Repost. Originally titled “The PNAC Killing Machine Rolls On.”
Cross-posted at Clark Community Network.
The Neocons have tipped their hand. As usual though, it's too late to stop their play. According to this report, the United States is building several long-term military bases in Iraq. One billion dollars in approved construction expenses. Miles of fencing. Fresh concrete as far as the eye can see. Burger Kings. Pizza Huts. Swimming pools. Movie stars.
Until today, every story I'd seen on permanent U.S. bases in Iraq appeared in less-than-mainstream news outlets. Most have referenced 14 permanent bases. Who knows if that number is correct but it seems, based on this MSNBC story, that at least the balance of those stories is accurate.
I'm not going to mince words on this one. I came to a conclusion this morning. The construction of these bases represents the most willfully dishonest, murderous and criminal event in the Bush administration's evil scrapbook.
More...
I'm not talking about the construction of the bases themselves. After all, Bush apologists stand ready to defend the practice, noting American military bases in "liberated" nations around the world. Germany, Japan, South Korea, the list goes on and on. Currently, the United States stations troops at more than 700 military bases worldwide. So why kick up a fuss about a handful of bases in Iraq, knowing that we're still in the early stages of "The Long War?"
The thing that makes this news so terrible, so despicable, so outright evil is one simple and logical conclusion about the events in Iraq. As we enter the fourth year of war, already one of the longest wars in U.S. history (longer than World War I and the Korean War,) we must stop and realize one thing above all others in regards to the construction of these bases:
The civilian leadership of our nation has intentionally prolonged the violence in Iraq in order to build these bases and extend its imperial ambitions.
Consider the facts.
The subject of the war's provocation is nothing new, although it is relevant to the case that the administration has worked to achieve some undisclosed objective(s) in Iraq. During the Clinton era, years before 9/11, neoconservative members of The Project for a New Century unsuccessfully argued that the president should start a war on Iraq. Many of those PNAC members, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, have served in the Bush administration as the architects for the Iraq War. Another PNAC member, Zhalil Khalizad, would ultimately be named and now serves as Ambassador to Iraq.
With no credible evidence linking Iraq and 9/11 or even Iraq and Al Qaeda in general, the Bush administration was inexplicably fixated on war with Iraq, sounding the drumbeats publicly as early as 2002. What for?
As most of the world opposed U.S. invasion of Iraq, the administration finally and reluctantly deferred to the United Nations and allowed weapons inspectors to search Iraq for WMDs. In spite of the inspectors' unfettered yet unsuccessful attempts to find WMDs, the United States announced its intentions to invade, preempting the UN mission and ordering inspectors out of Iraq before war commenced. Why the rush?
Instead of deferring to the advice of top military commanders, including the Secretary of the Army, who had contended that the United States would require several hundred thousand troops to keep the peace, PNAC co-founder Donald Rumsfeld had determined that a force of approximately 150,000 troops would be sufficient for the Iraq War. He went to war with the army he chose, not the army the Army recommended. Why not?
The United States invaded the nation of Iraq and overthrew the government in 22 days. As one of the first orders of business, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the security forces within Iraq. Lawlessness, rioting and looting ensued. "Democracy is messy," Rumsfeld said. Why so dismissive?
Months went by, along with promises of reconstruction. Billions spent. Billions lost. For all the talk of progress, the most powerful force in the world could not even improve the amount of electricity or drinkable water. Same goes for oil output. All no better than pre-war levels. Unemployment at 40%. No talks with neighboring countries about bringing the peace, only threats. Point blank, the Bush administration did nothing...nothing...that a responsible administration would have done to restore peace in Iraq. Why not?
The only reasonable conclusion to all these facts is that they don't want peace. Never did.
Fast-forwarding some months, John Negroponte was named Ambassador to Iraq. You remember John Negroponte, don't you? Nice guy, that death squad-installing piece of crap. Shortly after Negroponte took office, Newsweek broke the story that the "Salvador option" was being considered in Iraq.
Named after the whispered-about U.S.-led death squads in Central America in the 80s, the "Salvador option" was a disaster waiting to happen in Iraq. A few months later, that disaster got tired of waiting. Obscure news reports began surfacing. Large groups of Sunnis found executed here. Large groups of Shias found executed there. Possibly the work of death squads.
Strange coincidence, huh? Wherever John Negroponte goes, so go the death squads.
For about a year, the death squads quietly carried out their killings. Then, somebody decided to blow up a sacred mosque and the whole thing went very public. Civil war. Shias versus Sunnis. Banner headlines: Death squads on the march. And a few (very few) observant Americans with good memories recalled the Newsweek story from January 2005.
So what am I getting at?
For three years, this administration has had countless opportunities to make things right in Iraq. Time and time again, they've squandered even snubbed opportunities for peace. If American security was their concern, they never would've ordered the invasion in the first place. If the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein was their concern, they would've taken more seriously American detainee abuses. If terrorism was their concern, they would've sent 150,000 troops to Afghanistan, none to Iraq. If they honestly believed Iraq had WMDs, they might've at least offered an apology and condolences once Iraq was discovered to have none. If the war was so badly mismanaged, they would've had Rumsfeld's head on a platter. If, if, if...
At a certain point, you have to stop asking these questions and draw some logical conclusions. If they never declare these things as failures, you have to assume that it's all going to plan.
If your goal is a big, fat military footprint in the middle of a foreign land, the only way you're going to get it is through invasion. Furthermore, if you want to build lots of military bases in this far-flung country, you can't do it on the heels of a three-week war. You've got to have a long, drawn-out, bloody fight that imprints itself on the minds of America, so that the sheep collectively think, "Yeah, we need to be there to keep them terr'ists in check." And you've got to build these monstrous bases in relative secrecy. At least until it's too late to stop the construction.
What you need is some kind of distraction. But what?
As more Americans and Iraqis are put up for slaughter, the concrete trucks roll.
Never mind that sound. It's just freedom. On the march.