;


Bush's Latest Nuclear Gambit

News Abroad




Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York, Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press).

In 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, recognizing that the Bush administration's favorite new nuclear weapon--the "Bunker Buster"--was on the road to defeat in Congress, told its leading antagonist, U.S. Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio): "You may win this year, but we'll be back."

And, now, like malaria or perhaps merely a bad cold, they are.

The Bush administration's latest nuclear brainchild is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). According to an April 6, 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times (Ralph Vartabedian, "U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan"), the RRW, originally depicted as an item that would update existing nuclear weapons and ensure their reliability, "now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in design competition."

Moreover, as the Times story reported, the RRW was part of a much larger Bush administration plan, announced the previous day, "for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War." The plan called for a modern U.S. nuclear complex that would design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready within four years, as well as accelerate the production of plutonium "pits," the triggers for the explosion of H-bombs.

Although administration officials justify the RRW by claiming that it will guarantee the reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and reduce the need for nuclear testing, arms control and disarmament advocates are quite critical of these claims. Citing studies by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, they argue that U.S. nuclear weapons will be reliable for decades longer than U.S. officials contend. Furthermore, according to Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James Goodby: "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." Thus, if new nuclear weapons were built, they would lead inevitably to the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing and, thereby, to the collapse of the moratorium on nuclear testing by the major nuclear powers and to the final destruction of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Most worrisome for nuclear critics, however, is the prospect that the administration will use the RRW program to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, remains convinced that the replacement process initiated by the RRW program could serve as a back door to such development. Peace Action, the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization, maintains that "the weapons labs and the Department of Defense will be the ones to decide the real scope" of the RRW program.

Even Representative Hobson, who seems to favor the RRW, appears worried that the administration has a dangerously expansive vision of it. "This is not an opportunity to run off and develop a whole bunch of new capabilities and new weapons," he has declared. "This is a way to redo the weapons capability that we have and maybe make them more reliable." Hobson added: "I don't want any misunderstandings . . . and sometimes within the [Energy] department, people hear only what they want to hear. . . . We're not going out and expanding a whole new world of nuclear weapons."

Certainly, some degree of skepticism about the scope of the program seems justified when one examines the Bush administration's overall nuclear policy. Today, despite the U.S. government's commitment, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, to divest itself of nuclear weapons through negotiated nuclear disarmament, the U.S. nuclear stockpile stands at nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, with more than half of them active or operational.

Not only does the Bush administration steer clear of any negotiations that might entail U.S. nuclear disarmament, but it has pulled out of the ABM treaty and refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (negotiated and signed by former President Bill Clinton). According to the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February 2006, "a robust nuclear deterrent . . . remains a keystone of U.S. national power."

Furthermore, there are clear signs that the Bush administration is shifting away from the traditional U.S. strategy of nuclear deterrence to a strategy of nuclear use. The nuclear Bunker Buster, for example, was not designed to deter aggression, but to destroy underground military targets. Moreover, in recent years, the U.S. Strategic Command has added new missions to its war plans, including the use of U.S. nuclear weapons for pre-emptive military action. Seymour Hersh's much-cited article in the New Yorker on preparations for a U.S. military attack upon Iran indicates that there has already been substantial discussion of employing U.S. nuclear weapons in that capacity.

This movement by the Bush administration toward a nuclear buildup and nuclear war highlights the double standard it uses in its growing confrontation with Iran, a country whose nuclear enrichment program is in accordance with its NPT commitments. Of course, Iran might use such nuclear enrichment to develop nuclear weapons--and that would be a violation of the NPT. But Bush administration policies already violate U.S. commitments under the treaty, and this fact appears of far less concern to Washington officialdom. Logic, however, does not seem to apply to this issue--unless, of course, it is the logic of world power.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007


Is that not the main source of concern with such a man in command that that would be his interpretation of " the logic of (a) world Power"?!


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

But can they get along with oil at $100 a barrel? Can America?


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The nuclear mania stuff here is serious, and the author seems to be correctly blowing the whistle on this reckless and counterproductive hypocrisy.


But "the logic of world power" ???

From a leader who never travelled outside of North America before becoming president ?

Who presided over the worst foreign attack on the soil of the USA in our entire History?

Who then managed to become the most internationally ridiculed and mistrusted American president in History?

Who has spent hundreds of billions of tax dollars markedly reducing America's international prestige, power, and influence, and national security?


A case of intellectual nuclear radiation sickness on the author's part, perhaps?



Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You are grasping at neo-Marxist straws, Arnold and ignoring historic facts. American troops are all over the world, not just in Kosovo and Iraq, so a U.S. military presence proves nothing.

Once again the night and day differences which you would see if you would set aside for a minute your neo-Leninist prejudices about imperialism explaining everything.

The U.S. military intervention in Kosovo came after years of futile negotiations with the tyrant Milosevic. It was not a war of First Resort, like the Iraq invasion, but of last resort.

The Kosovo intervention came in order to stop an ALREADY UNDERWAY horrific ethnic cleansing if not genocide. It was not based on lies about WMD or non-existent connections between terrorists and Yugoslav government.

The Kosovo operation was supported by ALL OF EUROPE, including Schroeder and Chirac. Bush's Iraq non-cakewalk was opposed by most of EUROPE.

The Kosovo operation was a SUCCESS.
The mass ethnic cleansing was stopped. Milosevic was soon kicked out and put on trial UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. The Balkans are clearly better off than before. In sharp contrast to Iraq before and after the chickenhawks bungled occupation there.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

No Arnold, suit or hat or neither, I agree with you that there is unlikely to be any sudden change after 2008 if a Democrat wins the US presidency. But if one wins, he (or God help us if it is a particular lying Iraq-folly-rubber-stamping "she") will likely have some kind of mandate for some kind of change on the Iraq policy.

The change that would be truly effective, in my view, will have to be a very dramatic and well-thought out refutation of Bushidiocies such as (1) "war on terrorism", (2) the neo-Likud "doctrine" of preventive war, (3) the notion that America should conduct foreign policy by flipping off its traditional allies, and (4) the asinine Rovian conceit that an aggressive foreign policy needs only shopping at home to be funded and effective. And there also needs to be some real punishment against the traitors who foisted this idiocy on us,to show the world that we can clean up our own mess at home, as well as clean up and/or make messes abroad.
And, last but not least, we need a very solid restatement of traditional American ideals (which are not the same as actual practice, I grant you) including foreign policy through negotiation first, applied pressure next, multilateral force next, and unilateral force as a LAST, not FIRST, resort.

I am not optimistic about most Democrats being up to doing the right thing and thusly repudiating and replacing the outrageous and bogus policies of the incompentent Cheney administration chickenhawks, and THAT is a main reason why I DO NOT SUPPORT the Democratic Party now either, regardless of what you might think.

All these Rovian Carp policies, however, have almost no applicability to the Kosovo war. There were certainly some serious blunders made then, such as bombing the Chinese embassy, but THAT American intervention in 1999 was NOT done in order for the President to have a campaign issue to run on (Clinton was already in his final term). NOR was it done unilaterally. ALL of Europe was with the US then except Russia, which as you know is only half in Europe. The intervention succeeded in halting Milosevic's polices of mass-murder and ethnic cleansing which 10 years of lame European peace missions had failed to do. I don't doubt that there is now Serbian resentment at the US over the bombing, along with shame that their country is the only one of a dozen in Europe today that was unable to throw off its Communist dictatorship without NATO bombing it first. There is also some resentment still in Germany and Japan over World War II. All wars are not the same, however, and some resentment is unavoidable in the real world.

I don't very often talk about Yugoslavia in the 1990 when discussing Iraq today, however, for the same reason that one does not normally talk about pork bellies when discussing recipes for fruit cocktails. They have practically nothing in common except according to lazy kneejerk "hegemonistic"- fantasizing neo-Marxist BS, which I would like to hope that you are becoming increasing immune to, Arnold, but there seems to be a bit of distance to go yet, before liberation from that sort of dogma is complete.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Sorry, I don't "buy it," Arnold.

It seems to that multinational tycoons care about their mansions, their yachts, and their corporate empires, not about "global hegemony" or any other neo-Marxist abstraction. I don't doubt that the Ken Lays of America or elsewhere would be perfectly happy playing golf and having three martini lunches with Osama bin Laden if they saw a buck in it for themselves.

I think it really rather absurd to suppose that a serial corporate loser like G.W. Bush, who has given no evidence of being motivated by anything other than his own narrow short term political future, gives a rat's A about the "logic of world power."

He was for a "humble" foreign policy in 2000 because there were votes to be had taking such a stance. When the political winds ruffling the half-brain-dead couch potatoes (who are his REAL base) changed after 9-11, he became the great almost-beached- aircraft-carrier-strutting Crusader against Evildoers. He is not Hitler. He is not even Mussoulini. Even Mussoulini could "make the trains run on time".


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Arnold brought up the Serbia bombing which took place after the biggest ethnic cleansing since the 1950s took place in Kosovo. Whoever or whatever this Vickers is which you cite, the apparent thesis that the Kosovars were an magnificent example of a non-violent people, just waiting for a little international assistance to overwhelm Milosevic like Ghandi did the British strikes me as extremely far fetched and disconnected with the reality of KLA, etc., not to mention the brutalities inflicted on the Serbian minority in that region. Not saying the Serbs were the "good guys", overall, but they were also victims of the last communist dictator in Europe's policies, and of the long-standing primitive violence and ancient hatreds endemic to the region.
It would not be the first place on earth to go to in search of non-violent social movements.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"After NATO's action there was a blood bath, so did we exacerbate the problem by military action? All the while functioning under the guise of putting a stop to ethnic cleansing? That's the point."


To address that point, you need numbers. Or ballpark estimates. I don't have them at my finger tips, but I greatly doubt whether any credible, comprehensive quantification would indicate ethnic-hatred-related killings in the Balkans SINCE NATO's intervention, e.g. during 1999-2006, being at even so much as a small fraction of the level suffered during the peak period of Milosevic's reign of terror, 1992-99.

My recollection is that Rugova and the non-violent wing of the Kosavars were supported to a considerable extent by Western European governments before 1999. But to little avail against the mass terror apparatus of Milosevic and the long-standing myth-enriched antipathies that, alas, make the Balkans, the Balkans.

Any assessment of blame here, by the way, would have to dole out large helpings out to Yeltsin and the Russian regime which steadfastly torpedoed any meaningful UN role before NATO stepped into to force a resolution.

I thought at the time that is was cowardly to try to do the whole thing with bombs. And a bad precedent in many ways, no doubt. But there is also no doubt in my mind that it worked, and that it is the height of airheaded-pacifist slipshod abusing of history to try to classify this highly justified, consistent, last-resort, multilateral (relative) success in Kosovo in even the remotest vicinity of the deceit-ridden, unilateral, hypocritical, first-resort blunderous disaster of the Cheney administration in Iraq.


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Arnold,

First of all, if you think I am a “loyal Democrat” you missed the last 10 or 12 posts of mine where I lambasted that party and most of its leadership for their spineless and hypocritical kowtowing to the Rove Administration, and to their utter lack of vision and resolve in fashioning a credible alternative. Even if you didn’t know that, your assumption of partisanship on my part is not supported by anything I said on this page.

On the other hand, I think I can make a reasonable assumption about where you are coming from based on your remarks here, and on prior occasions (but feel free to correct me if I assume erroneously). I appreciate and totally share your steadfast refusal to put with the kneejerk pro-Bush silliness of many posters here, but that does not mean we have to see eye to eye on what the fundamental causes of the Bushdisaster are.

When you talk about the “undeniable, unwavering”, and
“natural process of the undeniable and universal expansion of capital”, I cannot help but be reminded of a German-Jewish exiled writer who spoke of a “spectre haunting Europe” and workers having only their “chains to lose.” Like many other centuries-since deceased visionaries, this guy has been both quite influential and quite full of crap. Capitalism has not collapsed of its own contradictions. It has reformed and adjusted (I’m not saying that this a Good Thing, but it is what has actually happened). The revolutions against it did not occur in countries where it reached its “most advanced stage,” and those revolutions have produced not socialist paradises, but failed and internally collapsing tyrannical kleptocracies.

It is not quite correct to say that no politician can get elected to national office in the US without Big Business. ALMOST no politician can get elected under the current rules without lots of money, but a George Soros or Ross Perot can accumulate lots of funds without being titular head of a Fortune 500 multinational corporation.

There was no inevitable corporate logic behind the Iraq invasion. Some companies stood to gain (Halliburton) some to lose (airlines and any other sector with high energy use), but most corporate execs are far too busy to concern themselves with the intricacies of electoral politics or the machinations of the State department or Pentagon except when their business is directly affected (which is rare for most businesses). Oil is going to be sold from Mideast at something like the world market price, with or without bottlenecks and interruptions, and the long run price trend (not the short term fluctuations) will be up, because fossil fuels are in finite and rapidly dropping supply and our couch potato culture has not bothered to think of how to get along without cheap availability of them, REGARDLESS of whether the Bush family, Exxon-Mobil, Aramco, Saddam’s 50 bastard sons, the Bin Ladens, or Walt Disney Company have their claws on the pump, and nothing of Marx’s turgid and obsolete prose can tell us anything useful about global ecological non-sustainability.

Lower level underlings are in charge of shoveling corpoate money to political campaigns in the USA, and the corporate representation and involvement in the Cheney administration comes more often from corporate losers and suckers of the public teat, like Bush himself, than from the real movers and shakers of capitalist enterprise.


Arnold Shcherban - 4/22/2006

<Yugoslavia in the 1990 when discussing Iraq today, however, for the same reason that one does not normally talk about pork bellies when discussing recipes for fruit cocktails. They have practically nothing in common except according to lazy kneejerk "hegemonistic"- fantasizing neo-Marxist BS, which I would like to hope that you are becoming increasing immune to, Arnold, but there seems to be a bit of distance to go yet, before liberation from that sort of dogma is complete.>
Oh, they do, Peter, if one consideres
(in addition to the arguments I mentioned and you didn't respond to)
that the US troops is STILL in Kosovo
(if it were any other country, except
this one or its close allies the US would create a major outcry and condemnation campaign, at the very least, if not direct military intervention) and the only democracy
they created there is the Albanian mafia rule. Don't even try to sell me the idea of horrific events that would
have happened in Kosovo, provided the
US had withdrawn its troops, the kneejerk (using your lexicon) argument
applied currently for justification of
US permanent stay in Iraq.
And the bombing of Belgrad's civilian infrastructure, by whatever "coalition of the willing" the US bought that time, was a WAR CRIME, since, I repeat, it had not been dictated by military necessity.
Finita la debate.


Lynn Chakoian - 4/21/2006

The point is that there was a peace movement, they could have been at a peace table, but we don't set a place for those engaging in non-violent actions.

After NATO's action there was a blood bath, so did we exacerbate the problem by military action? All the while functioning under the guise of putting a stop to ethnic cleansing? That's the point.


Rob Willis - 4/20/2006

That would be the market at work. Beautiful thing.


Andrew D. Todd - 4/20/2006

Well, here's a further question. My dear old New England congregationalist granny used to swear by kosher meat. She wasn't Jewish, but she thought the rabbi kept the butcher on the straight and narrow, and would not be so easy to bribe as a government health inspector. So buying kosher was an extra line of insurance against being fed "rats and stray cats." What if large numbers of American consumers started insisting on Japanese-certified meat and green goods? What if it reached a point where the meat the Japanese wouldn't sign off on was acceptable only for TV dinners and suchlike?


Rob Willis - 4/20/2006

Ugh, pork bowels?

We could grind the beeves into moothanol and ease the oil crunch. Or we could nuke them.

Seriously, I would set up a program allowing Japanese inspectors to come over and set up operations in selected plants, giving them a chance to exercise control over the product leaving for Japan. This sounds dicey, but if they don't trust us to do the job, we should let them in on the ground level of the process.


Lynn Chakoian - 4/20/2006

Peter Clarke's comment is familar with regard to Kosovo (although I fail to find where anyone brought that up, but as he raised it...) and I shared the opinion that NATO actions were crucial to ending failed peace missions until I read a piece by Jim Satterwhite of Bluffton College who detailed the missed opportunities in Kosovo. I quote from his paper entitled,"Forestalling War in Kosovo: Opportunities Missed":

Miranda Vickers commented on the Kosovar approach to nonviolence in her history of Kosovo, Between Serb and Albanian. She noted that “from the Spring of 1990 Albanians abandoned violence and embraced passive resistance, which became the hallmark of the next phase of the Albanian national movement in Kosovo” (Vickers, 243). What was particularly striking about this approach was that it was not understood as simply a set of tactics to be used against the Serb repressive policies, nor even as just an overall strategy of nonviolent resistance to Serb rule. It was first of all a reflection of who or what the Albanians themselves wanted to be. As Vickers pointed out, “in response to...a sudden and forceful wave of Serbianization, Albanians began a long-overdue process of self-examination. In the midst of such a climate of violence, Albanians closed their ranks first by attempting to do away with violence among themselves” (Vickers, 248). In order to be sustained, this approach needed encouragement from outside sources as well. Sadly, for the most part, no such encouragement was forthcoming. Again, as Vickers put it, “[the Albanian leader] Rugova's policies, while relying on the international community to appreciate the justice of the Albanian cause in Kosovo, had failed to change the situation.... As long as there appeared to be relative peace in Kosovo, the international community would avoid suggesting substantive changes...Thus, by opting for non-violent resistance, the Kosovar leadership had reaped no benefits whatever. Instead they suffered humiliation and their people became even more desperate” (Vickers, 281, 287).
Gradually, in the absence of any positive reinforcement from outside, growing dissatisfaction and frustration among the Kosovar Albanians led to increasing pressure - especially among younger people - for a more active response to Serb repression. This sense of frustration was compounded by the Dayton peace agreements that ended the war in Bosnia. The Kosovar Albanians felt “snubbed and humiliated,” “aware that their passive policy during the Yugoslav war had denied them an invitation to the peace talks” (Vickers, 289/290).

So was the "lame peace missions" a matter of failure, or was it a failure of imagination? And without going overboard in conspiracy theories, perhaps it was a deliberate failure in order to carrying out NATO's purposes. Just as the Iraq war is used as a way to extend US power in the mideast.


Andrew D. Todd - 4/20/2006

To: Rob Willis:

I am going to ask you to fish or cut bait. What do you propose to do about this?

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060420/b_madcowjapan.art.htm


Arnold Shcherban - 4/19/2006

You're a loyal Democrat, 'cause
you blast Republicans purely from the positions of centrist Democrat, and when criticizing your fellow Democrats you do that only in reference to their current inability (on whatever reasons) to defeat another party;
you have never mentioned in any of dozens discussions you've been through that under Democratic govermental majority this country also committed war crimes, one of the recent ones being, for example, the bombing of Belgrad without practically any military necessity, except terrorizing civilian population of Serbian capital (which, speaking of terrorism, created more US enemies among Serbs than you can imagine.)
As, blasting Saddam and his repressive regime doesn't necessarily make the one a Republican or Democrat, and destroying his regime, as we well know now, does not create any democracy or even civilized society, as raising rage and furor
against Republicans and replacing Bush
with Democratic President won't change
arrogant and agressive course of superpower foreign policy sponsored by
international corporations.
We already know that no Democrat that has a real chance to get elected won't
withdraw all or even a majority of the American troops from Iraq, that the huge military bases the US is currently building there will stay there for decades to come, threatening any dissident goverments or socio-political movements not only in Iraq, but in the whole Mid-East region, and making any possibility of creating any real democracies there impossible, that any US goverment Republican or Democratic) won't let anti-Iranian propagandist campaign of exaggerations and lies subside, since it was started to justify pre-determined military action on the first place, the way it happened with Iraq.
In fact, I will eat my hat, if Democratic President being elected in 2008, will make any significant changes about the things I listed above, but if he doesn't, will you follow the suit, i.e. the hat?


Rob Willis - 4/19/2006

Don't know, but probably. The odd thing is, the supply of oil isn't the problem, being allowed to get it is. Somewhere on the price bellcurve, the untapped sources will have to be accessed or there will be hell to pay.


Rob Willis - 4/19/2006

I would expect no less an attitude from Europe. The EU is a broken, useless economic landscape and somwhow, this is America's fault.

You know what? They can get along without us from now on.


Andrew D. Todd - 4/19/2006

One might add that most large American companies in the high-tech sectors (Microsoft, Intel, Monsanto, etc.) have ongoing regulatory problems with European governments. The nature of the high-tech sectors is such that it is very difficult to abide by the spirit of anti-trust legislation. Practically, the firm has to have some kind of concordat with the government, the way IBM and AT&T did back in the 1950's and 1960's. From the standpoint of business firms, Europe is a bigger and richer country than the United States. It just isn't organized for militarism. For practical purposes, it is often necessary for a firm to conform its global operations to European law and regulation. The Bush administration tends to remind Europeans that they don't really like bloody yanks anyway, especially bloody yanks from Texas. By so doing, it works substantial harm to American commercial interests.


Arnold Shcherban - 4/19/2006

Peter,

You either intentionally show your disrespect to my intellectual abilities by narrowing my general strategic conclusions to the focus of absurdity, or, what it's really hard
to imagine (considering your otherwise much better knowledge of US
history and fine analytical aptitude), unable to comprehend unsophisticated point.
Of course, Kenneth Lay, or any other
business shark, doesn't get up every morning, or ever, thinking of economic and financial world domination.
(I actually feel quite embarassed by the need to make such a trivial clarification, but your respective comments...)
This is just the natural process of the undeniable and universal expansion of capital, the need for mineral and energy resources, and cheap labor, especially on the part of the most developed capitalist powers of the world like, first and foremost, USA, and Japan, England, France, South Korea, etc., the process, which rate received tremendous acceleration over the second half of 20th century and evidently continuing nowadays.
Exactly because the process is natural for the developed capitalism it has little to do with the will, intentions, ideological views or even opposition on the part of the separate business figures.
The latter ones, among those who are very powerful and influential (like CEOs of big corporations), can contribute some towards the one or opposite direction of the process, can make some mostly cosmetic changes
(after all, nothing in this universe is absolute), but cannot either reverse the mentioned process or cardinally change its basic contents and purposes.
Any major, big-scale economic, social, ideological and political development in the domain of strategic initiatives of those capitalist powers was and still is the direct or indirect consequence of
that process of capital expansion and struggle for resources.
Again, I don't imply there were or aren't any other input factors, some quite important (since no complex
phenomenon in any area of human existence is the direct consequence of
just one single factor), but the once
I emphasized is the main driving force
behind those strategic initiatives, whether it is openly expressed, implied, hidden, or (as it often and understandably happens) denied.
And because, the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century was/is dominated by the national economies, fierce competition ensued.
The US as it became the world's essentially single economic, technological, and military
superpower (in the second hald of the 20th century), not to a small degree
thanks to its agressive strategic initiative dictated mainly not by the
by the Cold War confrontation, but by the strive for new business markets and fast expansion of the old ones, particularly in the Third World,
took the leading position in the competition.
The entire history of the US foreign relations, associations, agreements is
very complex and multidimensional, indeed, but if there is one dominating factor that runs through it with the red thread it is that notorious economic factor.
It is far from coincidental that this country that takes official pride in
its alleged fight for freedoms, human rights and democracy all over the world, was and is sponsoring and supporting economically, militarily,
and politically any country with whatever reactionary, oppressive, and
often murderous regime it had/has, as long, as the latter was playing ball
with big US business/corporations.
And vice versa, almost any country, no matter how far it was/is located from the US territory that in
more or less decisive manner refuses to do just that (for better or for worse) got punished, either by this country directly, or by proxy through US allied groups or countries.
This perpertual chain of events and relations is again undeniable, unwavering, and, since it continues up to now, cannot be explained by the traditional and so fashionable references to the lesser evil of the Cold War era.
Some "bright" examples are
communist China on one hand and and the again communist China of 15 years ago, leftist Venezuala on one hand,
and Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia regime
on another, Iran Shah's repressive regime on one hand, and Iran's Mosadekh one on the other, communist Cuba on one hand, and fascist Chili on another, murderous Indonesian Sukharto regime on hand, and repressive, but nationalist, North Korean on the other, and many more, not less infamous ones.

I know one thing, that no one in the world, despite thousands of attempts, presented better fitted and supported by such overwhelming evidence in its favor leading principle of the US global strategy than the one very briefly stated above, which has been originally formulated by others, although I came up with on my own.

Bush and his clique is nothing more nothing less, as it was pointed out
by numerous historians, political observers and economists is just one of the most radical right-wing group of the American politicians in recent times that came to power, but it has been capable to project that power so successfully and destructively mostly
on the reason of the support of the
US Big Business, which IS its not single, but major base.
In American politics, at the least over the last 20-30 years, no President (Republican and Democrat, alike) was able to get elected
without support of the Big Business,
and the parties' leadership practically bought by it.
Everyone knows it, but a few, especially among the influential ones, dare to talk about it openly.
But, of course, you're as a loyal Democrat is going to engage in self-defeating, partisan delusion of yours.


Arnold Shcherban - 4/17/2006

Oh, come on, Peter.
Such a brilliant critic of Bush administration, as you're cannot allow himself to become hypocritical
when commenting on the author's mere
suggestion of the hegemonic course of current US geopolitics, which was obvious to many observers and historians even under much less radical Washington's administrations for many decades by now.
The worst damage possible to the fight against right-wing clique now in power in American politics is to launch the strikes from the old bases of partisan vision and associations,
which are very easy targets for the adversarian counterstrikes (the latter being pretty much justifiable, I might add).
This is exactly what Democrats have been doing so far with devastating consequences for themselves.
We need decisively fresh - and most important - completely honest admission and critique of the mistakes, misdeeds, and crimes
by the Democrats of those made by
Democrat administrations in the past
(at least, in recent past), showing
American people how they themselves became the tools of corporate control
in practically all spheres of this country's life, the main reason why
big corporations, whom current President not coincidentally has openly called his "base", and not public opinion (which they also operated on in their favor with much of success) are dictating the course of this country more than ever now.
Let's look into the roots of the Big
Ol' Tree, not at the seasonal flowers on its young branches.