Originally published at
A.L.P.
In Connecticut Ned Lamont defeated former Democratic VP nominee Senator Joseph Lieberman with most of the press and some of the blogosphere declaring the Democratic primary win as a defeat for Bush's Iraq War policy and for those, like Lieberman, who continue to back it. The question that finally arises from all this rhetoric is what exactly is Bush's Iraq War policy, since the predicating statements about going into Iraq have been found to be fundamentally false? Bush didn't stumble ineptly into this war and occupation; he and his administration got us there deliberately. Why?
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove rarely do anything that has only a binary result opportunity, a win or lose option. They almost always choose a path such that whatever the outcome they have a win of some kind, preferably several wins on different policy agendas. They have taken major criticism for their neglegence pre- and post-Katrina in New Orleans and the surrounding hurricane ravaged area. That criticism may have gotten more amplification than they expected when they made their decisions, but there have been wins for them in the destruction of New Orleans. The displaced and deliberately abused Democratic voting population of the city of New Orleans has been decimated, in fact some pundits now predict that Louisiana will fall nicely into place among the other former Dixiecrat states now ballyhooing their racism from the Republican Party. In addition, though, and somewhat out of view are the tremendous contracts awarded to Republican Party donor corporations for the reconstruction of the area. Bush & Co. always takes take care of its "base."
Iraq is a whole different matter from a hurricane; it was and probably still is a decisive chess move on the part of the NeoCon leadership in the Bush administration, Cheney and Rumsfeld. If you posit for a moment that there had to be substantial gains for the NeoCons and their friends regardless of the outcome, what were these win-win goal estimates?
You have to make some assumptions about this to get very far. One of my simple assumptions, for instance, is that the Republican coalition of NeoCons teamed up with the radical rightwing anti-social program Social Darwinist contingent and with the radical theocrats is solid, if not completely monolithic. This means that the activities of one part of this coalition can be directed toward and may lead to wins for others of the coalition members without the kind of animosity and "me-too"-ism that generates in the Democratic Party frequently.
The first and perhaps most important goal of Bush & Co. is to "kill the welfare beast." As of this writing the direct cost to taxpayers for the Iraq adventure alone is now about $313 billion! Nearly the entire Clinton era paydown of the national debt has been squandered and the debt advanced to $8.5 trillion (or $49 trillion as reported by Rep. Jim Cooper [D-TN]). All that federal money has gone up in military smoke, much of it to the armaments industry and the civilian contractors in the theater of war (Bush's "base"). Simultaneously cutbacks on services and payments to military and their families, domestic social services and welfare have been implemented. This administration will not be happy until all federal government programs designed to take advantage of national government leverage to achieve social goals are gone, but in the meantime "mission substantially accomplished," the "beast" is gaunt and starving, and so by the way are millions of people! Children are people, remember!
The most obvious (but not the main) goal of the Iraq adventure was creating a regime change. Saddam Hussein is gone, of course, the country has no regime worthy of the name, but it surely is changed. Mission accomplished.
The somewhat less obvious goal of BushCo's Iraq policy was to secure the Iraqi oil fields. This was done partly to make sure that Hussein did not contract them to the Chinese and partly to make sure that we and the UK had first dibs on the product. It is a little early to say that this is a permanent fait accompli, but it certainly is temporarily the case. Mission accomplished for now.
Securing Iraq has been more of a problem than Mr. Rumsfeld first envisioned, and so tying down the loose ends ... or the failure to do so ... leaves the next set of goals somewhat in limbo, but not entirely so. There seems to be plenty of support among key Democrats (and independents like Lieberman) for the idea to create a stabile regime in Iraq before we depart. It does not matter too much for the "base of operations goal," since all we need to have in Iraq is a platform for influencing the rest of the middle east. Do we have that platform? Mission partly accomplished, but given the dissention at home and the slide into sectarian civil war in Iraq, there is no sense that Bush's middle east base is secure enough from which to launch other escapades. But wait, ... there's more to this.
The base-of-ops concept has had three main purposes: one, to eliminate a threat to Israel from Hussein and, two, to use Iraq as a base for defensive and neutralizing power on behalf of Israel. If you read the recent unpleasantness in Lebanon like I did, you came away with the distinct impression that Israel acted on premises and "attaboys" declared by BushCo, and in fact subscribed to the Rumsfeld just about totally discredited theory of "shock and awe" as an effective way to deal with local criminals and terrorists. So, on balance, the idea of a pro-Israel base in Iraq is partly accomplished, despite there being strong evidence of it having been used prematurely. Mission not quite accomplished, but close. And then there's the third purpose of the Iraqi base.
Lurking in the background and thrusting into the foreground at their own whim are the Iranians. I believe that the main point, but politically indefensible point, of the Iraq adventure was a) to thwart any Iranian notions of achieving hegemony in the middle east, b) provide for a base of military and clandestine operations against Iran, c) to achieve radical regime change in Iran, and d) to recoup all the face lost to Iran and its ayatollahs over the past quarter century, all of which is e) to secure the Iranian oil fields against Chinese hegemony and f) to pose new competition to Russian interests in Iran and its petroassets. They could have never sold this idea even in the wake of 9/11. They had to take Iraq instead and it was a deceptively simple sell politically, because we had already been there and defeated Hussein on the field of battle. It was to be a cake walk. The Americans eager for revenge and not hostile to being the bully bought the idea hook, line, and sinker.
There are other elements to the grand plan, of course, but they are not going to play into the election rhetoric of 2006. Among them are the destinies of Russia and India, and what NeoCon imaginations believe are the inevitable outcomes. The NeoCon plan is for world hegemony and cutting the Chinese off at the pass is crucial and critical to achieving that hegemony. It is a drawing room scheme without significant merit, but in the hands of Machiavellians like Rove and Cheney, NeoCons in and out of government saw a possibility for advancing the idea and thereby irrevocably pressing the American destiny into their preferred direction.
What this means for the election of 2006 is simply this. Democrats must understand what BushCo has been up to, and they must believe that there is and always has been a more civilized, mature, and less murderous way to deal with Iran (or North Korea) than to nuke them into oblivion. There is such a way; it is called collective security.
Collective security begins by respecting allied nations rather than calling them "tired old Europe" or calling France a nation of wimps. With collective security agreements Iran under Ahmadinejad can be and should be politically and economically isolated, cut off from the rest of the world until they achieve internal change acceptable to a majority of the rest of the world. The domestic forces in Iran that would prefer not to be blown into oblivion can be stimulated, supported, and regime change can be achieved, perhaps by democratic means, (perhaps by more locally familiar means), but certainly in less time than it would take to decontaminate downtown Tehran after lobbing a couple nukes into that city. Democrats have to believe in this in order to see themselves clear of what will certainly be a perpetual occupation of Iraq (like Germany and Japan). Democrats have to see that Hussein was sitting on a powder keg and that the U.S. running around shooting up the place does nothing to keep that powder from blowing. In fact, quite the reverse, the less we do in Iraq for a while the more we will achieve.
Lieberman is wrong, and so is Hillary Clinton. Lieberman believes that Israeli security is at stake. They both believe that Jewish votes in NYC and Connecticut are at stake. She also believes her machisma is improved by being bellicose. The fact is that Israel itself is at stake if it follows any more advice from Washington, and the other fact is that hawkishness is predatory. Once you have armed you need enemies to play with. Both of these Senators should know where this all leads.