We are continuing to publish on our site the fragments from the book AMERICA’S PLANS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY, by Romanian author Calistrat M. Atudorei which was published in English version very recently by printing house ”ePublishers” in Bucharest.
Chapter 9/3. 9/11 and Offensive in the Middle East
Iraq Invasion in 2003
A few days after the September 11, 2001 attack, President George Bush held a speech in which he prefigured America’s new doctrine for the coming years. On that occasion he defined an “axis of evil” made up of states that “harbour terrorism” and openly declared the “war on terror.” Then, on January 29, 2002, Bush nominated—in a speech to the US Congress—some countries that the US administration called terrorist “Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and other similar states and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming themselves to threaten the world’s peace.”52
Just a year later, on January 29, 2003, the administration’s rhetoric in Washington had already become much tougher and more specific to Saddam Hussein’s regime. In State of the Nation’s message addressed to the Congress and American people, President Bush said the Iraqi government is carrying out “an advanced nuclear weapons development program” and is working on “five different ways of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.” George Bush also claimed that Saddam Hussein has “several mobile biological weapons labs,
(…) over 25,000 liters of anthrax, (…) more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, (…) 500 tonnes of sarine gas, yperite and neurotoxic agent vx” and “over 30,000 projectiles capable of spreading chemical agents.” Particularly worrying conclusion was that these biological weapons are “enough to kill several million people.”53
Knowing very well the situation in America at that time, political scientist Benjamin Barber described in his book Fear’s Empire that in the weeks before the attack “the American government raised the level of terror from yellow to orange.” Televisions reported on news that “US troops wear space era equipment, anti-gas and antibacteriological.” As the government warned them that chemical or biological attacks could follow from the Iraqi people, the Americans were induced “almost hysterical behavior: people wrapping homes in suburban areas in plastic foil, buying adhesive tape to insulate windows and moms buying gas masks for their two-year-olds.”54
On the other hand, at the end of 2002, the Iraqi government presented to the United Nations a detailed report demonstrating that they do not possess weapons of mass destruction. The December 8, 2002 issue of New York Times stated that the report contained “12,000 pages and meets the deadline requested by the Security Council.” The article also underlined that “UN team members in Baghdad have said Iraq has delivered at least eight previous full and complete declarations of its secret weapons programs in the last 10 years.” The conclusion of UN officials was that “in rebuttal of American and British claims, that Saddam Hussein’s government had no weapons of mass destruction and no current programs to develop them.”55
As a result, the United Nations had not agreed to attack Iraq, given that, under the conditions found, in which Iraq did not represent any proven threat to any country, such an operation flagrantly violated Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The position of UN officials was also confirmed after the US occupation in Iraq: no mass destruction weapons were found across Iraq. Significant in this respect is the report56 of the US Senate to CIA through which the Senate Committee said in the autumn of 2004 that most of the Iraqi intelligence service’s findings were exaggerated or not supported on field information. The report—which contains three volumes, summing up nearly 1,000 pages—completely shattered the myth of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
As Benjamin Barber notes, the US administration could never—before or after the attack—justify the terrorist charge on Iraq: “no Iraqi agent was discovered inciting terrorism in any corner of the world.” Also “Iraq was not the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, nor was a demonstrable threat to the United States.”57
It seems that even the allegation that Iraqis would have possessed biochemical weapons was to a great extent a manipulation. For example, New York Times published in March 2003 an article stating that “In the development of biological weapons, Iraq depended exclusively in the 1980s on supplies from the United States and France,” which “transported 17 types of biological agents to Iraq.”58 Barber explains that those biochemical weapons were provided in the 80s by Western countries, when “Saddam Hussein was ‘friend’ of Americans in the war against Iran.”59 Referring to those biological agents—whereas for 20 years they had not been preoccupied with them—in March 2003 “Washington officials say they are convinced they are threatening American troops that are already around Iraq.”60
Anyway, even if it did not have real evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks or he had mass destruction weapons, US government propaganda began in January 2003 a psychological training campaign of the military operation. Opinion polls showed that within only a few weeks, nearly 60 percent of Americans were made to see Saddam Hussein as “an immediate threat to the United States,”61 which had to be quickly removed to secure the US defense. By March, the media convinced nearly half of Americans that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks and among those who hijacked the planes there were also Iraqis. Both assertions were actually false.
In his book, Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky shows that prior to the invasion of Iraq at a summit in early 2003 in the islands of the Azores, “Bush and Blair expressed disdain for international laws and institutions” and especially for the UN Security Council, which contradicted on the basis of its reports the idea that there was a real threat from Iraq. For this reason, Bush and Blair appreciated that UN “became irrelevant as it failed to fulfill its responsibilities.” George Bush believed that Iraq’s invasion is legitimate and necessary because the United States “is threatened by Iraq” and Washington has a “sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves.”62
In fact, the Iraqi attack plan had been firmly established by the White House administration, irrespective of what Saddam Hussein would have done and how much the Iraqis would have tried to disarm themselves. In compliance with New York Times, quoted by Chomsky, Bush said on March 7, 2003 that he will “establish the regime change he wants in Iraq even if Saddam gives up any weapon and his cohorts disappear.”63
Through military action taken in the “war on terror,” whose next target was Iraq, Washington constantly made it known to the world that they had chosen to use force unilaterally (in other words, as they like it) and those who “are not with us” (considering President Bush’s expression) means that “they are with the terrorists.” As a confirmation that this plan already had a clearly established scale, on 18 March 2003—two days before the invasion began—the New York Times noted that the Under Secretary of State John Bolton just informed Israeli officials that after the defeat of Iraq, United States intended to “deal with” Iran, Syria and North Korea and that the new “Bush doctrine seems to call for a series of wars.”64 Benjamin Barber points out in this regard that “the war with Iraq was not a special case but part of preventive warfare plan whose borders were and are the entire world.”65
Actually, after the successful beginning of the US military operation in Iraq, New York Times announced on April 10, 2003 that “The publication of the 2002 National Strategy was the signal that Iraq would be the first test, but not the last.”66 And on April 12 White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, informed journalists that “US policy is regime change, with or without inspectors.”67
Historian Roger Owen, a Harvard University analyst, emphasized that “The demonstrative nature of the whole Iraq exercise is now well understood by the rest of the world.” Owen underlined that states’ regimes would have to change their way of seeing the world, from a vision based on international law, to one based on “identifying with Washington’s agenda.” Owen added that the world had just been instructed by force to put aside “any serious consideration of national interest” to underline the “American goals.”68
Regarding the consequences of the military campaign undertaken by the US in Iraq I mention that as reported by a study69 of sociologists from Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), US invasion led in 2003 to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Estimates fall between 390,000 and 940,000 Iraqi lives. There had also been millions of refugees, economic disaster, social chaos, terrorism, civil war, and large areas plagued by terrorist groups. In view of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe after 2003, a prestigious sociological research agency in the UK, Opinion Research Business estimated70 in January 2008 that from March 2003 to August 2007, the number of victims exceeded one million people, reaching about 1,033,000.
For these reasons, the renowned analyst Noam Chomsky, for example, calls Iraq’s aggression by the US-United Kingdom alliance “the Worst Crime of 21st Century.”71
Interesting revelations were shared a few years after the invasion of Iraq by Gordon Brown, former Finance minister in the UK during the period when the Western coalition attacked Iraq. Since 2007, Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister and on this occasion had access to classified documents and reports. In November 2017, he published a memo book in which he revealed that a US Department of Defense report already indicated as early as September 2002 (so before the invasion) that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction! The revelation in Brown’s book stirred sensation in the British press. For instance, The Telegraph or Mirror newspapers announced that “Gordon Brown admits that the war in Iraq was not justified”72 and respectively that “George W. Bush knew there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”73
It is also worth noting that on July 6, 2017, after a seven-year trial, British judge Sir John Chilcot made public the conclusions of his report, which sums up 12 volumes, on the 2003 war against Iraq. Essentially, these conclusions say that Saddam Hussein “did not represent any imminent threat,”74 which confirms once again that Iraq’s assault had totally different reasons than the official ones. Concrete data as well as subsequent findings now confirm that the attack on Iraq was orchestrated on the basis of a cynical scenario, which included manipulation of international public opinion.
Bearing in mind the US foreign policy line in Iraq, Benjamin Barber—a professor at Maryland University and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton—prefigured in 2005 the continuation of the campaign towards the conquest of other states, using the beautiful slogan of democratization. Metaphorically speaking, Barber appreciated that the objective for the future is like “bringing Iraq (and with it the entire Middle East) between US borders, through utopian Americanization, disguised under the mask of democracy” by which countries enter “one after another in the US orbit—helped by M 1 tanks and F 18 hunting jets.”75
(To be continued)