The unfolding agenda

WE REMEMBER President George Bush's categorical declaration that America had no interest in Iraq beyond the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime and destruction of the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction which, he claimed, the dictator had kept hidden since the Gulf War twelve years ago. After a massive and pulverising invasion, US and British forces have achieved Bush's first objective. After several weeks of occupation, the combined troops have found no cache of mass-killing weapons. Essentially then, his assault on Iraq has accomplished its purpose, the terrorist threat which Saddam was seen to have presented has been violently snuffed out and the Iraqi people have been freed from the stranglehold of a brutal dictator, so why does Mr Bush not prove true to his word and order the so-called "coalition forces" out of Iraq, letting the United Nations take over the task of reconstructing the country?

We ask the question rhetorically, of course, since no perceptive observer would be so gullible to believe that the US President was genuine in the altruistic reasons he so glibly trotted out for public consumption. A knowledge of US foreign policy with its relentless and opportunistic self-seeking interest, the unchallenged superpower might that the US now wields coupled with the fundamentalist conservative philosophy that drives the Bush administration would have suggested otherwise — that the US president had a different agenda in mind when he and his war hawks in Washington conceived and launched this uncaring and destructive attack on Iraq. As we predicted, the real purpose of the invasion is already becoming clear. Mr Bush has sent a retired army general to preside over the formation of an interim Iraqi administration, a move which has been interpreted, not unjustifiably, by a majority of the Iraqi people as an attempt to set up a puppet regime. Their fears are bolstered by the US choosing of a long-exiled Iraqi to take part in this process, a man who enjoys little or no credibility within the country and, in fact, is viewed by many as "an outsider."

The need expressed by many respected commentators to enlist the vast experience of the United Nations to assist in this reconstruction exercise has been summarily rejected by the Bush regime. Although the US president had prescribed "a vital role" for the UN in this rebuilding task, it now seems that what he had in mind was a sub-contracting function for the UN in handing out humanitarian aid to the suffering Iraqi population. It seems that the UN will have no say, no input, no control over the process of creating a democratic administration for that battered country which, again, will provoke widespread suspicion in the minds of many Iraqis. Indeed, an odd, if not amusing, conflict has arisen between the clamour of a majority of Iraqis for the US forces to get out of the country and the determination of the Bush administration to maintain the occupation in order to accede to the wishes of the people for democratic change.

Meanwhile, multi-million-dollar contracts are being dished out to US companies for reconstruction work in the country which the US forces have virtually destroyed. As for the continuing search for weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime has again contemptuously slapped down the United Nations by ruling out any resumption of the mission which the UN weapons inspectors had been conducting when the misconceived invasion was launched. The US forces have taken over the search, regardless of its credibility gap. An allegedly Christian president, backed by an allegedly Christian nation, has brutalised a country on the basis of a lie, killing thousands of innocent people, including women and children. As the world's only superpower, they can continue to brazen it out, for their own interest.