[Texgreen] More on the Iraq wars

[Roger Baker]

There is first the civil war in Iraq, involving religion , the   war =20
for US domination and control, and finally the war between the Bush =20
administration and the Iraq Study Group. -- Roger

                     **************************************************

<http://www.uruknet.info/?p=3Dm28895&hd=3D&size=3D1&l=3De>

December 9, 2006


"The great value of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it reasserts =20
the necessity of pursuing American interests, as opposed to purely =20
Israeli interests." Justin Raimondo, "We Can=92t Wait for 2008" =20
antiwar.com


The tension between the Bush administration and the members of the =20
Iraq Study Group, illustrates the widening chasm between old-guard =20
U.S. imperialists and "Israel-first" neoconservatives. The divisions =20
are setting the stage for a major battle between the two camps. The =20
winner will probably decide US policy in the Middle East for the next =20=

decade.

The failed occupation of Iraq has put the entire region on the fast-=20
track to disaster. That=92s why James Baker was summoned from =20
retirement to see if he could change the present trajectory and =20
mitigate the long-term damage to US interests. Baker was opposed to =20
the invasion from the onset but his 4 day trip to Baghdad convinced =20
him that something had to be done quickly. The ISG report reflects =20
the unanimous view of its authors that Iraq is disintegrating into =20
chaos and that action must be taken to reduce the level of bloodshed.

Baker is not merely an objective observer in this process. He clearly =20=

"has a dog in this fight". As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan =20
he put together the basic scaffolding for America=92s imperial presence =20=

in the region and he continues to be connected to many of the =20
corporations which benefit from US relations in the Middle East. But =20
he has also always taken a "pragmatic" approach to regional policy =20
and cannot be considered a war-monger. Some critics of Baker say that =20=

his business interests suggest that he indirectly supports the Bush =20
policy. But this is an oversimplification. In fact, Baker sees war as =20=

a blunt instrument that is essentially incompatible with commercial =20
interests. There are simply more efficient ways for clever men to =20
achieve their objectives.

In Antonia Juhasz=92s recent article "Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group =20
Recommends Privatization" shows how Baker was more than happy to =20
overlook Saddam=92s domestic repression as long as it didn=92t damage =20=

business dealings. As Juhasz=92s says:

"Baker=92s interest was focused on trade, which he described as "the =20
central factor in the US-Iraq relationship". =46rom 1982, when Reagan =20=

removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism until =20
August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked =20
with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively =20
and successfully expand trade.



The efficacy of such a move can best be described in a memo written =20
in 1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the US would have =20
'to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be =20
shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq=92s present and potential =20=

power in the region and accord it relatively high priority. We =20
strongly urge the latter view.=92 Two reasons offered were Iraq=92s =
'vast =20
oil reserves=92 which promised 'a lucrative market for US goods=92 and =20=

the fact that the US oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush =20
and Baker took the transition teams advice and ran with it".



This is the real James Baker. He=92s not ideological and he=92s =
certainly =20
not on a religious crusade. His approach may seem cynical, but it =20
shows that he prefers commerce (even with a brutal dictator) over =20
war. This proves that his role with the ISG is not simply to provide =20
cover for Bush. Baker=92s task is to salvage the imperial system which =20=

he helped to create. Besides, it=92s clear that Bush is unhappy with =20
the report and has already rejected its two critical recommendations; =20=

negotiations with Syria and Iran, and a commitment to troop =20
reduction. Furthermore, Bush is doing everything in his power to =20
minimize the effects of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair =20
to Washington so that he wouldn=92t look as isolated in his position.

Baker has done a good job grabbing headlines and making his case =20
directly to the American people, but his effect on Bush has been =20
negligible. Bush appears to be brushing the report aside just like he =20=

brushed aside the results of the midterm elections. His summation of =20
the ISG=92s work was intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as =20
"interesting" and "sincere", blah, blah, blah.

But Baker won't be patronized or put-off. In fact, his tone has been =20
unusually threatening at times. As more than one critic has noted, =20
Baker appears to be offering Bush an "ultimatum" not merely =20
recommendations. He warned Bush not to "pick and choose" the =20
recommendations as he saw fit:

"I hope this is not like a fruit salad and I say I like this but I =20
don=92t like that. This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal =20
with this problem we=92re facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal =20
with other problems that we face in the region to restore America=92s =20=

standing and credibility in that part of the world".



Baker is courteous to the point of seeming unctuous, but his point is =20=

clear. He is demanding that Bush execute his plan in its totality and =20=

without deviation. This is the cautionary advice of a Mafia =20
consigliore not the empty musings of a retired bureaucrat.

Whatever one thinks about James Baker, he is a seasoned diplomat and =20
a serious man. His record shows that he has broad support among the =20
leaders in the American oligarchy, so he can=92t simply be ignored. He =20=

represents a powerful constituency of corporate chieftains and oil =20
magnates who are conspicuously worried about the deteriorating =20
situation in Iraq and want to see a change of course. Baker=92s their =20=

man. He=92s the logical emissary for the growing number of jittery =20
plutocrats who see that the Bush policy-train has jumped the tracks.

But if Big Oil wants a change of direction than where is Bush getting =20=

his support for "staying the course"?

An AP poll conducted this week shows that only 9% of Americans =20
believe that "victory" in Iraq is possible. Even the hard-core Bush =20
loyalists have abandoned the sinking ship. The only group left =20
touting Bush=92s failed policy is the "Israel first" camp which =20
continues to wave the bloody shirt of incitement from their perch at =20
the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute. These same =20=

diehards are leading the charge for a preemptive attack on Iran; a =20
criminal act which will have catastrophic effects on America=92s long-=20=

term energy needs.

An article which appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha=92aretz shows how =20=

confident Prime Minister Olmert is in the ability of the Jewish Lobby =20=

to torpedo the Baker-Hamilton report and steer the US away from =20
changes in Iraq:

"On his way home from Los Angeles, the Prime Minister 'calmed=92 the =20
reporters =96and perhaps even himself=97by saying there is no danger of =20=

the US President George Bush accepting the expected recommendations =20
of the Baker-Hamilton panel, and attempting to move Syria out of the =20
axis of evil and into a coalition to extricate America from Iraq. The =20=

Prime Minister hopes the Jewish Lobby can rally a Democratic majority =20=

in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on =20
the Palestinians. (Akiva Eldar, "The Gewalt Agenda")



Olmert has good reason to be "calm". While the new Congress is being =20
apprised of its duties to Israel, the Brookings Institute is =20
convening a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy =20
entitled: "America and Israel: Confronting a Middle east in Turmoil". =20=

The meeting will be attended by Israeli right-wing extremist, Avigdor =20=

Lieberman, as well as political big-wigs, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The context of the meeting suggests that right-leaning Israelis will =20
be informing their friends in the Democratic Party about the =20
anticipated attack on Iran, as well as discussing strategies for =20
sabotaging Baker=92s report. If we see the Dems lambasting the ISGs =20
recommendations next week; we=92ll know why.

So, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side we have James Baker =20=

and his corporate classmates who want to restore order while =20
preserving America=92s imperial role in the region. And, on the other =20=

side, we have the neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a =20
fragmented and chaotic Middle East where Israel is the dominant =20
power. (see "A Clean Break")

The one group that has no voice in this "Battle of the Titans" is the =20=

American people. They lost whatever was left of their shrinking =20
political-clout sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush.

In any event, Baker and his ilk are not going to sit back and watch =20
the empire (and the military) they put together with their own two =20
hands be systematically pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an =20
agenda that only serves Israeli hardliners.

That ain=92t gonna happen.

Expect Baker to wheel out the heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-=20
nail to reassert the primacy of the American ruling class. "The =20
Lobby" may be powerful, but it=92s going to be tough-going to take the =20=

country away from the people who believe they own it.

The struggle between the political heavyweights is about to break-out =20=

into open warfare