Lucrative Contracts. Profiteers of The Al-‘Irãq War.
The month prior to the attack on al-ʿIrāq (March 2003), Bush appointed Riley P. Bechtel, chairman of the Bechtel Corporation [reported to be worth $3.2 billion, ‘Forbes Magazine’], to the President’s Export Council (February 2003); an advisory body to the president on international trade affairs. Following the attack on al-ʿIrāq, the Bechtel Corporation was awarded lucrative contracts worth $680,000,000 to re-establish al-ʿIrāq’s water, electric, and other essential infrastructures. Other large companies have also awarded profitable contracts including Halliburton, a subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown and Root. The Bechtel Corporation has, over the decades, maintained profitable connections with various U.S., presidents, e.c., Richard M. Nixon (37th president), Ronald W. Reagan (40th president), George H. W. Bush (41st president), George W. Bush (43rd president), and the Saudi Royal Family. The ‘alleged’ mercantile connections with bin Laden’s family. The Pentagon has excluded all nations that were not coalitionists (of the “willing”), or acquiescent to al-ʿIrāq War, from obtaining contracts.
The ‘Pax Americana’ and United States Global Hostilities.
The U.S. evolved into an enormous economic military power, following the closure of the World War II theatres in Europe (1945). In August of the same year, the U.S. became a signatory to the London Agreement for ‘Crimes Against Peace’. Namely, the planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression in violation of international treaties and arrangements); to become the indictable breach of this Agreement. A conservative think-tank document titled: ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’ (September, 2000), assumed the description ‘Pax Americana’ q.e., the ‘American Peace’ derived from the Roman Empire’s ‘Pax Romana’, which was implemented between 27BC and 180AD, to guarantee relative peace, throughout the Mediterranean world., as it happened, had an unsatisfactory outcome. Three years later America attacked Baġdād (April 2003). This should not have came as a surprise, considering the 61-year period ensuing from 1945. The U.S. has not honoured its obligations to the London Agreement, notwithstanding its continuing rhetoric on ‘peace’, ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’, and ‘justice’. It has engaged in numerous hostilities around the world. For example, East Asia and the Indochinese Peninsula, Southeast Asia, South-central Asia, Southwestern Asia, and the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande; and the Caribbean.
President Bush’s unfamiliarity of foreign affairs and diplomacy loomed large during his bully boy tactics in attempting to stampede uncommitted nation states towards joining his coalition for the attack on Baġdād.
“O con noi o contro di noi” (“You’re either with us or against us”)
Benito Mussolini, Capo del Governo, 24 December 1925 – 25 July 1943
“You’re either with us or against us”
President George W. Bush. (Washington ( CNN ) 6 November 2001))
Cause and Effect.
“Actioni contrarium semper et aequalem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse aequales et in partes contrarias dirigi”.
Sir Isaac Newton, ‘Principia Mathematica’ ( 1687 ).
President Bush’s rhetorical style was judgemental, impetuous, wildly extravagant and provocative. Labelling other nation states as “Axis of evil” viz: “al-ʿIrāq, Iran, and North Korea”, in his ‘State of the Union Address’ (29 January 2002), was not conducive to addressing the supposed ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ and ‘weapons of mass destruction’. The so-called “war on terrorism” – or to be precise a pretex for neo-colonialist oil exploitation – is on the downgrade. Because it is, I believe, unwinnable due to the principle of ‘causation’ being ignored. The U.S. ought to consider adopting a conciliatory approach rather than impetuous and hostile solutions; war carries a terrible human cost. The major issues underlying the ’causes’ of ‘terrorism’ ought to be sought. Absent, of course, of any misconceptions in believing that such ’causes’ would have been justification. For terrorist attacks on targets such as Manhattan, et al.
“No nation is fit to sit in judgement upon any other nation”.
Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924) Speech in New York, 20 April 1915.
Some obvious questions that automatically present themselves are: Have some nation states reached an unendurable threshold of hardship. And a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, that forces a small minority, to take violent actions out of sheer desperation? Has the U.S., and other imperial powers been enforcing repressive and exploitative agendas upon countries at low levels of industrial development? Has the U.S., campaigned in unguarded, powerless and vulnerable nation states to secure raw materials, exploitative labour, and new markets? Has the U.S., provided economic, or military, aid to support despotic regimes? For example, François and Jean-Claude Duvalier (République d’Haïti), to maintain control, with widespread abuse (women, children, and the aged). Over the impoverished majority in supporting oligarchies, to protect profit-driven interests of lucrative international corporations, from presupposed nationalization by fifth-columnists; or revolutionaries. Are the U.S. et al., enforcing foreign forms of colonial governments, by expeditiously unleashing indiscriminate onslaughts on cities. And into regions where there are tribal and regional loyalties, ancient religious, cultural and social traditions, where people have no comprehension of central government or transitory party systems.
Notwithstanding George W. Bush’s rhetoric on notions of “freedom” and “liberty” (11 September anniversary speech), Washington allocated $441.6 billion, on military operations, for the fiscal year of 2006. This figure excludes other funds (surreptitiously known as the “black budget”, and unavailable for public inspection) procured clandestinely, for the military and intelligence community; from other government agencies. The available public figures exceed 50% above the combined military budgets of the seven commonly designated so-called “rogue” states, i.e., North Korea, Cuba, et cetera. Is this a budget conducive to “freedom” and “liberty”, or a precursor of increasing military operations further afield. A precursor to enforce U.S. national policies as has been demonstrated in the Kosovo, Afghãnistãn, and al-ʿIrāq theatres. In my opinion, this was a patent display of contemptuous behaviour, by the Bush administration, against the aims and objectives of the U.N.S.C., and its member states.
The wars waged against the people of al-ʿIrāq and Afghãnistãn are, in my opinion, a continuous joint enterprises serving the insatiable appetites of the same rich and powerful nations, viz., the US and their coalitionists, the UK, Australia et al. notwithstanding there being no hard evidence suggesting that al-ʿIrāqi or the Afghãns ( Paštün ) were the perpetrators of the attacks on New York and Washington DC (11 September, 2001), or the earlier attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma (19 April, 1995). George W. Bush’s so-called “war on Terror” (now Barack Obama’s “Overseas Contingency Operation”) is a global military, ideological and economic war being fought with total disregard for ethical and legal accountability for the deaths of civilians and soldiers alike. Al-ʿIrāqi and particularly the Afghãn people have retained centuries of ancient traditions, zealous Islamic aspirations; and tribal loyalties. Their countries has become a scene of carnage ruthlessly orchestrated by five-star perpetrators of terrorism. Evidently, US foreign policy excludes its own standards as outlined in its own State Papers,e.g., The Constitutional rights to those in other jurisdictions: “no person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law” (17 September, 1787).
The United States have demonstrated a flagrant disregard to international laws, particularly in respect to the Geneva Convention (III) of 12 August, 1949; which was adopted as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations General Assembly at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris; 10 December, 1949. The United States is in breech of the Declaration in respect to the treatment of Prisoners of war: Arts. 3, 13, 14, and 17. These Articles clearly state that there be ‘no physical or mental torture, violence, indignity, nor any other form of coercion inflicted on prisoners to obtain information whatsoever, and that prisoners not be subject to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind, and that all prisoners are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour’. George W. Bush in apparent agreement of the Declaration said:
“The U.S. is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the U.S. and the community of law abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating and prosecuting all acts of torture.”
U.N. Torture Victims Recognition Day, 26 June, 2003 Speech in New York.