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.
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. See what else Pat Buchanan is doing these days.
The opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq by France and Germany, two most prominent members of the EU, plus Russia, made the US leadership and policy-makers to conclude that Europe one day is not their "playing round". It may even be a counterweight to the US hegemony.
If UK and Australia are supportive of the US-led invasion of Iraq, it is not surprising because they are the same people coming from the same bloodline. The Australians and the White Americans are after all Britons! It's a family affair, insinuated by the Israelis. This is part of the Israeli strategy to divert the attention of the US from establishing a Palestinian State!
America has never really tried this "military franchisee approach" with either Germany or Japan - but Iraq was technically a nation already at peace, and therefore not a proper fit for the standard "war mongering nation in need of being disarmed" policy. America could perhaps disarm itself, to a certain extent, by swapping American military assists for Iraqi oil. Afterwards, America could simply consider the Arabian Peninsula, for example, to be within Iraq's sphere of influence, so to speak.
There is no god but God (who is without partner). The Prophet Muhammad (may God bless him) is God's messenger.
As Salaamu Alaikum
-- Yahya Bergum
PS. I'm grateful to God for the K.O.C. having lobbied to get the words "under God" included in America's Pledge of Allegiance.
As an american woman I see no reason for this war and the devastation that has occur since, as a muslim,I see my brothers and sisters suffering waiting for a change. Was this war necessary?
Allah only knows.
This is the sort of beleif your media has propagated onto you. Iraqis did not do 911. They presented no threat or intimidated you or was proven that they had anything to do with bin Laden. Yet still you are prepared to drop bombs on anyone that do not like the way you act. and by doing so you believe that you have now removed the threat.
It is precisely this sort of attitude that is dangerous to world peace. Just look at your policies. You have troops in over 100 countries. We have no Arab or Muslim troops in any other land, so what makes you believe that we are a threat to you??
Perhaps if you controlled that rogue state of your in Middle East and started taking unbiased postion when it comes to injustices perpetrated by your client state of Israel, over the last 50 odd years, then this situation will not have taken place.
Do not be surprised to reap tomatoes if you plant the seeds of tomatoes. And start reading a little more about what your successive governments have done, not only in the ME, but the rest of the third world countries. Truly, if I were American, I would be ashamed of my government, as Ihave always been of stupid Arab regimes who have taken money from you and opened the door to your troops in our countries agaisnt the will of the people. And those who object end up in prison, even now. Read your own Human Rights reports and then bless American reps for being in bed with the dictators.
God bless humanity.
When the US went to Afganistan, it promised the Arab leaders that it would not attack Iraq. We have seen when it fulfils its promise. Now again until a few months pass, it can promise over and over again that it will not attack any other country. Yet they are preparing a case for the next venture. How long our leaders are to be foolled? If it were not for the support of Arab/Islamic countries, no one would attach us and defile our pure and holy lands. It is high time for our leaders to wake up and give the necessary guidance and leadership in the battle for for the glory of Islam and Muslims. It is high time also for the Muslim community to "unit by the rope of Allah" and "stand firm before the Kaffirs and evil objective as firm wall". We need to stop from being insturments for our own distruction.
The killing of the student by the Israelis -- the first of a foreign activist in 29 months of fighting -- came as Israelis and Palestinians wrangled over the terms of a U.S.-backed plan to end the violence and establish a Palestinian state.
Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash., had been with U.S. and British demonstrators in the Rafah refugee camp trying to stop demolitions. She died in the hospital, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator.
Would be nice if mr. buchanan wrote an article that examined isreali and zionist control of ALL branches of US government.
The current administration is simply carrying out a plan that would be executed under a democrate if one was president...so he's not really saying anything new.
The main question is:
Will white christian american take back the US from the jews and the isreali lobbie...who at the end of the day...CONTROLS ALL THE MONEY.
Money talks and unless US politicans can put together a ticket that is void of Isreali lobby funds...we're simply watching what a show.
As we all know the Taliban refused and were bombed out of Afganistan. Did they find OBL?, No. At the time the rhetoric from both the US and the UK, was they would not attack anyone else. This uncerntainty was primarily due to Bush's axis of evil speach. I remeber distinctly Blair telling the House of Commons that there was no plan to attack Saddam and Iraq. What aload of bullshit.
Similarly at the time of the first Gulf War (actually there has only ever been one, it just did not finish)there was much said by Bush senior that the Palistine issue would be resloved. No surprise nothing happend. Even just before attacking Afganistan further promises were made regarding the palistine issue. Again nothing happened. Now again before invading Iraq further promises were made, guess what nothing will happen.
Isreal knows that as long as it keeps building on the occuppied territies the Palistine's will keep their Intifada going, they have no choice. So therefore Isreal will sign to nothing claiming there is no peace and that the Palistini's are just terrorists.
Regarding the wider ambitions of the Bush administration, I do think they will attack Syria or Iran or both, on the premisis that there are no Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq becuase they have been sold to Syria or Iran or both. Iran may also be attacked on the premisis of a nuculer program within the country.
You cannot trust the Americans or the British, in these matters, actually you can, they will always protect their interests first, second & third.