Let the Imperials Roll...
Posted on 09/11/2002 3:32:38 PM PDT by traditionalist
The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire. What many saw as a horrific atrocity and tragedy, they saw instantly as an opportunity to achieve U.S. hegemony over an alienated Islamic world.
President Bush initially directed America's righteous wrath and military power at al-Qaida. But in his "axis-of-evil" address, he signed on to the War Party's agenda.
What lies ahead? When America invades Iraq, it will have to destroy Saddam and all his weapons of mass destruction. Else, the war will have been a failure. And to ensure destruction of those weapons, we must occupy Iraq. If you would see what follows, pull out a map.
With Americans controlling Iraq, Syria is virtually surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, U.S. power to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. Syrian President Assad will be forced to pull his army out of Lebanon, leaving Israel free to reinvade Lebanon to settle accounts with Hezbollah.
Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah.
Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open – to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction.
This is the vision that enthralls the War Party – "World War IV," as they call it – a series of "cakewalks," short sharp wars on Iraq, Syria and Iran to eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat to us and Israel for generations.
No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well.
Anyone who believes America can finish Saddam and go home deceives himself. With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran. U.S. troops will have to remain to hold Iraq together, to find and destroy those weapons, to democratize the regime, and to deter Iran from biting off a chunk and dominating the Gulf.
Recall: After we crushed Germany and Japan in World War II, both were powerless to reassume their historic roles of containing Russia and China. So, America, at a cost of 100,000 dead in Vietnam and Korea, had to assume those roles. With Iraq in ruins, America will have to assume the permanent role of Policeman of the Persian Gulf.
But is this not a splendid vision, asks the War Party. After all, is this not America's day in the sun, her moment in history? And is not the crushing of Islamism and the modernization of the Arab world a cause worthy of a superpower's investment of considerable treasure and blood?
What is wrong with the War Party's vision?
Just this: Pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will be shaken to their foundations by the cataclysm unleashed as Americans smash Iraq, while Israelis crush Palestinians. Nor is Iran likely to passively await encirclement. Terror attacks seem certain. Nor is a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of believers from Morocco to Indonesia likely to welcome infidel America and Israel dictating the destiny of the Muslim world.
As for the pro-American regimes in Kabul and Pakistan, they are but one bullet away from becoming anti-American. And should the Royal House of Saud come crashing down, as the War Party ardently hopes, do they seriously believe a Vermont-style democracy will arise?
Since Desert Storm, America has chopped its fleets, air wings and ground troops by near 50 percent, while adding military commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. Invading and occupying Iraq will require hundreds of thousands of more troops.
We are running out of army. And while Americans have shown they will back wars fought with no conscripts and few casualties, the day is not far off when they will be asked to draft their sons to fight for empire, and many of those sons will not be coming home. That day, Americans will tell us whether they really wish to pay the blood tax that is the price of policing the War Party's empire.
If one is going to hide under a desk, at least don't be a hypocrite; don't crow for war.
I am proud to say that because of 9/11 I want blood, and I want facist Islamics to bleed. Whether they be Pali terrorists, Saudi, Iraqi, Afghani, machts nichts. If this makes me a member of the War Party than give me my membership card!
Saddam must die. If he doesn't, and we do nothing more to punish fascist Islamics, then we will surely die, slowly in small atacks, or in great numbers like 9/11.
I'm retired military. I'm looking to go back in to finish the job I was part of 11 years ago. No fear (except financial debt for my family).
Interesting article, voicing many of the same concerns which inform current planning. One does not have to agree with Buchanan's motives or ultimate conclusions in order to appreciate legitimate concerns about the most difficult role ahead: Occupation. This is not a simple issue, and it is not without real problems.
I have found it useful to read an article once through before learning who wrote it -- this helps to block out any personal bias against the author and focus first on the substance of the article. To one degree or another, every one of Buchanan's points are being taken into account by political and military planners as we speak. Issues which many so easily blow off are presently giving Dubya ulcers...
Your talking points are showing.
Now, what are your comments on chickenhawks who beating the drums with the most gusto yet are bereft of actual military experience? If you are going to accuse Buchanan of hiding under a desk, an accusation which implies that he is not going to personally fight the war, why not assail the hypocritical neo-cons who also will step out of fight- yet, who pound the drums?
Let the Imperials Roll...
Saddam is not a religious whacko but a shrewd opportunist and I doubt he would ever use a WMD except in self-defense, since he knows he would be glass in 15 mins courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.
He has already used Chemical Weapons.
1. It has the second largest proven reserves of oil (some say the most).
I believe that Russia has more. What Iraq has is readily availalbe sweet crude which is easy to get at.
2. Now that we have AFghanistan controlled, which will allow for developing the vast Central Asian oil, Iraq will form a strategic second base in the
The oil is in the Caspian Sea. The route through Turkey is both easier and more logical.
3. Invading Iraq and occupying it will help both prop up the Saudi Arabian regime and send a message to them that they're next. It will discourage other oil producing states from trying to do another OPEC, etc.
Good point.
It will also allow us to help overthrow Iran and possibly Syria.
4. We have a world economic system built upon mountains of debt that is buckling and it needs a good dose of American military might to serve notice that America will support it no matter who needs to die. The Empire may not have any clothes but if anyone who points it out is immediately squished, it hardly matters. Euro, what Euro?
Most European countries have worse debt problems than us.
5. It finishes George W. Bush's election strategy. He always believed that his father failed due to going back on his word about not raising taxes and not finishing Saddam off. It gives Bush legacy points and also gives the country something to sink its teeth into in response to 9/11, as long as people dont forget that it was Osama and not Saddam who hit us on 9/11. My opinion is most people dont care one way or another.
And what of the next two years!
6. It takes care of Israel's immediate enemies and gives them cover to do whatever they want to do.
Not likely. Israel was a looser (at least short term) in teh first Gulf War. It's ability to respond to attacks were constrained and the US rubber stamped Syrian occupation of Lebanon, while pressuring Israel to sell out the Christian south. All of this helped create terrorism. Bush Sr. then used his clout to topple the Shamir government, helping to ensure that the Suicide process would begin.
What will be the cost to Israel of US intervention in Iraq this time? Who knows. I can guarantee that Israel will, at the very least, be utterly handcuffed in dealing with internal and external attacks.
What this means for America in the future is unknown. But judging upon previous American escapades in balance of power politics, some other baddies will inevitably pop up, and more 9/11's will no doubt be on the way. This is the price of Empire.
And the price of surrender is?
My own opinion is mixed, I see pros and cons of invading or not. But it would be nice to have more people talk about the concerns of the article and the issues of Empire (and NWO) instead of just becoming a rah rah forum for any military use anywhere at any time for any goal as long as my commander in chief says "GO!"
REality check.
In case you haven't noticed, the Globalist Elites (Baker, Eagleberger, Powell) and the UN oppose US action against Iraq. America blowing off the UN will undermione the NWO.
And keep the Buchanan bashing to a minimum. Like his view or not, the guy is sharp and has a lot to say, and is a heck of a lot brighter than most on this forum who sould like idiot cheerleaders who are goose-stepping to the drums of war.
You would thik he is sharp.
I find him to sound like the average leftist idiot college student right now.
The McNamara-type non-uniformed hawks are on Mission Creep. They either want to hasten Argameddon or capture the oil. They don't have America's long term interests at heart like Buchanan does.
Does Justin write type this robotic stuff for Pat, or Pat for Justin?
Are you suggesting war policy be set only by American males age 18 to 26 who can pass a military physical and aptitude test? It's a ludicrous argument because even those not directly in harm's way are affected deeply by its consequences.
Not only that, but the argument is a logical fallacy.
You say that one has no place arguing for war if they won't be fighting it. This argument is no different than 'you should have no say in abortion because you don't have a uterus.'
Some things are decided on principle: and these principles are universally accessible.
The way to end the 'war on terrorism' is to restart the draft and put a 25% war tax on incomes to pay for it. Those neo-coms never feel the hurt they foist on others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.