|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: International Relations |
|
WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION UP TO??? |
Current rating: -1 |
by Dr. Thomas B. Manton
Email: tmanton (nospam) riatrade.net (verified) |
29 Jan 2003
|
|
|
WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION UP TO???
CNN announced a poll of British voters which declared a whopping 77% of Britishers were against the UK participating in a War in Iraq if the United Nations did not sanction it. Last week only 13% of Britishers approved of joining the US in a War in Iraq if the UN did not approve of it.
After these polls were announced, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed 25% of all of the ground forces their country has to the Middle East. The well-respected CNN Correspondent Walter Rodgers reported that if the UK “goes it alone” with the US in a war in Iraq it will “split the UK down the middle.” The principal political opposition in the UK comes from Tony Blair’s own party. Could it force him from power?
The President of France and the Chancellor of Germany, reflecting the 70% opposition to the US war on Iraq of their populations, have jointly announced European opposition. France has a veto in the United Nations Security Council.
The opposition from the Middle East and the Muslim world is even more vehement. Our two staunchest allies in the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – are trying to put together a unified Arab effort to prevent war in their own neighborhood. They completed last week a Foreign Ministers meeting in Turkey and might have a follow-up meeting in Baghdad. The host of the Istanbul meeting, the Turkish Foreign Minister said that war in their area would bring a “fire storm” to their neighborhood and these neighbors of Iraq say it will be a disaster to their region if war comes to it.
The US Army’s 4th Infantry Division is on the way to Turkey. But Turkey has not yet given them permission to enter. There is huge popular opposition to the new Muslim government’s willingness to let the US Armed Forces use some military facilities in their country. Recently a 350-person Turkish business delegation led by their Trade Minister was in Iraq seeking many business deals with their neighbor country. Doesn’t sound like they really want to go to war with their neighbor.
Business people, in the US and worldwide, are stunned by the continual decline in the stock market and the economy due to the possible war in Iraq. This war is a real disaster for business worldwide. Every business conversation and negotiations is always conditional on whether there is a war in Iraq. Republicans has traditionally been very “pro-business” in the US. Yet four out of the five wars of the 20th Century in which the US were involved all had Democratic Presidents who conducted them – Wilson in the First World War, Roosevelt in the Second World War, Truman in the Korean War and Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam War. That is why the Republicans used to charge the Democrats as “the War Party.”
All of these wars were in reaction to a direct attack to which the US responded. Father Bush reacted to a direct Iraqi attack on Kuwait and a threat to Saudi Arabia with a deployment of 536,000 American troops to the Gulf in 1990 and 1991.
Now someone can argue that this Bush is attacking Iraq because of the bin-Laden attack on the World Trade Center. Despite repeated efforts by certain Bush people to link bin-Laden to Iraq, there is absolutely no creditable linkage between the two. If that logic should be followed, since 15 of the 19 Sept. 11th bombers were Saudis, why shouldn’t we attack Saudi Arabia? Of course that is lunacy.
If the US does go to war, it will be the first time in the history of any democracy that a democratic country undertakes an aggressive war without responding to a direct attack. Do the American people realize this and want to be known as aggressive imperialist by the world community?
The other night an old friend and I were watching a TV movie on the “Rough Riders” in German whose deputy commander was Teddy Roosevelt. His language and jingoism was so much like Bush’s is today. A strong advocate of a rather mindless war was what T.R. appeared to be. Many historians say that war – the Spanish American War - was started to sell the newspapers of the then huge media magnet William Randolph Hearst.
What is the real reason behind Bush’s rush to war?
I am not privy to the inside discussions of the Bush Administration. Therefore, I can only analyze their actions and their words to determine their reasons for going to war.
First, we have to determine who in Washington is the group pushing for war. We all realize that the President has the constitutional power to take the nation to war, especially since the Congress voted before the Nov. 2002 election to endorse the actions of the President. But the President does continually rely on his closest advisors.
There seems to be in Washington a “WAR PARTY” around the American President of Vice President Dick Chaney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz and his policy chief Richard Perle otherwise known as the “Prince of Darkness.” None of them have served in the Armed Forces for any length of time.
The only peaceful voice sometimes coming out of Washington these days seems to be from our former top soldier – a four star General who is Secretary of State Colin Powell. He knows the horrors of war and seems to want to avoid it. It is widely recognized and confirmed by Bob Woodward’s latest book that it was General Powell intervention with the President that persuaded the President to get the United Nations deeply involved in the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Yet the War Party seems determined to take America and the world into war in Iraq – no matter what is found or not found by the UN inspectors.
What would happen if the United Nations inspectors reported to the UN Security Council they found NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Pre-emptive war, as has been advocated by Washington’s War Party is adventurism and probably an imperialist policy and must be stopped. America must not slide down the slippery slope into decline by following imperialist policies. Our country was founded on great and enduring values, which must be preserved not forgotten.
We must remember that all the so-called great imperialist empires who ruled the world in the 19th century, disappeared in the 20th century. “The sun never set on the Union Jack” at the end of the 19th century. At the end of the 20th century, it flies over the British Isles and a few small territories here and there. Empires are out of date and so are imperialist policies. When will the War Party in Washington learn that?
The irony seems to be that the War Party in Washington seems to want to follow a pre-emptive war policy, which is essentially imperialistic using the methods of “partnership under American leadership.” How diabolic and indeed crazy!
Three years ago, on the Op-Ed pages of this newspaper, I wrote:
At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States was not a world power. The political, military and economic power in the world resided in Europe. Look at what Europe did with that power during the 20th century. (100 million people killed in wars centered in Europe)
Yet, as we start the 21st century, the United States is the preeminent power in the world - politically, economically and militarily. The U.S. stands as a colossus over the world with the collective power it has today. The question is now: "What will the United States do to and with the world in the 21st century with the power it has today?"
The U.S. has displayed three schools of foreign policy thought and action during the past 100 years:
· Isolationism;
· Adventurism bordering on imperialism;
· Global partnership under American leadership.
What troubles me and, I am sure, many Americans and others around the world are that just into the third year of this new 21st century the American President is taking our country from Global partnership under American leadership to Adventurism bordering on imperialism.
With this “War Party” around the President would he be getting any advice other than going to war?
What are the seeming motivations for going to war?
1. Most people around the world are saying very simply – OIL!
I have gotten one piece of information from the inside circle of the Bush people. Bin Laden trained 40,000 Saudis in Afghanistan most of whom are now back in their country. Bin Laden’s primary aim has always been to take over his own country of Saudi Arabia. It is very likely that if the US does invade Iraq, these now “sleeper agents” will be mobilized to try to take over the Kingdom from the royal family that now rules. If the bin Laden people try this, I am sure there is a US plan to send in military forces to occupy the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia from where nearly all the Saudi oil comes.
If the US does invade and control both Iraq and then the oil areas of Saudi Arabia, the United States will control the two countries with the largest and second largest oil reserves in the world.
The President and Vice President of the US are BOTH former oilmen a no wonder the world thinks this whole war is about OIL.
2. Many people in the Middle East think that this war in Iraq will permit the United States to reshape the entire Middle East and further secure Israel’s position in that region.
Washington supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon love his tough attitude and handling of the Palestinians. They would like to take that Sharon toughness to handle the rest of the Arab world. Many of these Washington hardliners call the Arabs “rag heads” by their headwear. These Washington policy makers want to protect Israel and re-build the Middle East to the liking of the US. This frame of mind seems to me, as a patriotic American, that this Washington “war party” not only wants to be the region’s policeman but also the region’s dictator as to how they organize themselves and their own countries. If that is not imperialism, I don’t know what imperialism is.
3. What is in the mind and/or background of President Bush to think that we should go to war with Iraq against all of American tradition and history? Maybe it comes from his own family?
Most of us remember that just before the German election in Sept. 2002, the then German Justice Minister called Bush’s actions toward Iraq as very similar to Adolf Hitler – a kiss of death in world politics. She paid for that statement with not only her job but also her seat in the German parliament.
However, let us examine this more deeply. Bush’s grandfather was Senator Prescott Bush. Before he became Republican Senator from Connecticut he was an investment banker on Wall Street. His colleagues included some of the best-known names in American finance like J.P. Morgan, Harriman, and others. Many of these men obtained the money they invested in building American industry from old European money – British, German, French and Russian.
In 1917, the Germans, as a part of their strategy to get the Russians out of the war, facilitated the Communist take-over of Russia with the infamous “sealed train” that took Lenin from Switzerland back to Russia plus a payment of 50 million gold marks from the Reichsbank, the documents for which are in the US National Archives. The Germans therefore financed the establishment of the first Communist government in Russia. The US and the British tried to overthrow this new Communist government in Russia but failed and therefore Europe’s largest country was eliminated as a source for money for these Wall St. bankers.
As a way of saying “thank you” (tongue in cheek), the next year, the Russian Communists tried to take over a defeated Germany. For the next 14 years (1918 to 1932) no German government lasted more than 10 months and at times there were 100 parties in the Bundestag. The Wall St. bankers were afraid that Germany, Europe’s second largest country, would also go Communist.
Prescott Bush became Wall St.’s point man on dealing with Germany. They looked for a political party that could save Germany from a potential Communist take-over. This American Wall St. group, led by Prescott Bush, did find one – they were for “law and order” and a strong German government. These Americans, so it appears, supported this group. They were the German National Socialists Workers Party led by Adolf Hitler. We know them as the NAZIs, which caused probably 50 million deaths during its reign. Evidently, these Americans who supported Hitler hadn’t read “Mien Kampf” or didn’t take it seriously. I have been told that Senator Prescott Bush had an autographed picture of Adolf Hitler in his Washington “R Street” home up through the first year of World War Two.
I challenge someone to put together a well-financed investigative team, which should thoroughly research this part of American history since Prescott Bush’s grandson is now the American President taking the United States into an aggressive war for the first time in not only our history but also the history of any modern democracy.
If their findings prove what is alleged, the opposition to the American probably invasion of Iraq would take on a whole new dimension and the American people themselves might even stop it.
This short article does not fully answer the question “WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION UP TO???” I hope, however, it does shed some light on that question that will only be answered fully by historians many years from now.
What needs to be done now is to try to bring to the people of the United States and the world some of the facts to stop this “RUSH TOWARDS WAR” that is being pushed hard by Washington’s “war party”. To this American now overseas, American spokesman seem to be showing their complete detachment to the world when Secretary Colin Powell’s bald, barreled-chested deputy, who looks like a bouncer in a cheap nightclub, saying some people are saying there is no smoking gun (which the chief UN weapons inspector has said) but there is smoke all over the place justifying non-UN sanctioned military action by the United States.
PEACE is something we should fight for as strongly, intelligently and persistently as Washington’s “War Party” is fighting for war!
Dr. Thomas B. Manton, a former Seattle resident now living in Europe is from the family of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, has a doctorate in International Law and Organization, is the biographer of United Nations Secretary General U Thant and has 45 years of experience in politics, education and business in the US, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
|
|
Re: WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION UP TO??? |
by POSTMAN
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jan 2003
Modified: 03:48:18 AM |
|
SHUT YUR TRAP |
