Paul Craig Roberts warned the Republican Party that invading Iraq would be a folly that would lead to their destruction. Mr. Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan, is no weak-willed, pin-headed surrender monkey. In the same column, he complained, “Sooner or later, whites will wake up to the realization that they are being marginalized in their own country, and they will cease to support the two political parties that have marginalized them.” He’s a solid Trent Lott Republican.
The Republican Party will not survive its invasion of Iraq, its commitment to open borders and its pandering to preferred minorities.
An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history. It has the support of only two overlapping small groups: neoconservatives infused with the spirit of 18th century French Jacobins who want to impose American “exceptionalism” on the rest of the world, and foreign policy advisers who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
No one else sees the point of the pending conflict. Abroad, there is no meaningful support. Nuclear powers Russia and China are in opposition, as are NATO allies Germany and France. The Bush administration is reduced to boasting of support from Hungary and Poland.
What is the invasion all about? The administration’s answer strains credulity: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States. These weapons are yet to be discovered by the UN inspectors who are combing the country. The paucity of evidence caused the Bush administration to declare a few empty artillery shells found in a bombed-out bunker to be the evidence necessary to launch an invasion.
The back-up excuse is that Saddam Hussein is a bad man. No doubt he is a brute, but any secular ruler, who has to sit on three separate groups (Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds) ready to split Iraq apart, is likely to resort to harsh measures.
With or without casualties, U.S. military forces can overthrow Saddam Hussein. But what comes next? What government takes over? How does that government remain in power? How do we get out?
:::flip:::
mrboma alerted me to Roberts’s latest missive, entitled, “A Reputation in Tatters”.
Roberts doesn’t mince words, and he states the obvious.
America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.
And he makes our case for the damage that has resulted:
America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
The walls of the castle are crumbling. The case for removal from office is so glaring that even the right-wing Reaganite white power freaks are clamoring for justice. It is only a matter of time before the Republicans realize they have overreached and stop trying to reach for more power. Sooner or later, they’ll realize that punishment is coming, and it will be unforgiving.
