February 24, 2005

Project for the New American Century or the Plot for US World Domination

I have mentioned the Project for the New American Century in previous posts, and strongly advise all non-world domination inclined folks to read the evil plot for themselves. To whet your appetite for colonialism, here's some suggestions they offer.

Whatever the respectable motives behind the creation of the International Criminal Court, we should not let those blind us to the fact that the preservation of a decent world order depends chiefly on the exercise of American leadership.
American soldiers under international authority? Never!

Rather than maintain and improve America's nuclear deterrent, the Clinton Administration has put its faith in new arms control measures, most notably by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty proposed a new multilateral regime, consisting of some 150 states, whose principal effect would be to constrain America's unique role in providing the global nuclear umbrella that helps to keep states like Japan and South Korea from developing the weapons that are well within their scientific capability, while doing little to stem nuclear weapons proliferation.
What right do 150 nations have to tell us who we can blow up? The cat's out of the bag. Without total world domination, how can we protect freedom?

The strategic success is the end of the Iraq containment policy that required a large U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War. Significant numbers of U.S. forces were tied down in an increasingly hostile country. Their effect, moreover, on Hussein's conduct was dubious. Over the decade, the then-Iraqi leader grew ever more resistant to international demands that he open his country to weapons inspections. The current occupation of Iraq is temporary. By contrast, the containment policy required an endless commitment of forces.
It's important not to get tied down indefinitely in an increasingly hostile country.

Whatever the problems in Iraq, they pale in comparison with the history of Hussein's tyranny.
I wonder if Iraqis agree?

With the January 30 elections in Iraq, the insurgents lost all claims to being a "liberation" movement.
I heard many Iraqis voted because it was the only way to get rid of the Americans.

Islamic activism gained speed throughout the Middle East and has remained--outside of Iraq and now possibly Palestine--the only serious opposition to the vagaries, incompetence, and corruption of princely and dictatorial rule.
Tell it to Iran and Libya.

(It's not at all contradictory for an Egyptian to hope that January 30 will help end President Hosni Mubarak's despised dictatorship and yet feel a bit sickened that it is Shiite Arabs--the black sheep of the Arab Muslim family--who are leading the faithful to a democratic rebirth.) And it is certainly true that the enabling hand of the United States provokes great waves of contradictory passion. It is worthwhile to note that these same emotions are common among the Iraqi Shia: The more religious and nationalistic they are (and the two impulses are quite harmonious among the Shia), the more difficult they find it psychologically to accept their freedom from the Americans. But the Shia have--with the possible exception of the followers of Moktada al-Sadr--gotten over it. So likely will the average non-Iraqi Sunni Arab who wants to see elected leadership in his native land.
Well, we hope they will get over it.

If Ahmad Chalabi gains a position of influence inside the new national assembly, it would be wise for State and the CIA to ensure that any and all officials who were involved in his regular trashings--particularly the trashing of his home--do not serve in Iraq. The Bush administration is going to have a hard time working with and figuring out the Iraqi Shia (it is striking how thin U.S. embassy coverage of the Shia still seems), and it does not need to further antagonize one of the few Iraqis capable of appreciating both the religious and secular sides of the Iraqi Shiite family and who can present his understanding to the Americans in a way they can understand. Ahmad Chalabi may be wrong in his assessments--he has certainly made mistakes in the past--but the Bush administration is doing itself an enormous disservice if it allows the old State-CIA animus against Chalabi to continue any further. Irony is always both bitter and sweet. Tell Langley to live with it before Chalabi has the will and allies to get even.
And how, exactly, would he get that power? Chalabi's a huckster.

No comments: