Defense Department has four new bases in or near Afghanistan.

The situation is so appalling that in a recently released report, the US relief organization CARE states that any further delay on the part of the donors spells doom for Afghanistan. Constant heavy bombing in the pursuit of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has devastated the countryside; even in its capital, Kabul, the scale of ruin defies description. Little is done to remove the land mines left from the time of the Soviet occupation and further aggravated by the remains of American cluster bombs. CARE concludes that the donors must not only follow through on their pledges, but also add substantially, insisting that a more realistic estimate would be $20 billion over the next four years.

Iraq

US troops in Iraq: As per neoconservative designs?

Much the same rhetoric as that employed by Condoleezza Rice in the quote above is used in relation to Iraq. The top US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, a neocon, asked Congress for the approval of $87 billion requested by President Bush, also comparing it to the Marshall plan, although most of it will go towards the costs of the US army and others enlisted for the war, (including recruitment of the Iraqi army to guard US interests, and for its four bases being built there).

Democratic senator Edward Kennedy, in a statement on September 18, 2003, exposed the hypocrisy of this war, calling it a "fraud made in Texas,” and alleging that the administration’s sales pitch was based on “distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence.” Further, he stated that he believes much of the currently unaccounted-for money is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send in troops. The outspoken White House reporter Helen Thomas said that Kennedy was telling the truth. Senator John Byrd opposed the war on Iraq from the start, lamenting the loss of a tradition that America once inspired. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, warned in the UN General Assembly that US aggression breeds terrorism, and that the use of pre-emptive strikes could lead to a lawless world where nations attack one another “with or without justification.” He concluded that terrorism “will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it.”

Although the US had initially rejected involving countries other than its coalition partners, with increasing casualties and rising costs, it wants to save its soldiers and share the burden others.

“America puts up Iraq for sale,” said the headline in the Independent, September 22, 2003, by Philip Thornton in Dubai with Andrew Gumbel. They say,

Iraq was in effect put up for sale yesterday when the American-appointed administration announced that it was opening up all sectors of the economy to foreign investors in a desperate attempt to deliver much-needed reconstruction against a daily backdrop of kidnappings, looting and violent death.

In an unexpected move unveiled at the meeting in Dubai of the Group of Seven rich nations, the Iraqi Governing Council announced sweeping reforms to allow total foreign ownership without the need for prior approval.

The initiative bore all the hallmarks of Washington’s ascendant neoconservatives lobby, complete with tax cuts and tariff rollbacks. It will apply to everything from industry to health and water, although not oil. But it is still likely to feed concerns that Iraq is being turned into a golden opportunity for profiteering by multinational corporations relying on their political connections.

Of course, the oil is reserved for American corporations.

After Afghanistan, the US widened the scope of its war on terror to include the imposition of its global imperialist agenda.

Five months after the overthrow of Saddam, there are no visible signs of reconstruction. Clean water and electricity are still not available to most people, and entire neighborhoods are without phone lines. Most of Iraq’s infrastructure (much of which was rebuilt after the Second Gulf War) was destroyed during the US invasion, as well as through the two decades of sanctions, which killed a million children and elderly. The US invasion also resulted in the deaths of 20,000 Iraqis, including women and babies, with thousands and thousands more imprisoned.

Ahmed Chalabi, who had assured the US that Iraqis would welcome it, was returned to Iraq, housed in a palace, and provided the full US protection. And despite the frequent pronouncements - Iraq belongs to Iraqis and we are working to establish democracy - Paul Bremer cancelled the promised elections indefinitely. Now, when the US administration is going to the UN for help, despite demands that sovereignty should be returned to Iraq at the earliest, the US is dragging its feet. However, the rhetoric continues, with Bush addressing the UN saying “The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic means… [The] process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis - neither hurried nor delayed by the voices of other parties.”

Thus whatever the US may propagandize, it cannot convince the people of Iraq that it is anything other than an occupying power. They suffered from the British occupation before, and are familiar with colonialism’s lies, and are not to be fooled again. And, therefore, resistance to this neocolonialism is on the increase, along with the death toll on both sides.

This is best put by none other than a serving US soldier, Tim Predmore, in a September 22 article, reproduced in the Age under the heading: This is an unjust war of hypocrisy. He says,

For the past six months I have participated in what I believe to be the greatest modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Shock and awe” was the term used to describe the display of power the world was to view upon the start of Iraqi freedom… But as soldiers preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words “shock and awe” rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules they demanded that others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the United Sates and Britain invaded Iraq… From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned… This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination but a crusade to control another nation’s natural resource.

There is only one truth: Americans are dying. There are 10 to 14 attacks on our servicemen and women daily in Iraq. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason or justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader’s interest?

A Most Illustrative Example

Anti-American demonstrations in Pakistan

Perhaps a most illustrative example for the US’s is provided by Pakistan, which was forced, in a complete reversal of its own strategic policies, into joining the war on Afghanistan. With 9/11, writes Eric Margolis, “The Bush administration put a gun to Musharrraf’s head, ordering him to ditch Pakistan’s ally, the Taliban, open Pak bases to US forces, arrest anti-American militants and fire the capable nationalist officers - and close friends - who put him into power, Generals Aziz and Mahmoud. Obey, Washington warned Islamabad, or we will foreclose your loans, impose trade sanctions, cut off spare parts, and give India a green light to go after you.”

General Pervez Musharraf grabbed power through a coup that overthrew Pakistan’s inept prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in 1999. He was given a three years reprieve by the high court to end corruption and restore normalcy. However, he made use of the situation prevailing after 9/11 to impose himself for another five years through a “referendum,” instead of facing his people in elections through legal constitutional avenues. While he was previously pressured by Western governments to restore democracy, all were now silent at this crude attempt to gain legitimacy.

Before the elections to the national and provincial legislature that he promised his countrymen, Musharraf promulgated his own amendments to the constitution, instituting a para-constitutional authority, the National Security Council, a made-in-Washington framework, his critics charge. And contrary to this scheme, he continues to hold the dual positions of president and chief of the army. As a result, there is deadlock in the elected legislature, and their valuable time is wasted on trying to right the wrongs enacted by Gen. Musharraf’s statecraft.

Whatever the US may propagandize, it cannot convince Iraqis that it is anything other than an occupying power.

Once called a weak dictator by the American media, shunned by President Clinton, he is now addressed as “my friend” by Bush (who previously would not return his calls) and invited to Camp David, a privilege normally reserved for special occasions with the world-status leaders.

So much for the democracy that the Bush administration seeks in Pakistan.

Let us look at the economic side of this friendship. Musharraf has repeatedly requested the release of F-16 fighters that were paid for in hard-earned cash in 1989. The request was denied, as were requests for a lifting of limits on Pakistani textile imports, where about 70% of Pakistan’s workforce is employed.

Much is made in the US media of the recently promised $3 billion aid package. But it is conveniently forgotten that, according to the US Central Command, Pakistan lost $10 billion by joining the ongoing US-led war in Afghanistan, and continues to accrue costs. Furthermore, the aid package, which is mainly military-related and may start only in 2005, is also conditioned on approval by an unwilling US congress. It also obliges Musharraf to 1. Continuously arrest Islamic militants, and support the US military occupation of Afghanistan; 2. Stop providing any help to Kashmiris in their struggles against Indian occupation; and 3. Not supply nuclear technology to North Korea. The above, especially in respect to number 2, is in contravention of Pakistan’s historic stance. The provisions are degrading enough for Pakistan that they should be refused, rather than acquiesce to such a condescending aid package.

Siraj Islam Mufti, Ph.D., is a researcher and freelance journalist. He frequently contributes articles to the Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society, and United Association for Studies and Research.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses