This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C2F0AA.44A7F640
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The real reasons America is invading Iraq
March 20 2003
America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of =
the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.
George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United =
States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were =
the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.
The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush =
subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in =
September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb =
Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of =
staff).
The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces =
and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the =
neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.
According to the document, written three months before Bush became =
president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in =
Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the =
immediate justification, the need for substantial American force =
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam =
Hussein."
The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. =
It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, =
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the =
international security order in line with American principles and =
interests".
=20
=20
=20
The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his Government =
subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's document?
Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's =
national interests. How?
To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in the =
first place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be =
absolutely sincere when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a =
humanitarian act that will make the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam =
has the will, the motive and the weapons of mass destruction capable of =
threatening other countries. But these are not the real reasons for the =
invasion.
The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle East =
oil and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what =
currency will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water =
resources.
According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its =
defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to =
finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win =
multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary =
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical =
regions".
This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue =
to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only =
possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with =
Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must =
remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American =
dollars.
It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries =
in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their =
exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US =
in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic =
demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into =
exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.
It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally =
competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged =
by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and =
redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy =
without precipitating a global recession.
In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for =
the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international =
market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the =
real threat to US hegemony.
If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the =
industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to =
prevent a rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain =
the greenback as the world currency.
It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is =
along for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is =
impossible to see what Australia will get out of this adventure even if =
it "succeeds".
Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans =
don't yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by =
making everybody else absolutely insecure.
This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq is =
likely to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an =
economically powerful China to challenge US hegemony.
Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
dissentmagazine@ozemail.com.au
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C2F0AA.44A7F640
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR>
<H1><HEADLINE>The real reasons America is invading Iraq</HEADLINE></H1>
<P class=3Darticledetails><DATE>March 20 2003</DATE><BR></P><BR =
clear=3Dall>
<P><STRONG>America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic =
domination=20
of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.</STRONG></P><BOD>
<P>
<P>George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United =
States=20
President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the =
pretext=20
for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.</P>
<P>The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which =
Bush=20
subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in =
September=20
2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush =
(George's=20
younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).</P>
<P>The document, called <I>Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, =
forces and=20
resources for a new century</I>, was written in September 2000 by the=20
neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.</P>
<P>According to the document, written three months before Bush became =
president,=20
"the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf =
regional=20
security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate=20
justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the =
Gulf=20
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."</P>
<P>The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush =
Administration. It=20
sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding =
the=20
rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security =
order in=20
line with American principles and interests".<BR clear=3Dall><ISLANDAD>
<SCRIPT> =0A=
<!-- // =0A=
var b;var greater =3D 0 ;name =3D navigator.appName; ver =3D =
parseInt(navigator.appVersion); var agt =3D navigator.userAgent; if =
(agt.indexOf('Macintosh')=3D=3D-1) { =0A=
if (name =3D=3D 'Netscape' && ver >=3D 4) { =0A=
b =3D 0; =0A=
} else if (name =3D=3D 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' && ver >=3D 4) { =0A=
b =3D 2; =0A=
} else { =0A=
b =3D 0; =0A=
} if (b =3D=3D 1) { =0A=
var toolkit =3D java.awt.Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit(); var size =3D =
toolkit.getScreenSize(); width =3D self.innerWidth; if (width >=3D =
772) greater =3D 1; } else if (b =3D=3D 2) { =0A=
if (document.body.clientWidth >=3D 772) greater =3D 1; } =0A=
if (greater =3D=3D 1) { =0A=
document.write("<br clear=3D'all' /><style type=3D'text/css'>@media =
print {.nopr {display:none}}</style><div class=3D'nopr'><table =
cellpading=3D'0' cellspacing=3D'0' border=3D'0' align=3D'right' =
width=3D'300'><tr valign=3D'top'><td> </td> <td =
align=3D'right'><font size=3D'-1' =
color=3D'#666666'><strong>advertisement</strong></font></td></tr><tr =
valign=3D'top'> <td nowrap> </td><td bgcolor=3D'#ffffff' =
align=3D'center' valign=3D'middle'>");document.write("<IFRAME =
WIDTH=3D'300' HEIGHT=3D'250' MARGINWIDTH=3D'0' MARGINHEIGHT=3D'0' =
HSPACE=3D'0' VSPACE=3D'0' FRAMEBORDER=3D'0' SCROLLING=3D'no' =
BORDERCOLOR=3D'#000000' =
SRC=3D'http://campaigns.f2.com.au/html.ng/cat=3Dnews&ctype=3Dstory&subcat=
=3Dopinion&site=3Dage&adspace=3D300x250'><SCRIPT =
LANGUAGE=3D'JavaScript1.1' =
SRC=3D'http://campaigns.f2.com.au/js.ng/cat=3Dnews&ctype=3Dstory&Params.r=
ichmedia=3Dyes&subcat=3Dopinion&site=3Dage&adspace=3D300x250'></SCRIPT><N=
OSCRIPT><A =
HREF=3D'http://campaigns.f2.com.au/click.ng/cat=3Dnews&ctype=3Dstory&Para=
ms.richmedia=3Dyes&subcat=3Dopinion&site=3Dage&adspace=3D300x250'><IMG =
SRC=3D'http://campaigns.f2.com.au/image.ng/cat=3Dnews&ctype=3Dstory&Param=
s.richmedia=3Dyes&subcat=3Dopinion&site=3Dage&adspace=3D300x250' =
HEIGHT=3D'250' WIDTH=3D'300' =
BORDER=3D'0'></A></NOSCRIPT></IFRAME>");document.write("</td></tr><tr =
valign=3D'top'><td> </td><td nowrap align=3D'left'><font =
size=3D'-1' =
color=3D'#666666'><strong>advertisement</strong></font></td></tr></table>=
</div>"); =0A=
} =0A=
} =0A=
// --> </SCRIPT>
<BR clear=3Dall>
<STYLE type=3Dtext/css>@media print {.nopr {display:none}}</STYLE>
<DIV class=3Dnopr>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D300 align=3Dright border=3D0 =
cellpading=3D"0">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=3Dtop>
<TD> </TD>
<TD align=3Dright></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=3Dtop>
<TD noWrap> </TD>
<TD vAlign=3Dcenter align=3Dmiddle bgColor=3D#ffffff><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=3Dtop>
<TD> </TD>
<TD noWrap align=3Dleft><FONT color=3D#666666=20
=
size=3D-1><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></ISLAN=
DAD>
<P></P>
<P>The question for John Howard must be: to what extent does his =
Government=20
subscribe to the Bush strategy outlined in the think tank's =
document?</P>
<P>Howard says Australia's participation in this war is in Australia's =
national=20
interests. How?</P>
<P>To answer that question we must know why the war is being fought in =
the first=20
place. For all I know, Bush, Howard and Tony Blair may be absolutely =
sincere=20
when they claim that getting rid of Saddam is a humanitarian act that =
will make=20
the Iraqis better off, or that Saddam has the will, the motive and the =
weapons=20
of mass destruction capable of threatening other countries. But these =
are not=20
the real reasons for the invasion.</P>
<P>The real reasons can be summed up as deciding who controls Middle =
East oil=20
and gets access to the water from the Tigris and Euphrates, and what =
currency=20
will be used to pay for the development of the oil and water =
resources.</P>
<P>According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase =
its=20
defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to =
finance=20
an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple,=20
simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties =
associated=20
with shaping the security environment in critical regions".</P>
<P>This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can =
continue to=20
draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible =
if the=20
US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, =
China and=20
Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the =
product=20
of their industries for American dollars.</P>
<P>It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if =
countries in=20
Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, =
or if=20
China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead =
of US=20
dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported =
goods paid=20
for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to =
pay for US=20
imports.</P>
<P>It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally=20
competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged =
by the=20
think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of =
wealth=20
to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global =
recession.</P>
<P>In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros =
for the=20
trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. =
Iran and=20
Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US=20
hegemony.</P>
<P>If the US can control Middle East oil production, it can control the=20
industrial development of Europe, China and Japan (and Australia), to =
prevent a=20
rival to its hegemony emerging. But to do this it must retain the =
greenback as=20
the world currency.</P>
<P>It is possible to make a weak case based on realpolitik why Blair is =
along=20
for the ride with Bush in Iraq (BP and Shell), but it is impossible to =
see what=20
Australia will get out of this adventure even if it "succeeds".</P>
<P>Bush personifies the American quest for absolute security. Americans =
don't=20
yet understand or care that this status can only be achieved by making =
everybody=20
else absolutely insecure.</P>
<P>This is why the most lasting thing to come out of the war with Iraq =
is likely=20
to be the faster development of a unified Western Europe and an =
economically=20
powerful China to challenge US hegemony.</P>
<P><I>Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.</I><BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:dissentmagazine@ozemail.com.au">dissentmagazine@ozemail.co=
m.au</A></P></BOD></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C2F0AA.44A7F640--