U.S. president George Bush, having lost the momentum from September 11 in justifying military assaults abroad, has been pounding away on the theme of not allowing certain governments in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction.

"In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin for error, and no chance to learn from mistakes," Bush said in a March 11 speech in Washington. "Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option." Bush added that his administration "is now consulting with friends and allies about this greatest of dangers."

Articles in the big-business press, such as the International Herald Tribune, pointed out the remark was a "reference to the trip by Vice President Richard Cheney to several Gulf and Middle Eastern countries where he is understood to be seeking support for a campaign against Iraq."

In this context the disclosure over the same days of a supposedly classified Pentagon "nuclear posture review" raised Washington's belligerent stance in the world and brought a sharp rebuke from a the governments of China, Iran, Iraq, and several other countries. The document poses the possible use of nuclear weapons by U.S. imperialism against seven countries in response to their use of, or to prevent them from using, weapons of mass destruction.

Although initially portrayed as a big departure for Washington, more sober press reports pointed out the policy has firm roots in the previous Clinton administration. As with other aspects of U.S. government moves since September 11, the nuclear posture review is part of the acceleration of trends under way long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  
 
Lining up 'coalition' for Iraq war
In his visit to London and seven countries in the Middle East, Cheney has sought to shore up support for an imperialist military assault on Iraq. The London Guardian reported March 10 that Washington "has asked Britain to draw up plans for 25,000 of this country's troops to join a U.S. task force to overthrow Saddam Hussein," the largest number of troops ever requested in peacetime. British troops would be part of a 250,000-strong ground force to invade Iraq, in the case of full-scale war to topple the regime, the paper stated.

In a manner reminiscent of the buildup to the U.S.-led 1991 slaughter in Iraq, Washington, under the banner of the United Nations, is cynically offering "negotiations" with the Hussein government. In this case, Washington is pressing draconian demands for "inspections" of weapons of mass destruction that would put the regime at the mercy of imperialism.

The Wall Street Journal on March 8 cautioned Washington against relying too much on the negotiations tactic. Pressuring Iraq to allow inspectors "raises the question of what will happen if Saddam Hussein says yes," and "buys...more time to acquire a nuclear bomb." A senior Bush administration official said the previous day that the push for inspectors would be a trap unless it is "the kind of go anywhere, any time sort of inspection regime."

Hans Blix, chairman of the UN arms inspection commission, said, "For the credibility of future inspection it is important that there are no sanctuaries and that access is without any delay that might permit the removal of evidence."

As UN officials claim they are pursuing a "peaceful" resolution, Washington is preparing for war. In the previous 1991 six-week air assault and 100-hour ground war, more than 150,000 Iraqis were murdered and millions left homeless by U.S.-led forces.

Washington is using a pro-imperialist wing of the leadership of the Kurdish oppressed national minority to legitimize its war moves. The U.S. rulers have enlisted the Kurdish Democratic Party and other groups that function under the cover of the U.S.- and British-enforced "no fly zone" in the north of Iraq. The Guardian reported that U.S. special forces are in the area training militias in preparation for an assault.

The Bush administration has offered to finance the construction of a radio transmitter in an attempt to foment resistance against the government. The Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-backed group that also operates under UN protection, has supported the proposal and requests it be built on Iraqi soil.

The Guardian also reported that 5,000 U.S. armored vehicles that had been mothballed in Kuwait since the Persian Gulf War are now being overhauled.

The king of Jordan, a staunch U.S. ally, publicly cautioned Washington during Cheney's tour. A spokesperson for the monarch said the king would tell the U.S. vice president that "any attack on Iraq will be devastating for the whole region. It will be devastating in terms of spreading instability. It will be politically and economically devastating. It will be too much to take. With the Israeli-Palestinian situation the way it is, opening another violent front is not good for this region."  
 
Nuclear posture review
The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review has received backing from both Democratic and Republican politicians. The report picked out seven nations among many that Washington claims have or are developing weapons of mass destruction: China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, north Korea, Russia and Syria.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said that the purpose of the report is for Washington to send "a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States that they'd be met with a devastating response."

Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman gave his stamp of approval to the policy move on CNN's "Late Edition" program. "Frankly, I don't mind some of these renegade nations [thinking] twice about the willingness of the United States to take action to defend our people and our values and our allies," he said.

Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tried to allay concerns that other big-business politicians raised, stressing the report is "not a plan."

"This preserves for the president all the options that a president would want to have in case this country or our friends and allies were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological, chemical, or for that matter, high explosives," he said.

One recommendation in the report is the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons that have a lower yield and produce less nuclear fallout. Bombs that can penetrate deep bunkers are also a development priority, he said.

British, Australian, and Italian government spokespeople supported Washington's latest move. In Japan--the only country to be hit by nuclear weapons--government officials were largely silent.

Government representatives from the countries named in the report immediately condemned the threat. A spokesman for the Chinese government, Sun Yuxi, told the official state paper that "China, like other countries, is deeply shocked" to be in the group of seven and demanded an explanation by the U.S. government. The Russian foreign minister made similar remarks.

A report in the Washington Post reminded its readers that the basic outlines of the nuclear policy were developed under the Clinton administration. During the Gulf War U.S. president Bush wrote to Saddam Hussein saying any Iraqi use of biological or chemical weapons against U.S. force would be met with the "strongest possible response," a threat widely interpreted as use of nuclear weapons.

Several years later Clinton's defense secretary, William Perry, said that "if some nation were to attack the United States with chemical weapons, then they would have to fear the consequences of a response from any weapon in our inventory. We could make a devastating response without the use of nuclear weapons, but we would not forswear the possibility."

The article details Clinton-era directives for the Pentagon to target small nations "seeking weapons of mass destruction," including constant updates on facilities in Iran, Iraq, and north Korea. One official knowledgeable of the Clinton directives and the current report told the Post that "nothing has changed" from the Clinton administration and the report sent to Congress in early January.
 
 
Related articles:
Free the Guantánamo prisoners!
Hunger strikers demand right to wear turban
Bloody assault shores up U.S. domination in Afghanistan  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home