War in making for long

PV Vivekanand

THE BEANS are out now. It has now been made clear that the Bush administration took the decision to invade Iraq on Sept.17, 2001, six days after the aerial assaults in New York and Washington offered the perfect opportunity to wage war against America's enemies and bag the biggest oil price of all - Iraq. The only question that remained was the timing of the war and the build-up to justifying military action.
On Sept.17, 2001, President George Bush signed a top- secret directive to the Pentagon to
begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, according to highly reliable sources in Washington.
The directive was signed at a meeting attended by hawks like Defence Secretary Ronald Rumseld and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice. Secretary of State Colin Powell had reservations about the move and he was bluntly told that he was free to quit the administration if he did not like the decision, said the sources. Obviously, Powell opted to stay on and became part of the plot as anyone else involved.
Since then, it was a question of justifying the planned invasion and building up the scenario to launch the invasion of Iraq and a group of pro-Israeli hawks were more than glad to oblige by fabricating evidence and drumming up Israeli-inspired political influence in Congress and intellgence services to do the groundwork of the war.
However, Afghanistan figured in between; military experts say that the war that the US waged against Afghanistan beginning in October 2001 was as much as a "dress rehearsal" for the invasion of Iraq as military action aimed at destroying Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and its Taliban backers. Never mind that not a single hijacker on Sept.11 came from Afghanistan.
Part of that build-up to war against Iraq was establishing reasons. And that entailed dramatic reversals of Washington's firm assertions that Saddam Hussein was a caged lion that could be manipulated at will and was kept "contained" since the 1991 war that ousted Iraq from Kuwait.
Bush administration officials had declared before Sept.11, 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat to anyone - the international community, the Middle East and the Gulf states.
After all, it was then an American need to convince the world that Washington's stragey of "containing" both Iraq and Iran were working.
In February 2001, Powell said in Cairo: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
In May 2001, Powell reiterated that Saddam had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years." Washington's firm policy, he claimed, had been successful in keeping the Iraqi leader "in a box."
In June 2001, Rice said iraq had been rendered weak, divided and militarily defenceless, with Saddam deprived of control the northern part ofthe country.
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt," she said.
How come the situation changed so dramatically in less than a few months, with the same Powell and Rice, as well as Bush himself and others in Washington, declaring that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat not only to his neighbours but also to the region and the international community, including mainland US?
In November 2001, more than a month into the war, the writing was clear on the wall that the US was going to invade Iraq, when Bush included Iraq in his "war against terror" by saying that any country which had weapons of mass destruction to "terrify its neighbours" was a legitimate target.
The broader plot came to the fore a few months later, when Bush described iraq, iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil."
The course of events since a few hours after the Sept.11 attack has been brought out by investigations, interviews and research that went into making a British television documentary -- Breaking the Silence. It makes clear that the Bush administration as well as the British government of Tony Blair collaborated and created falsehoods and reasons justifying the invasion of iraq and hoodwinking the American public and distracting the media from exposing the real reason for the military action.
In secret meetings that were never reported in the mainstream media, US officials had indeed referred to the real reasons, starting with Rumsfeld himself.
According to John Pilger, who made the documentary, the idea that the Sept.11 attacks could be turned into a reason for attacking Iraq came from Rumsfeld.
Pilger writes in London's Mirror newspaper:
"At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld... said he wanted to 'hit' Iraq  — even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. 'Go massive,' the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'
"Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan," writes Pilger. "This was the 'softest option' and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the 'big prize' Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London."
Pilger also says that in April last year Condoleezza Rice said in a secret meeting in April last year that the the Sept.11 attacks were an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."
Indeed, Iraq, with 11 per cent of the world's oil known oil reserves and with immense potential to challenge Israel - the US' strategic partner in the Middle East -- was on top of all those "new opportunities."
How did Blair enter the picture?
It is almost certain that Blair was told of the American resolve to invade Iraq in a few weeks after the decision was made in Washington, and the British prime minister plunged into campaigning for war immediately there after.
At times Blair appeared to be more determined that Bush himself to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. That should explain the series of British government efforts, including proved falsification of intelligence documents and "sexing up" of a dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that followed.
In September, Blair told his parliament that intelligence documents showed that Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.
"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."
It has now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction and former chief UN weapon expert Hans Blix has publicly stated that the ousted Iraqi leader could have destroyed whatever he had in 1991 itself.
The Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, which searched through US-occupied Iraq since June has failed to uncover any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Subsequently, it was not surprising that the US and UK decided to delay indefinitely the publication of the team's report, which was supposed to have been released in mid-September.
American efforts to link Saddam with Al Qaeda also failed miserably, and it was ironic that Rumsfeld said in September 2003 that he had never said that the Iraqi leader had ties with Osama Bin Laden. In reality, Bush himself and all his aides, including Rumsfeld, had clearly stated or implied that Saddam was in collusion with Bin Laden in the Sept.11 attacks and further plans for similar attacks. It was those assertions and implied affirmations that led more than two-thirds of Americans to believe -- as pre-war opinion polls showed -- that Saddam was the mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks.
In mid-September 2003, Rumsfeld was asked at a press encounter why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of Sept.11, he replied: "I've
not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."
In the Breaking the Silence documentary, Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the president's father, says on record that a group of "crazies" were behind the plot to invade Iraq.
"They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the
top policy levels as 'the crazies'," he says.
"The crazies," says McGovern citing "plenty of documented evidence," were planning the (invasion of iraq) for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass
destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it."
The "crazies" – or "neoconseratives" —  as it has turned out since theen, could be seen to include Vice-President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Bolton, under-secretary of state, Douglas Feith, under-secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, a deputy to Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, former chairman and current member of the Defence Advisory Board, and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser.
Collaborating with the "neocons" from outside the administration are former CIA chief James Woolsey and Kenneth Adelman, a former official in the Ford and Reagan administrations.
L Paul Bremer, the current head of the US occupation of Iraq, has come from the ranks of the "neocons."
Reports in the American media have said that the "neo-cons" had set up their own intelligence network -- taking in material provided by Israel's Mossad agency -- to build a case for military action against Iraq and often overlooking or ignoring CIA-gathered information that would not have suited their case for US occupation of Iraq.