The following article will appear in the Dec. 1 issue of the
email Mid-Hudson (N.Y.) Activist Newsletter & Calendar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BUSH DOCTRINE: 2, 3, MANY MORE WARS

By Jack A. Smith

The Bush administration appears to be near completion in its
process of transforming the Sept. 11 terror attacks into a
gift from the political gods to pursue any right-wing course
of action it deems necessary to further the new “war on
terrorism.”

Number one on the ultra-conservative agenda is for the
U.S. empire to continue striking back at countries
throughout the world long after the government of
Afghanistan has been dispatched--regardless of whether they
had any connection to the September tragedy.

Iraq will be next on President Bush’s retaliatory hit
list if the influential far-rightists within the
administration, the key Republican think-tanks and the
private sector conservatives have their way.  After that,
targets may include the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea (DPRK) or Iran or Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Somalia,
Libya and others of up to 50 countries Vice President Dick
Cheney alleges engage in, or support, terrorism.  Indeed,
even countries such as Cuba or left liberation movements in
Colombia or the Philippines may be included in White House
designs.

Number two on the agenda of reaction is to utilize the
“war on terrorism” as a pretext to impose repressive
restrictions on civil liberties and vastly increase police
and government surveillance powers, as well as demanding
massive increases in war spending for such projects as a
missile defense network, the passage of tax breaks and
giveaways to big business, and for further destruction of
the natural environment.  In this article we will
concentrate on the Bush administration’s intention to
spread its wars to other countries.

>From the first days after the hijacked airliners crashed
into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, President Bush and
the right wing recognized the creation of a unique
opportunity to attain geopolitical objectives heretofore
discussed among the initiate only in hushed tones.  “Why
not,” they whispered, obviously in effect, “get rid of
the whole damn bunch of ‘em?” All, that is, who cause
grief to the most powerful state in history by disobeying
orders, by opposing Washington’s plans, by acting
independently, or like “rogues,” or socialists, or
revolutionaries.  “All of ‘em--when we can get away
with it.”

And now, suggest the ultra-conservatives, the political
constellations are approximating alignment.  The
citizenry--traumatized, fearful, and misled by a jingoist
mass media--at this stage appears to support whatever action
the Commander-in-Chief dictates.  The abject Democratic
Party, draped in the national flag as it kneels before White
House, can hardly assume the posture of a political
opposition.  Some politicians may later join the antiwar
forces when the public mood inevitably changes -- but now is
when the strategic war decisions are being made.

President Bush evidenced sophisticated political savvy by
choosing to interpret the attacks by a small, amorphous
private network of fanatical suicide soldiers as an act of
war against the United States.  That decision automatically
transfigured the leader of a weakening administration into
an avenging wartime president of the world’s only
superpower, with all the prerogatives associated with this
elevated status, not the least being a circling of the
popular, political and patriotic wagons around his singular
leadership.

Since history suggests an act of war can only be perpetrated
by another country, the White House decided to incriminate
poor and bedraggled Afghanistan.  After all, its
government--the Taliban, which took power in Kabul as a
consequence of U.S. interference in the Afghan civil
war--remained friendly with the expatriate Saudi
billionaire, Osama bin Laden, a couple of years after
Washington decided to excoriate this right-wing former
“freedom fighter” as the “Evil One” because of
his alleged leadership of the Al Qaeda fundamentalist holy
war network.  Describing him as the “mastermind”
behind the Sept. 11 assault, Washington seeks the capture of
the presently cave-dwelling bin Laden “dead or alive,”
most preferably dead.  A court trial, actually, might prove
embarrassing to the prosecution since the U.S. has refused
to provide any proof of the suspect’s guilt.

In another example of political acumen in pursuit of his
real objectives, Bush announced soon after the terror strike
that he was launching a “war against terrorism” that
would last several years and involve an undetermined number
of countries.  He asked for general approval of his plan
without ever revealing specific details.  The national
chauvinist response of a submissive Congress was a hearty
“so be it.” The bipartisan congressional authorization
Bush received to launch his vague, all-encompassing “war
on terrorism” conferred upon the president an authority
unparalleled in the nation’s history to wage war when and
where he sought fit.  The quickly forming antiwar movement
and the small political left, immediately comprehending the
fearsome political implications of what just transpired,
howled warnings that were either suppressed by the corporate
media or dismissed as unpatriotic.  Even many nominal
progressives, after watching the World Trade Center crumble,
intimated that it was inappropriate to oppose Bush’s
impending wars during this period of remorse and national
unity.

Bush may have concealed the details but he was frank about
his broad objectives. “From this day forward,” the
president postulated in his Sept. 20 address to Congress,
“any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile
regime.” He then indicated formally that his war will at
first be directed against Al Qaeda, but “it will not end
until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated.” Well before his speech, the State
Department had already identified Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Sudan, Cuba and the DPRK as “countries that support
terrorism.” In subsequent weeks, high administration
officials added scores more countries to a list of those
“where global terrorist networks operate.” Congress
(including all our Mid-Hudson representatives) essentially
remained mute as the White House publicly planned for a
multiplicity of wars intended to crush any remaining
opposition to U.S. imperial domination.

By Nov. 21, wearing the Screaming Eagles jacket of the 101st
Airborne Division, Bush was telling the assembled troops in
Fort Campbell, Ky., “Afghanistan is just the beginning of
the war against terror.  There are other terrorists who
threaten America and our friends, and there are other
nations willing to sponsor them.  We will not be secure as a
nation until all of these threats are defeated.  Across the
world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones,
and we will win....America has a message for the nations of
the world.  If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists.
If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist.  If
you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a
terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United
States and our friends.”

This was later termed by the White House the “Bush
Doctrine.” Bush named no particular country, or time when
the U.S. would attack, or precisely what he meant by a
terrorist.  The definition keeps expanding.  By Nov. 26, in
a harsh warning to both Iraq and the DPRK, Bush was saying
that “If they develop weapons of mass destruction that
will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held
accountable.” The next day the New York Times reported,
“Mr. Bush insisted that he had not widened the definition
of what his administration considers terrorism, even though
he did not mention weapons of mass destruction in his speech
to Congress. ‘Have I expanded the definition?’
Mr. Bush said [in answer to a question].  ‘I’ve always
had that definition, as far as I’m concerned.” His
obvious contempt of Congress virtually passed unnoticed.

The Bush administration, as had the earlier Clinton regime,
maintains that that the Iraqi government is bent on
developing weapons of mass destruction, even though former
UN Special Commission chief inspector Scott Ritter disclosed
two years ago that “Iraq today possesses no meaningful
weapons of mass destruction,” nor has it the means to
produce or deploy such weapons.  On Oct. 19, Ritter--once a
staunch critic of Iraq--wrote in the Guardian (UK) that
“Fears that the hidden hand of [Iraqi president] Saddam
Hussein lies behind these attacks are based on rumor and
speculation that...fail to support the weight of the
charge.... Iraq’s biological weapons programs were
dismantled, destroyed, or rendered harmless during the
course of hundreds of no-notice inspections.”

Bush also declared that “I made it very clear to North
Korea that, in order for us to have relations with them,
that we want to know, are they developing weapons of mass
destruction and they ought to stop proliferating.” Under
a previous agreement with the U.S. the DPRK agreed to
inspections in 2005, but Bush appears to be demanding
immediate compliance -- or else.  Pyongyang, which
emphatically denies constructing such weapons, has never
retreated after previous U.S.  threats and--poor as it is
these days--is hardly expected to do so now.

A day after Bush’s comments about the DPRK,
Under-Secretary of State John Bolton declared in Geneva at a
conference convened to strengthen the 1972 Biological and
Toxic Weapons Convention (see Nov. 17 newsletter for
background) that five countries, all so-called “Rogue
States,” are developing germ weapons--Iraq, the DPRK,
Iran, Libya and Syria.  He offered absolutely no proof for
his vague accusations.  The New York Times reported, the
allegations “are intended to deflect criticism of the
Bush administration from those who say it is Washington that
has undermined the treaty...for rejecting an agreement that
was meant to strengthen compliance by establishing an
inspection system.”

The White House has thus set the stage for attacking both
countries, among others.  Whether it does so is a matter
that has been under discussion within the administration
since the concept of an open-ended, several-year war against
various countries was broached.  A division on this question
within the ruling class is reflected in a factional struggle
between moderate warhawks, evidently led by Secretary of
State Colin Powell, and extreme warhawks led by Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Powell’s main concern is that an attack on Iraq will
result in the collapse of his carefully constructed
diplomatic house-of-cards, the “Partnership of
Nations” coalition supporting the “war on
terrorism.” Powell is reported to be of the opinion that
the coalition will disintegrate if its Moslem members
withdraw.  For example, Saudi Arabia--which is hardly a
friend of the Baghdad government--has made it publicly known
that its intelligence operatives in the Middle East have
found absolutely no link between Iraq and the terror attacks
or bin Laden and his apparatus.  Several other Arab and
Muslim countries have hinted that they would not support an
attack on Iraq.  To the charge made by the anti-Iraq faction
that Iraq is the source of the anthrax traces found in the
U.S., Powell points out that no evidence has been uncovered
to substantiate the charge.  Indeed, scientists, the Justice
Department and FBI all seem to think the anthrax spores that
killed a handful of Americans were produced in the United
States and were probably disseminated by the extreme right.

The recent implied threats against Iraq and the DPRK are
evidence that the far-right pressure on the Bush
administration is beginning to produce dividends. Soon after
Bush announced his “war on terrorism,” Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz emerged as the front-man for his
boss, Rumsfeld, in leading a coterie of high-ranking
ultra-conservative Pentagon officials in a crusade to crush
a virtually crippled Iraq and destroy the Saddam Hussein
government.  They were quickly joined by an impressive
conglomeration of conservatives from right-wing think tanks,
publications and organizations.  A Wall St. Journal
editorial in October suggested Iraq should be attacked
because of alleged involvement in the anthrax scare.
Writers such as William Safire of the New York Times have
devoted several columns to insisting on extending the war to
Baghdad.  He also suggests that the Palestine Liberation
Organization is a terrorist group that should become a Bush
target. Leading conservatives, including such luminaries as
Midge Decter, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, William
Kristol and Norman Podhoretz distributed an open letter in
late September insisting that “even if evidence does not
link Iraq directly to the [Sept. 11] attack, any strategy
aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must
include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from
power.” Conservative Democrats, such as Sen. Joseph
Lieberman, his party’s candidate for vice president in
last year’s election, are demanding that Iraq become the
target after Afghanistan.  They are joined by old war-horses
from previous Republican regimes such as former Defense
Secretary Casper Weinberger who announced Sept. 29 that
after Afghanistan, “you have to be ready to proceed
against Saddam Hussein.”

Obviously speaking for the president, White House National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN Nov. 18 that
“We didn’t need Sept. 11 to tell us that he [Hussein]
is a threat to our interests.  We’ll deal with that
situation eventually.” A day earlier, Reuters reported
that the Pentagon “will send an extra 2,000 troops to
Kuwait as a deterrent to Iraq.” Some 5,000 U.S. soldiers
have been stationed in Kuwait, a former province wrenched
from Iraq by British imperialism, for a decade.  In recent
days a number of administration officials have been
identifying possible targets for “phase 2” of the
“war on terrorism.” The CIA indicated that terror
cells exist in Syria, Yemen and the Sudan.  Others have
pinpointed Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah, one of 22
alleged “terrorist organizations” on the White House
target list.  The Beirut government maintained that
Hezbollah is waging a legitimate campaign against the
Israeli occupation of Arab land, arguing that a distinction
must be made “between terrorism, which we condemn, and
people’s right to struggle for the liberation of their
occupied territories.”

Rumsfeld evidently has selected the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea as a target in the “war on
terrorism” if extreme warhawks get their way.  After a
recent Washington news conference, the Associated Press
reported that Rumsfeld said “North Korea poses a ‘very
real’ threat to the United States through its missile
development, export policies and attempts to produce weapons
of mass destruction.”

Exceptionally few U.S. newspapers have taken a stance in
opposition to Bush’s war proliferation plans.  The New
York Times, which appears to support the moderate warhawk
faction led by Powell, cautioned the White House that it
would “make a serious mistake by moving to wage war in
Iraq,” principally because this would “almost
certainly shatter” the Partnership of Nations coalition.

At this stage, the Bush administration simply refuses to
reveal the location of its next targets.  Since the faction
fighting over Iraq is evidently continuing, an interim enemy
may be attacked first.  Asked at a press conference Nov. 19
whether the U.S. would be waging war on another country
after Afghanistan, Rumsfeld stated unambiguously, “I have
no doubt in my mind.”

Meanwhile, the war against Afghanistan continues apace.  At
this writing, U.S. warplanes are carpet-bombing alleged
Taliban strongholds while Washington’s surrogate rightist
army, the Northern Alliance, occupies the cities as they
fall, often massacring government soldiers and foreign
volunteers even when they surrender.  An intense manhunt is
underway for bin Laden and operatives of the Al Qaeda
network said to reside in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, the
Bush administration is attempting to construct a client
puppet government in Kabul to replace the Taliban, relying
on the elderly, discredited monarch deposed in 1973 to
function as the symbolic ruler.  Only the incredibly naive
believe such a coalition--composed of competing right-wing
factions and war lords--will long exist before the
resumption of internecine warfare.  The White House has made
certain to exclude any of the remaining progressive forces
which supported the besieged 1978-92 left-wing government
which the U.S. played a major part in eradicating.

The despicable terror attacks of September, and the grief
and pain thus engendered, now appear to be on the brink of
transmutation into a dream-come-true for the far right, the
militarists and all who support U.S. world hegemony.  This
is precisely what peace advocates were opposing at the
Sept. 29 demonstration in Washington when they chanted,
“Our Grief Is Not A Cry For War!” There’s still
time in the next weeks and months for sufficient public
pressure to force the Bush administration to alter and
perhaps reverse course, but this will require a large
migration of public sentiment into the antiwar camp,
supported by at least a substantial minority in Congress.
Considering that most liberals and too many progressives
still remain lashed to their flagpoles, along with virtually
all members of Congress and just about the entire mass
media, this is obviously a tall order.  In time, however,
when the scabrous reality of Bush’s “war on
terrorism” overpowers the jingoism and confusion of the
moment, the antiwar movement may once again be presented
with an opportunity it hasn’t enjoyed since the
‘70s--to oblige the government to end its wars and bring
the troops home where they belong.

(end)