Antiwar.com Blog

All libertarians know about Crisis and Leviathan – not just the great book by Robert Higgs, but the simple principle too: when bad things happen, government almost always benefits, and further, the “ratchet effect” makes it so that when government power grows it is nearly impossible to get the lost liberty and money back – nevermind the lives, death is pretty much permanent.

This principle applies not just to the domestic powers of government over us, but, of course, to the subjects of our foreign empire as well. Once you’ve expanded your military “footprint,” it is much easier to get away with getting involved in the next conflict in the region.

The trouble is, politicians have also figured this out, and they will sometimes go to great lengths to trigger the next crisis themselves in order to play the victim and get their dirty work done. Once the US Air Force occupied all those wonderful bases in Saudi Arabia from which to launch the continual “no-fly zone” bombings, it was only a matter of time before individuals working for the State would come up with a way to move some of those bases North.

Remember last summer when the first Downing Street memo came out? It was actually a couple of pages of notes from the debriefing of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI-6, after a nice visit with his American counterparts here in the US in July 2002, where they discussed different options for tricking the people of the US-UK into supporting an aggressive invasion of Iraq. The main plan was to do what they eventually did: “fix” 500 tons of lies about fake Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, call the invasion enforcement of UN gun control laws, build up 150,000 troops and then mount a massive invasion from Kuwait (Turkey backed out – democratically).

Had that plan not worked out – like say for example, if Joe Wilson had gone public before the war – there was “[Option] B: Running Start“:

“Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier.”

“…initiated by an Iraqi casus belli.”

As in: Mexican soldiers “starting it” it the disputed territory, Ft. Sumpter, Remember the Maine!, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin and Saddam’s engraved invitation into Kuwait from US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie twelve years before Dearlove’s little holiday in DC.

Now check out this article from Channel 4 in merry old England, which has details from the new book Lawless World (Geez, wouldn’t that be nice? – editor) by British human rights attorney Philippe Sands.

“President Bush said that: “The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.” Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam.” …

Mr. Sands’ book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.

President Bush said: “The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”

Some of us remember reports of stepped up bombing before the war, and of course, we have the reporting of Jeremy Scahill and the testimony [.mp3] of Iraq Veteran Against the War, Tim Goodrich, to help seal the case that the air war began early.

It seemed to me at the time that this was mostly an attempt to provoke a response from Hussein which would have provided an excuse to invade, but as Rep. Ron Paul pointed out before the war began, Saddam hadn’t been able to shoot down a single one of our planes in 12 years of no-fly zone bombing.

In order to get them shot down, US planes would have to be ordered to fly below the deck as bait for Hussein’s anti-aircraft fire, and he had either prudently ordered his troops not to fire, or perhaps was too busy writing his novel about the Great Dictator and his resistance to care at all, because he never gave Bush/Blair their excuse.

Someone with some sense must have overruled the idea – after all, if Saddam couldn’t shoot down the typical US/British jet fighter, how the hell were we supposed to believe he hit a U2 spy plane at altitude?

Oh, I see the London Times article addresses this point:

“If the U2 idea was a serious proposal, it would have made sense only if the spy plane was ordered to fly at an altitude within range of Iraqi missiles. Mr Bush’s reference in the recorded conversation to the U2 being escorted by fighter aircraft indicates that that is what he had in mind. The U2, America’s most sophisticated aerial reconnaissance aircraft, can operate at 90,000ft, taking high-resolution photographs of targets. At this altitude, the U2 would have been beyond the range of Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.”

Very convincing, Mr. President. Now back to Channel 4:

“Mr. Sands said: “I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law.”

I don’t know what this guy’s so upset about. This is how war is done in America – we learned it from them.

And for the record:

“Also present at the meeting were President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the President’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.”

Oh, yes, Rycroft – the Blair aid who drafted the Downing Street memo in the first place – very good. And Rice, the voice of reason and calm in the administration.

Now on to Iran! I hear the IAEA gives ’em a clean bill of health, let’s get in there before it’s too late!

Update: The other Scott Horton points out in his newsletter, “Not a single US newspaper carried the story.” Go ahead, double check.

Tuesday the 31st, on the KAOS Report, I talked with Eugene Jarecki, the director-producer of Why We Fight, a new documentary about Ike’s warning and the misplaced power of the Military-Industrial-Complex.

It begins with short clips of Eisenhower and Bill Hicks.

Download mp3

The best response to the SOTU I’ve read so far is Sheldon Richman’s. How any free-marketeer can stand behind that speech is beyond me. Leftists should pay attention, too: Richman’s insights on energy policy deserve serious consideration by those whose rhetoric Bush has co-opted. You think our oil “addiction” is the problem, and state subsidization of alternative fuels is the answer? The U.S. government isn’t immersed in the Middle East because American consumers are jonesing for petrol. Our so-called addiction is merely a pretext for intervention – economic and military, at home and abroad – with tidy profits for crony capitalists as a side “benefit.” And as long as the state’s talons are sunk in the energy market, we’ll be sending troops to “secure our access” to the fuel du jour, whatever and wherever it is.

Come to think of it, oil isn’t the only thing the Middle East has in abundance. I can already hear another U.S. president in the not-too-distant future explaining why we must stop some backwater from nationalizing its solar panel fields – in the name of national security and democracy, of course.

I can’t find a link yet, but Keith Olbermann just said on MSNBC that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested in Washington DC where she was to be a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey at tonight’s State of the Union.

Update: BradBlog is reporting that CNN says so too.

Update 2: The rest of the mass media has now caught up with Antiwar.com.

Update 3: The imperial stormtroopers removed her from the Capitol Chamber gallery just before the speech began. Brad Blog has the story.

Jim Henley:

My rule of thumb: If Person A says “Israel” and Person B says, “You mean, the Jooooz! Neener Neener Neener!” *at most* Person A should spare the breath to say “F_ck off, Person B” and get back to whatever he or she was saying in the first place.

But that’s more effort than the matter strictly *deserves*.

George Will’s latest, on Tuesday’s State of the Union address, practically sparkles with sanity. On the global democratic crusade:

The success of the terrorist organization Hamas in the Palestinian elections is but the latest proof of what happens when the forms of democracy are severed from what the president, with a cosmopolitan shrug, dismissively called “our own Western standards of progress.” Now comes wishful thinking, and then cynicism.

Regarding the latter, the watery materialism of much thinking — the theory that social structures and economic incentives trump ideas as shapers of behavior — will interpret the Hamas victory in the benign light of the Garbage Collection Theory of History. On Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: “My hope is that as a consequence of now being responsible for electricity and picking up garbage and basic services to the Palestinian people, that they recognize it’s time to moderate their stance.” Perhaps. But their stance — Israel must die — is, they say, the will of God, who has not authorized moderation in the name of sanitation.

That last line deserves repeating on style points alone. Also worth a copy-and-paste:

Four days after Hamas provided evidence that the United States cannot anticipate, let alone control, events, the New York Times inadvertently suggested this thought: If the Times and the Bush administration each had sufficient self-awareness, they might be mutually mortified by recognizing their similar mentalities regarding America’s power.

On the front page of Sunday’s Times there began a 7,800-word story on Haiti’s descent, not for the first time, into murderous anarchy. The story about the progress of nation-building and democracy-planting in our hemisphere carried a symptomatic headline: “Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos.” The story’s thesis was intimated by its subtitle: “Democracy Undone.” The thesis was that if U.S. diplomacy had been more deft and single-minded, the Times might not now be reporting this about Haiti:

“Today, the capital, Port-au-Prince, is virtually paralyzed by kidnappings, spreading panic among rich and poor alike. Corrupt police officers in uniform have assassinated people on the streets in the light of day. The chaos is so extreme and the interim government so dysfunctional that voting to elect a new one has already been delayed four times.”

Tonight, on the 1,050th day of the Iraq war (the 912th day of American participation in World War II was D-Day), the nation needs an adult hour, including a measured meditation on overreaching, from the Middle East to Medicare’s prescription drug entitlement. But in State of the Union addresses, rarely is heard a discouraging word.

Mr. Statecraft-as-Soulcraft is sounding better to my ears than half the soi-disant libertarians in D.C. think tanks. Who woulda thunk it?