By now you heard the announcements that Saddam Hussein has been captured. The celebrations have been reported, the pictures of joy sent around the world. Now that
the war is really over, when will the troops start to come home? Before you hear and read all the detailed accounts of the
capture, let’s focus on the stated purpose of the Iraqi invasion. Since a WMD cache still eludes finding, the proponents
of the war must hang their hat on the finding and arresting of the evil tyrant.
Mission accomplished, so what’s next? Any student of history knows all too well that the U.S.
involvement into Iraq will not be temporary or that the boys won’t be coming home anytime soon. The real test of motives
for any belligerent is how they manage a victory. It is necessary to remind that the intrusion into Iraq was a pre-empted
incursion. This strategy is certainly a fundamental departure from any previous policy to commit to a major campaign. Therefore,
the defenders of that course, are left with the unenviable task of justifying the results of that action.
As time passes, you will be left empty with this temporary enthusiasm. In the end, this war will never be
seen as a liberation of the Iraqi people, but will be viewed as an assault on the American society. Principles of engagement
have significance. Deployments deplete moral resolve when made discretionary. The question that will haunt the War Party is
whether this war was necessary?
When General Ricardo Sanchez laughs at the question when will the boys be leaving, his answer is typical:
when the mission is over. This is an opportunity to grow up as a nation. Rational citizens are left with the stark reality
that foreign policy is designed as a mobile plan to implement hidden goals with each incremental intimidation against regimes
that oppose the New World Order.
The talking heads are already praising the triumph as a message to any other country that is ruled by a dictator,
not approved by the Washington DC autocrats. That’s the undeniable lesson of this encounter into the affairs of the
international disunity that only globalism can cure. This precedent will establish that superior power can be used to poke
a stick in the eye of any country that opposes the interventionist legions of armed occupation. The special forces will get
the permanent assignment of destabilizing regimes for the purpose of establishing the desired order.
Nice work if you can get it, but for whom, does this formula benefit? Watch the travels of James Baker
III for your answer. As Greg Palast so aptly addresses the big picture: “We are talking about something called "sovereign debt." And unless
George Bush has finally 'fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to
seize control of that nation's assets nor its debts . . . Over the years, Jim Baker has taken responsibility for putting bread
on the Bush family table. As Senior Counsel to Carlyle, the arms-dealing investment group, Baker arranged for the firm to
hire both President Bush 41 after he was booted from the White House and President Bush 43 while his daddy was still in office.”
The responsibility for nation building is another excuse used to control a conquered country. The Iraqi Governing
Council just a replacement for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - shah of Iran - what do you think? Take the long perspective when putting
the jigsaw puzzle together. The game never changes, it’s only the pieces that are painted with different images.
Has this war made America any safer? In the end, that’s the only question that really matters. Domestically
this battle has been a debacle for liberty. You are hearing the media rejoicing and using the term freedom, over and over.
Somehow it escapes how the antecedent of ‘so called’ Iraqi liberation, has produced freedom back home. Saddam
a dictator, sure. But why should replacing him with a cabal of globalists, using the cover of a coalition name be any different?
The love feast is already gone nauseous. Just wait when Bin Laden is hooked by the Bush clan (just before
the coming election), Baker will be working overtime. Forcing democracy upon a culture that has no tradition or desire to
fashion one is the decisive mistake of the living history you are watching. If the real goal was Iraqi freedom, let the factions
break up the country into tribal territories. Don’t hold your breath, that’s a solution that doesn’t serve
the selective control of the oil flow.
Don’t be too surprised when you hear that those phantom weapons are stored in Syria and Iran. Saddam
will talk and what is needed will be said. Bring the troops home, when they are already there, just means more work yet to
do . . . If you doubt this assessment, check back in ten years and see who is right. The empire will build their Trajan’s Column. Conquered barbarians will be allowed to enter the gate of the new Rome. And the garrisons will still be manned.
What will Howard Dean do now . . .
SARTRE - December 14, 2003