DESPITE criticism from Democratic Party congress
members and even from a Senate committee that has
rejected Bush’s new (?) plan for Iraq, it continues
to go ahead. It should be noted that it does not
just include sending 21,500 more troops in addition
to the 132,000 now misplaced in that invaded
nation; another aircraft carrier is also be
dispatched to the Persian Gulf, with its
accompanying warships and the deployment of the new
Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile system.
Nuclear submarines against an Iraqi insurgence
that is engaging in actions in cities and deserts?
How very strange. It would seem likely that what he
wants to do is continue intimidating Iran, a country
that Bush’s administration would like to include in
the same package as its invaded neighbor; to subdue
it, in order to take away its leading role in the
Middle East. It is an attitude of senseless revenge,
because while Iraq has been difficult for them, that
Persian country could be much worse.
Surveys carried out outside and within the United
States show only opposition to this policy of
unbridled force. Some polls describe the U.S.
president as the greatest danger to humanity at the
present time. With respect to the war’s continuation
or an increase in troops, little more than 20% of
people in the United States believe it’s the right
thing to do.
But it is obvious that neither the president nor
his close collaborators are considering the opinions
of their own citizens or those of other nations.
That has been confirmed by various specific actions.
The first is the troop reinforcement, which if
anything, will only lead to more casualties on both
sides (more than 3,000 on the U.S. side and almost
half a million Iraqis to date).
Another factor that is leading to erroneous
conclusions is the Pentagon’s announced project to
beef up its ranks so that the Army has at least
65,000 more soldiers initially, and according to the
latest reports, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is
expected to recommend 92,000 more soldiers over the
next five years. That expansion would cost some $70
billion.
When an increase is requested for the Army, along
with a higher budget for maintaining it, it’s not
for nothing. At this time, the United States has
more than 150,000 soldiers in Iraq and 20,000 in
Afghanistan. It wants to beef up its land and sea
forces because it has plans for them, whether they
are current or otherwise. It is the logic of
fanatical violence which Bush is establishing for
his country.
Could that be the reason why he has the lowest
approval ratings and the greatest opposition of any
U.S. president in history? For a country where
peaceful presidents can be counted on one hand, such
indicators are pretty bad.
Simultaneous with these military expansions, a
new type of anti-disturbance weapon has appeared. It
inflicts unbearable heat on the body, forcing people
to take their distance. I suppose that its purpose
is not to sit in a museum, but rather to be used
almost immediately, perhaps in Iraq itself, given
that it would be scandalous for it to be used
against anti-war demonstrators in the United States.
Apparently Bush is giving new responsibilities to
the government installed in Baghdad. To date, and
outside of supporting the invasion, the
administration under occupation has taken on giving
a certain appearance of legality to the presence and
actions of the invaders, who by encouraging
religious sectarianism, have divided that society,
leaving it dependent on community leaders, if that,
or unprotected in general.
While Iraq’s domestic situation is catastrophic
from any viewpoint, the government itself is
supporting the sharing-out of the oil. Advised by
USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development)
and the World Bank, and with urgent pressure from
the International Monetary Fund, it is about to pass
a law that would award those who aided in creating
the disaster.
Analysts who had access to the drafting of this
legislation affirm that it benefits foreign oil
companies and would not only go into effect
immediately, but it would be projected over Iraq’s
future in a disastrous way. That is one of the goals
of the Bush program underway, and which he describes
using the terms "self-determination" or "assuming
responsibilities" on the part of the Iraqi
authorities.
And the basic services to which the Iraqi people
have a right? The order and public safety? The
return of the refugees? It would seem that they are
of little importance at this time, either in
Washington or in Baghdad.
