Tony Blair has assured his countrymen the United States does
not intend to attack Syria or Iran. Colin Powell has assured
the Muslim world the United States does not intend to attack
Syria or Iran.
But did the British prime minister or U.S. secretary of state
clear their statements with Richard Perle? For the War Party
has blood in its nostrils and is headed for Damascus.
Speaking at UCLA, for Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a
War Party front, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey declared that
this war is about far more than the liberation of Iraq. We are
fighting "World War IV," said Woolsey, "a war
that will last longer than World Wars I or II."
Our enemies are not just al-Qaida, but the religious rulers of
Iran and the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria. "As
we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey added,
"we will make a lot of people very nervous."
Who, exactly? Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
"We want you nervous," said Woolsey to these two
erstwhile allies. "We want you to realize that now, for
the fourth time in 100 years, this country and its allies are
on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you –
the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family – most fear. We're on
the side of your own people."
"World War IV" is a term popularized by militant
Zionist Norman Podhoretz, who has been shrieking for war on no
fewer than six or seven Arab countries. But why should anyone
care what Woolsey says?
Because James Woolsey is slated for a position of power in the
U.S. reconstruction of Iraq. Moreover, Woolsey echoes John
Bolton at State and Israel's Ariel Sharon, who has also been
howling for the United States to take down Iran and Syria, as
soon as Baghdad falls.
This is the neocons' hour of power, and they do not intend to
lose this chance to remake the Middle East in their own image.
Indeed, before the battle of Baghdad had even begun, the
battle over who will rule Iraq was underway.
Tony Blair wants the United Nations to take the lead. But this
is a non-starter. Disgust with the U.N. in the United States
is universal. Any plan to give the Security Council, where
France has a veto, a decisive role in post-Saddam Iraq is dead
on arrival. Rightly so. This war, President Bush said, would
be fought for vital U.S. interests. And the U.N., with its
reflexive hostility to America, cannot be trusted to protect
those interests.
But if the United Nations has been ruled out, there remains a
question over the composition of the U.S. administration.
Heading it up, as of now, will be retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner,
who headed the relief effort in the Kurdish region after
Desert Storm. But Garner has a problem.
In 1998, he took a junket to Israel sponsored by the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs, an Israeli lobby.
When the intifada erupted in 2000, Garner was one of 26 U.S.
military leaders to sign a statement, released by JINSA,
parroting the Likud Party line that the violence was all the
fault of the Palestinians. Is it wise to have heading up the
reconstruction of a humiliated Arab nation a JINSA general
vetted by the Israeli Lobby and Ariel Sharon?
Other questions arise: Will James Woolsey, who has declared
that U.S. policy is to go after Syria and Iran and destabilize
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have a pivotal role in the
administration of Iraq?
Will the Iraqi National Congress, a Perle favorite headed by
banker Ahmad Chalabi – a fugitive from justice in Jordan,
convicted of fraud and embezzlement – play a leading role?
Or will Iraqis chose their own leaders from their own people
who suffered under Saddam? Neither State nor the CIA – which
severed its ties to the INC when Chalabi could not account for
missing covert funds – trusts the man.
America stands on the threshold of military victory. But the
fear and loathing of America in the Islamic world is on a
scale none of us has ever known. President Bush has an
opportunity to alter this harsh and hateful perception. If he
will honor his commitment to rebuild an Iraq ruined by
dictatorship, sanctions and war, if he will let the Iraqis
choose their own leaders, if he will bring American occupation
troops home at the earliest possible date, he can give the lie
to the myth that America seeks an empire in the Islamic world.
But he must first tell Woolsey, Perle & Co. that he, not
they, runs U.S. foreign policy. It is all up to him. Republic
or Empire. The president alone will decide.
