by Bob Petrusak June 9, 2003 OpEdNews.com
A problem aired at the recent "Take Back America" conference in Washington D.C. is that the Republicans' greatest strength and the corresponding greatest weakness of the Democrats is the widely held perception that the former are better able to defend our nation. More specifically, this perception blames alleged Democratic foreign policy weakness for the September 11th attacks while praising Republicans for boldly eliminating threats to American security since that date.
Accordingly, if a "tough liberal" is to beat George W. Bush in '04, he or she will have to do more than simply parrot the Republican agenda for national security. This is not to concede that Bush is unbeatable. To the contrary, Bush and the Republicans can be beaten if the Democratic challenger has the courage and toughness to tell the truth about how our national security has been compromised by years of Republican greed, Republican militarism and Republican support for any tyrant, thug, or thief who keeps the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf. This greed, militarism and support for tyranny is the root cause of radical Islamist terror including the attacks of September 11th.
It is also the cause of America's increasingly isolated position in the world, an isolation that will surely benefit clandestine terrorism. The Bush solution of bombs and bureaucracy will only make the situation worse by giving Americans a false sense of security and by fueling the most potent weapon of terrorism: the willingness of religious fanatics to die for their cause.
This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the military coup with which the Eisenhower administration ousted the lawfully-elected, representative government of Iran, the largest nation on the Persian Gulf and the first to export oil. This "regime change" denied Iran and other nations of the region, the opportunity to develop their own unique democratic institutions. A prosperous and democratic Iran would have stabilized the entire Gulf. However, the coup of '53 restored a repressive Shah and ultimately insured that religious fundamentalism, not secular democracy would be the most powerful force for change in the region.
Claims that the coup was necessary to forestall Soviet subversion were belied by the fact that Mohammed Mossadegh, the deposed Iranian leader, was a stalwart nationalist well aware of the oppressive Soviet occupation Iran endured in World War II. The coup was unquestionably related to western oil interests. It undid Mossadegh's efforts to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Nationalization had been a response to Anglo-Iranian's reluctance to afford Iran terms equivalent to those given other producer nations.
After the coup, a consortium including Anglo-Iranian and several American companies would exploit Iran's oil wealth. After the coup, the Iranian people would suffer oppression, poverty, and corruption under the autocratic rule of the Shah.
This restoration of despotism marked the beginning of significant American involvement in the Gulf. Over the next 25 years, America would arm the Shah with over ten billion dollars worth of weaponry. This militarism peaked under the Nixon administration. As the fading British Empire removed its last forces from the Gulf, Richard Nixon envisioned Iran's Pahlevi Dynasty as a great regional power for the protection of America's strategic petroleum interests.. The Nixon administration lavished Iran with sophisticated and expensive American arms. The Shah raised oil prices to pay the costs thus adding to the inflation of the 1970's.
Popular resentment of the Shah eventually boiled over in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Fear that the United States would again attempt to restore the dynasty helped foment the seizure of our embassy in the fall of that year. Sworn enemies of the United States also seized the Shah's advanced American weapons.
With Nixon's plans for Iran foiled by revolution, the Reagan administration would eventually turn to Saddam Hussein's Iraq as America's proxy in the Persian Gulf. Saddam had attacked Iran in September 1980 when Jimmy Carter was campaigning for re-election. Saddam anticipated an easy victory. However, fanatical Iranian resistance turned the tide against Saddam during Reagan's first term and American aid was sent to Iraq to prevent domination of the Gulf by a hostile, fundamentalist Iran. This aid involved satellite reconnaissance and various war materials and would even include assistance for Saddam's chemical weapons programs. An American naval presence in the Gulf favored Iraq and was openly hostile to Iran.
While America assisted Saddam, members of the Reagan administration funneled arms to Iran in what became known as the "Iran-Contra" scandal. It is difficult to ascertain the precise effects of Iran-Contra in the Persian Gulf region. Nonetheless, the fact that America supplied both Iraq and Iran in what would prove to be the third bloodiest war of the 20th century was certain to arouse animosity. It is probably no coincidence that virulent anti-Americanism would be taught to future terrorists during this era of apparently cynical American support for both sides in a conflict where Muslims killed other Muslims in vast numbers. One of Saddam's worst atrocities against the Kurds also occurred during this period of American support. While George W. Bush claims that terrorists hate us because we are free, American involvement in warfare that that claimed a million lives surely gave militant Muslims a greater reason to resent America. Western manipulation of Muslim states has been inspiring extremism for over two centuries and America's actions during the Iran-Iraq War were surely no exception.
Iran-Contra may have given Saddam reason to exact revenge by attacking the U.S.S. Stark in May, 1987. Saddam also may have been attempting to make American crews more "trigger-happy" by ordering an attack on this vessel. If this was his intent, he clearly succeeded as an American warship would mistakenly down an Iranian airliner carrying about 290 civilians some fourteen months later. Saddam similarly may have been testing the resolve of his American ally. If this was his intent, he found weakness. The Reagan administration meekly accepted his claim of "accident" even though he refused to allow American investigators access to the Iraqi pilot who had fired two air-launched missiles into the Stark's forecastle killing 37 American sailors.
The first Bush administration displayed a similar meekness toward Saddam when he massed troops on Kuwait's border in July, 1990. Rather than unequivocally warning Saddam of the consequences of aggression, this administration's ambassador informed him that the United States had no opinion on border disputes between Arab nations. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the United States expelled him in the first Persian Gulf War but afterwards had to maintain a military presence in Saudi Arabia. In so doing, the United States became the first non-Muslim nation to garrison the Muslim holy land.
This military presence has, without question, been a cause of terrorism including the September 11th attacks and it therefore undermines claims that the first Gulf War and the policies leading up to it were "successful."
Success in the recent second Gulf conflict is similarly undermined by the second Bush administration's failure to find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction whose alleged existence was the main justification for waging war. This justification was presented last February by Secretary of State Powell along with a remarkable intelligence capability that purportedly could monitor a variety of activity in Iraq from phone calls to the contents of truck trailers. Accordingly, the failure to seize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction indicates that either our government overstated both the existence of Iraqi weapons and its own intelligence capability or, that it could not effectively use that capability to locate weapons that have since fallen into the hands of terrorists. The former possibility bodes poorly for freedom at home while the latter means our nation's security is in serious jeopardy.
Moreover, Iraq is becoming a quagmire that claims a few American lives every week while Saudi Arabia remains a corrupt, despotic society where some rich and powerful members have supported terror. Nevertheless, preserving Saudi Arabia as it is apparently serves the Bush administration's petroleum strategy. In this regard, U.S. occupation of Iraq allows Saudi Arabian oil production to continue undisturbed by internal or external threats. This occupation eliminates all threats to Saudi Arabia and lesser oil-producing states posed by either Iraq or Iran. It also quells internal dissension within Saudi Arabia by allowing the American garrison to re-locate to Iraq. Even if we overlook Iraq's substantial oil reserves (which we certainly need not do), it is clear that young Americans are dying not for the security of our nation, but to secure the richest prize in history: the overall petroleum reserves of the Persian Gulf.
The coming election will determine whether this nation's foreign policy follows the course of an empire squandering lives and resources to further enrich the wealthy or whether it will rediscover the founding principles of our Republic. These principles were established in 1776 by a bunch of tough liberals who courageously proclaimed that government depends upon the consent of the governed. These principles recognize the right of weaker nations to self-determination and freedom from interference from stronger nations. They do not grant the United States license to export American democracy by force of arms much less impose tyranny on people who want freedom.
Tough liberals defend these principles against greed, militarism and expedient arrangements with foreign tyrants. Tough liberals would have raged against the ouster of Mossadegh . Tough liberals oppose arms deals with foreign despots that compromise our security and enrich arms-makers at the expense of ordinary Americans. Tough liberals value the lives of American servicemen more than any alliance with tyranny. Tough liberals realize that its takes little courage to order an invasion of a small nation. Tough liberals recognize that there is a moral element to our national security that is compromised when American power devastates or annihilates the weak.
A tough liberal candidate will assail the greed, militarism and support for tyranny that has made our nation more vulnerable to terrorism. Any candidate too spineless to tell it like it is will surely fail.
Bob Petrusak is a retired government attorney with
most of his professional experience in criminal justice.
This article is copyright by Bob Petrusak RLPETRUSAK@aol.com
, originally published by opednews.com
Permission is granted to forward this or to place it on a website as
long as the article is included intact, including this statement.
