“Regime Change” in America

The president George W. Bush remarked that he would never be influenced by the demonstrations held all over the world. “America’s security should not be dictated by those protesters.” He said. “War is my final choice.”

Bush keeps repeating that speech. Yet, great waves of protest against the war all over the world last week showed one thing: the people of the world almost unanimously rejected his rhetoric and propaganda as he prepared for war with Iraq.

Alongside the statements of the demonstrators and people who signed the anti-war petitions, America and Britain acted alone. But it should have been prevented even if there was authorization from the United Nation’s security council. The pre-emptive attack by America has no legal or moral base.

Nevertheless, if the message from the world is so clear, why does Bush keep persisting? What interests will the war serve?  “America’s security,” said Bush. But of course that is not the motive. If the 11 September tragedy become the turning point, the threat toward the American is not biological, chemical and nuclear weapon of Iraq, as long as the formal justification could be accepted, the attack came from a group of terrorists armed with box cutters. If it were true, the aggression towards Iraq will only create more terrorists.

Another interest is for the sake of economic recovery. Some economists advocate the idea that a war with Iraq would improve the American weak economy. But, it is merely a myth, at least according to Joseph Stiglitz, the 2001 Noble prize winner. Though some people argue that war mobilizes a country’s resources and therefore reduces the level of unemployment, according to Stiglitz, the direct disbursement is so small as compared to the Government’s total budget –- only 0,1-0,2% from American GDP, that it is meaningless as a form of economical stimulus.

After the attack, Bush ironically upgraded the Pentagon’s budget by 15% more than last year—the largest improvement since the Reagan era. Now the American military budget is US$ 380 billion, or 40% of the world’s total budget. In the same trend, by 2005 the American military budget will be greater than the military budget of all the countries in the world. This will only enrich a small number of Pentagon bureaucrats and the owners of the military industry in the sort term rather than improving the American people’s welfare in the long term.

The attack upon Iraq indeed could be used as an excuse to improve the larger military budget. But it will be expensive for the fragile American economy. The military industry’s will increase the state’s budget deficit. Within a year of his supremacy, Bush has turned the budget surplus of US$405 billion into a budget deficit of US$157 billion. Moreover, according to Stiglitz, the last gulf war resulted in the American recession in 1991, which caused the senior Bush to lose his re-election bid.

But, is not capturing Iraq also a means to capturing the oil, which is important for sustaining American hegemony? Yet, even if it is true, the price to be paid is not proportional to the effort required to take over and sustain the Iraqi oil supply.

After capturing Afghanistan successfully which could guarantee its domination over the oil fields at the central Asia, America does not need Iraq. Instead the attack upon Iraq will tire America The puppet regime in Afghanistan should be breast-fed first. Can America handle such “democratisation processes” in Iraq and in other Middle East countries?

On the contrary, far from upholding its hegemony, according to University of Yale’s historian Paul Kennedy, America is in fact threatened by a disease, which he called the “imperial over-reach”. It is a disease, which drove the Spanish and British Emporiums to the graveyard.

The Bush government’s propaganda war against terrorism is ending the most important asset of America—the democratic image and respect for civil liberties and human rights. Once more, the attack upon Iraq would only profit the oil industry’s champions such as Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice in the short term, but the cost will be expensive for the American people in the long term.

The real motive is to defend Israel. The pro-Israel American bureaucrats and columnists always emphasize that the security concerns of Israel and America are identical. When, in his presidential campaign, Bush swore to overthrow Saddam Hussein if he was s elected, he talked more to his most important constituents—the powerful Israel lobby. According to Michael Lind, the senior fellow at New America Foundation, Bush is driven more by the Israel lobby than the oil industry lobby (The Israel Lobby, Prospect Magazine, April 2002).

The aggression toward Iraq had been planned for a long time before the 11 September tragedy –even a long time before Bush become the president- by the pro-Israel Pentagon heroes which is known as “the Kosher Nostra”. They are Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith— the last two are functionaries of the security department.

In 1996, Perle, now the head of defence policy council, together with Feith wrote a letter entitled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. It contained a recommendation toward the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to neglect the peace process with Palestine. In order to capture the west bank—which is agreed to be a Palestinian area according the Oslo-Israel agreement—Israel should change the Middle East political map radically. The regime’s change in Iraq is expected to start a domino effect for the formation of pro-American regimes which would “absorb” the Palestinian west bank into Israel.

Last week, the fundamental idea of a “Clean Break” was put forth by John Bolton, another pentagon bureaucrat who is pro-Israel. As reported by Ha’aretz, the Israel newspaper, Bolton said, “There is no doubt that America must attack Iraq and that then we should handle the threat of Syria, Iran and North Korea.” So, it is not Iraq only, which has become the target.

But, if the motive is logic, “Clean Break” is an explosive notion, with unpredictable effects. Iraq would be defeated easily, but as in the domino game, you can never forecast the last game except when you hold all cards. America would win the battle easily in Iraq, but there is little possibility it could win the whole battle.

You could never imagine what the Middle East would be; something will certainly save the Israel in long term. It is not surprising then that the voice against American aggression and Bush’s blind support of Ariel Sharon is emerging from the peace lovers in Israel itself.

It is enough to conclude that dangerous adventurers are hijacking America. They tend to emphasize the short-term interest of a small number of people and are blind to the effect it will have on all the people of America and the world. The time is coming for the world to help the American public to effect “regime change” in Washington DC.

** The writer is a freelance journalist at Jakarta

(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)