Friday, April 18, 2003

 
"Coalition" Abandons Bush. Now What?

As everyone knows, the "coalition" that the Bush Administration claimed consisted of dozens of countries, actually consisted of three heads of state, Bush, Blair and Aznar.

Today, coalition member Spanish Premier José Maria Aznar boldly warned Bush against attacking Syria:

"Syria is a friend, it will continue to be Spain's friend; it is not an objective for anyone."

Vice President and possible candidate to replace Mr Aznar, Mariano Rajoy, backed the Spanish premier's comments, adding that the government would not support an intervention in Syria "in whatever case."

Recall that earlier this month, UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw said that the UK would not be a part of any invasions of either Iran or Iraq.

" ...the government has made efforts to improve relations with Syria and Iran. Mr Straw has visited Iran on a number of occasions and the prime minister has visited Syria.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Straw described Iran as "a completely different country and situation from Iraq".

"Iran is an emerging democracy and there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action."

"We have had good cooperation from the Iranian government," he added. "The Iranians have more reason to know of the terror imposed by Saddam Hussein, not just on his own people but on other peoples in the region, than almost any other country including Kuwait."

Regarding Syria, Mr Straw said "we have worked hard to try to improve relations".

But he went on: "That said, it is important that Syria ensures that its territory is not used as a conduit for military supplies to the government of Iraq, and I hope that they are not doing so."

Asked whether he was worried that an impression was being created that Syria and Iran were next in line behind Iraq, Mr Straw replied: "it would worry me if it were true. It is not true, and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

So now that Bush is alone. What will the next move be? History (the past two years and a half) seems to suggest that Bush simply won't care but Rove will...as he looks to 2004. Since you can expect the next sovereign incursion to be even less popular with Americans than the one into Iraq, I think its a safe bet that any further Middle-East invasions occur after November 2004. Anything different would be political suicide.

Join our mailing list!

See also:

"Syria and Iran: Prepare for Invasion - A Reference for Seekers of Truth"

posted by Thomas Ball 2:32 PM

 
NY Times Suggests US Could Plant WMD in Iraq

Wether pro- or anti-war, people are increasingly focusing on the fact that weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found in Iraq. It is well known that the credibility of both US intelligence and Administration motives is at stake. After all, the Administration set the abominable "first strike" precedent, alienated most of our allies and polarized this nation all for the sake, so they said, of ridding Iraq of WMD. With such a high price paid, the product better be delivered. And it will… one way or another.

You might recall an article I wrote back on January 24, "Seeds of Destruction: What Keeps Bush From Planting Evidence of WMD in Iraq?" Such speculation is not unusual for a noncommercial publication. For the mainstream media, however, it is quite a surprise. Thus, when the New York Times published the same warning, I knew that the idea had gained wide-spread acceptance. Now it seems that the last hope to preserve the credibility of any reported finding is to allow UN weapons inspectors to resume their work as an international and objective observer.

"The continued failure of American forces to find any "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq must be worrying some officials, particularly at intelligence agencies that assured the White House that Baghdad had such weapons. If Saddam Hussein authorized his field commanders to use chemical weapons, as Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested to the United Nations in February, presumably some of the weapons should have been overrun by Army and Marine forces as they closed in on Baghdad. Yet so far every report of suspicious items has proved to be a false alarm. The very fact that pressure is mounting on the Bush administration to prove the presence of unconventional weapons makes it imperative that the White House bring in experienced inspectors from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency to help locate illicit materials and enhance the credibility of any findings. Current White House plans to bypass the U.N. are heading in the wrong direction.

There may be good reasons for coming up dry so far. The Iraqis were expert at hiding forbidden materials, and it could take some time to find secret storage and manufacturing sites in a nation that is the size of California. But with every passing day, American credibility is called into question, particularly by other nations that were not enthusiastic about military action to begin with. The chief justification for invading Iraq was to get rid of Baghdad's stores of chemical and biological agents and dismantle its effort to produce a nuclear bomb. These weapons were deemed a threat not only to Iraq's neighbors, but also to the United States, particularly if Mr. Hussein were to make them available to terrorists, as President Bush suggested in his State of the Union message.

The military units searching for unconventional arms in Iraq are not truly expert in finding hidden weapons. They need to be buttressed not only by American civilian experts but, even more important, by respected international inspectors as well. Such neutral experts need to ensure a strict chain of custody and oversee the accuracy of laboratory analyses. Otherwise there is a danger that any findings will be discounted by a skeptical world that is all too ready to believe that the evidence was planted or manipulated.

The best hope for finding forbidden materials may be tips from Iraqi scientists who worked on the programs or incriminating documents that reveal where illicit weapons were made or stored. Absent such signposts, investigators will have to visit thousands of suspect sites to look for evidence. The whole process could take many months, but it is important to carry through to a conclusion.

Although some administration officials say Iraqi leaders may have transferred banned weapons to Syria, it seems unlikely that such movement would have gone unnoticed by spy satellites and drones watching the key routes. Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander, believes the regime fell too quickly to give Iraqis a chance to move banned items out of the country. If the weapons are there, investigators should be able to find them."

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has already said that they see no need for UN involvement, including weapons inspectors. This rejection of any neutral participant only adds to the public skepticism. The thought is that the Administration will refuse to accept the inspectors with the knowledge that they may have to "plant or manipulate" a cache of WMD in order to prove they were right.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 9:54 AM

 
Bechtel and Bush: Contracts Awarded

As a timely confirmation of the assertions of yesterday's post, "Bechtel: Has Halliburton Met its Match?", the first contracts publicly awarded for Iraq reconstruction go to Bechtel:

"The Bush administration awarded the Bechtel Group of San Francisco the first major contract today in a vast reconstruction plan for Iraq that assigns no position of authority to the United Nations or Europe.

The award…could go up to $680 million over 18 months. But those amounts could be only a fraction of what it costs to rebuild Iraq's airports, water and electric-power systems, roads and railroads,… a task that experts have said could cost $25 billion to $100 billion."

Notice that, in a further act of dictatorial unilateralism, the Administration has shut out the UN once again:

"'We are in control on the ground and creating facts on the ground,' said a senior administration official who declined to be identified. 'Iraq will not be put under a U.N. flag. The U.N. is not going to be a partner. And right now, people don't have the stomach to make a theological fight over this.' The administration also opposes the return of United Nations weapons inspectors, senior officials said."

Of course that was not surprising. What was surprising is that Blair, who risked his career by supporting the Administration, was totally and completely screwed by Bush.

"British companies are already upset at being cut out of the most lucrative deals to rebuild postwar Iraq, and Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Mr. Bush at... to grant the United Nations a wider role in reconstruction."

Maybe now he's learned his lesson. Nevertheless, as the Administration claims the spoils of invasion for themselves, they still feel compelled to give some absolutely ridiculous rationale for that behavior.

"Administration officials said it was important to give contracts to American corporations, essentially leapfrogging over international groups, as a way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that the United States is a liberator bringing economic prosperity and democratic institutions to their nation."

So the questions remain: How does the Administration get away with this? When will people wake up? When will the American citizenry regain it's courage to stand up to despotic, crony imperialists? When will we say, "enough is enough" and demand the reinstatement of our Constitution?

Wake up America!

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 8:16 AM