What Bush really wants is invading Iraq to control its oil fields.
But Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are not enough for him. Mow he is adding Cuba, Syria, and Libya to his hunting list. According to him, all these countries are developing weapons of mass destruction to use directly against the US or to sell to the terrorists who are now the natural enemies of the USA. The sky seems to be the limit to the war aspirations of this moron.
In the first days of June 2002, President Bush, speaking at the graduation ceremony at the military academy of West Point, made it clear that he wants to attack Iraq as soon as possible despite the reservations of the American military leaders and his foreign allies, as well as the threat of a total war in the Middle East. He said that the US must take "pre-emptive actions" against potential enemies and that, as far as he was concerned, the old cold war policy of deterrence and containment was obsolete. In fact, he made it clear that inaction was unacceptable.
On June 16, 2002, President Bush authorised the CIA and the US Special Forces to use "lethal force" to capture, or kill, the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. This decision allows covert operations aimed at toppling the Iraqi leader. This is further evidence that the US will invade Iraq sooner rather that later. This is a very strange decision in the sense that in every war, nothing specific is ever done to kill the leader of the enemy country. Even Israel, which is not especially following the international war rules and customs, refrained to kill Arafat, and that would have been easy for them to do in many occasions. It should be clear that this is a dangerous decision that gives a moral right to the enemies of the US to do the same. We may expect that quite a few US diplomats and civilians will be killed as a result. The American people will not agree, but Bush will be morally responsible. It is a two ways business.
Britain said it would participate to the war if Iraq refuses to accept further UN weapon inspections, and even if he does allow the inspectors in and Bush decides to invade the country anyway. According to Blair, invading Iraq would not require a new mandate from the UN Security Council. This action could take place as soon as October 2002 even if Blair added that no final decision has been made yet.
It is more and more obvious that President Bush and his closest advisers
want to invade Iraq, although it is not so obvious if the American public
is ready for it. It is clear that, at the highest level of the armed forces,
there are some strong reservations and doubts. This is also reflected in Britain
that will however go on with any decision taken by Bush. In July 2002 there
are now five options for this attack:
- President Bush orders the CIA to get rid of Saddam Hussein by any methods,
legal or not. Besides killing him, this includes organising a coup within
the dictator's inner circle of advisers. The CIA believes that the chances
of success are not higher than 15%.
- The US could follow the Afghan model, letting the Iraqi opposition groups
doing the work, while the US provides heavy air support.
- The US could also follow the "Gulf War Option" that is deploying
about 250,000 troops with heavy air support and the use of new technologies.
The main attack would start from Kuwait and Qatar, but Jordan and Saudi Arabia
would also be asked to let the US troops assemble on their soil on their way
to Iraq. It is not evident that these two countries would agree.
- A surprise attack involving about 50,000 troops could try to take over Baghdad
and the main Iraqi cities from where to start a revolution against Saddam
Hussein.
- An inside-out attack with direct strikes on Baghdad and other cities that
would aim at eliminating Saddam Hussein's forces and minimise the possibility
of a biological or chemical reaction against the US troops, or Israel. This
is a high-risk strategy.
The USA is accused of double standards at the UN. They want to attack Iraq because it does not comply with UN resolutions, but without any proof that it is linked to terrorism. But they let Israel defies UN resolutions to evacuate Gaza and the West Bank for the last 30 years not to mention their nuclear bombs.
President Bush is asking the Congress, and he will get it, a blank cheque to attack Iraq as he sees fit, with or without the agreement of the UN and, with or without an agreement with the US allies, the British one being certain to follow him. His policy can be summarised as follow: "As a matter of common sense and self-defence, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger, but failed to act. Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction, and the targeting of innocents. While the US will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, it will not hesitate to strike alone. The US forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the US". In other words, only the US and its president know what is good for the world, and the allies have to follow without asking question, if not they will be considered as enemies of the US. In addition to make sure they win, the US attacks only weak countries like Afghanistan and Iraq letting also, as the Afghan war has shown, the risky job to the locals, the life of American soldiers being more important than the life of foreigners. This means overturning the Truman doctrine of containment and deterrence, which dominated the cold war. The main difference was that Truman was a great and respected president, which is not the case for George W. Bush. Forgetting the stupid choice of words, this means that Bush can decide on his own criteria what his enemies are, and destroy them with pre-emptive war.
In October 2002, the CIA, FBI, and US energy department are being put under pressure to produce reports backing president Bush's wish to attack Iraq. Officials say that "cooked information is working its way into the high levels of the administration", and there is a lot of unhappiness about it in the intelligence services. They know that some of the allegations against the Iraqi regime are not supported by any intelligence. On Monday October 7, 2202, president Bush used all these so-called "facts" to try to convince the nation of the danger presented by Iraq. However, many well-informed Americans are not happy about it. The recent open debates that have taken place in Europe and in the Middle East are finally having an effect in the US where it is now possible to question the "war on terror" without being accused of un-patriotic, or un-American behaviour. Opinion pools begin to register that many Americans believe that Bush is spending too much time on Iraq, and not enough on the economy, while al-Qaida continue to threaten domestic security. They are asking that the war, if it happens, be fought only after approval by the UN, and by an international coalition. People also start to see that the inspection route is the right one, and that diplomatic solutions should be explored in priority to war. American people are now more worried about jobs than Iraq.
In August 2002, George Bush distanced himself from the strong words used by his Vice-President a few days before; at that time Dick Cheney gave the impression that the US had decided to attack Iraq sooner that later. This statement had not been cleared with the president who dissociated himself from such a strong position. Obviously Mr Cheney went too far, but this shows the disarray that exists in the White House between the doves and the hawks. The US media foresees that Colin Powell could leave his job as Secretary of State at the end of the president's first term, or even before. This later possibility would create problems to Bush in his attempt to be re-elected. It is well known that Colin Powell is rarely in agreement with the official US policy, especially when it ignores it allies and friends. President Bush has in front of him an uphill battle to unite his administration.
Blair repeated once more that he would participate in whatever Bush decides to do about Iraq. His logic and his total lack of personal imagination are bizarre; there must be something that we do not know that obliges the UK to behave as the bootlicker of the US. One expects more of a country that was big, once. He also said, without showing any evidence, that there was a danger of terrorist actions in Britain, and asked the people to be vigilant.
Seven ex-eastern countries were accepted as NATO members on November 20 and 21, 2002. President Bush took the opportunity to ask all the Nato members to participate in the eventual war against Iraq. Beside the UK, no country accepted with, perhaps, the exception of Denmark.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flew to the Horn of Africa to visit Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Qatar; he will visit the American soldiers there. He will also ask these countries to help the USA in the war against terrorism, and in the eventual invasion of Iraq.
On January 30, 2003, President Bush, in a meeting with a Saudi official, made a u-turn and said that he now was in favour of exile for Saddam Hussein, his closer associates, and family! Egypt, Turkey and Syria are said to be agreeable to that solution. However there are no indications that Saddam Hussein and his sons would accept such a suggestion, quite the opposite. In the meantime Bush was still trying to convince other world leaders to support his policy. On the same day we were told that the US militaries have made a big order of body bags, in the order of 10,000, in prevision of the war and its inevitable casualties.
On February 24, 2003, the Guardian is saying that not only the military, but also the spies, are against attacking Iraq. They are afraid that the Islamic extremists, as well as al-Qaida, will become more active that before, taking advantage of the situation and waging more terrorist actions. Blair, of course, will do what Bush wants. If the US President decides to go to war, Blair will follow, and if he decides to postpone it, Blair will find good reasons to do the same. Doggy Blair has lost completely his power of decision.
On March 15, 2003, the US finally presented its road maps to solve the Israeli/Palestine
problem. This plan aims to distract the attention of the Muslim world from
the imminent invasion of Iraq. Will they be distracted? And will the Israeli
accept the plan?