Its 2002 and talk of war is at a fever pitch. The US is salivating at the prospect of toppling Saddam Hussein. Plans have been drawn up. The weapons are polished. The propaganda machine is churning in high gear. September 11^th had delivered Iraq --- and its oil --- on a silver platter. The White House expected smooth sailing. To quote Outkast, “Bombs Over Baghdad” was a foregone conclusion. But things haven’t worked out exactly as planned. Just like Hussein learned that 1990 wasn’t 1980, Bush Jr. is learning that 2002 brings new challenges and new concerns. This ain’t ya’ daddy’s war.

Most countries in the world aren’t gung ho about tangling with Iraq. Containment to them is working just fine. And so when the White House went looking for friends to take on Hussein again, they got lukewarm and even cold reactions. Normal allies like France and Germany have come out against military force. Russia and China claim to see no need for it. Mid East states, with the exception of Oman and Qutar, are strongly opposed. Even old Iraqi enemies like Iran condemned US plans for a war. And the UN has made it quite clear that any action against Iraq should be done under its guidance. About the only staunch ally left for the White House is Britain---or better put, Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, as many of his English constituents aren’t too keen on invading Iraq either.

So why is there such reluctance from major players like Russia and France? There are two reasons. Firstly, there is the perceived need to curb the US. After September 11^th there was global sympathy. But in many areas, patience is wearing thin. Watching America run amok in the world and doing nothing can only last for so long. Before making any major decisions such as a war against Iraq, these powers are letting the US know that they aren’t to be taken for granted. Blocking, or stalling, US action is a reminder to Bush Jr.’s administration that its isolationsist-we-can-do-what-we-want-and-thumb-our-noses- at-the-rest-of-the-world” attitude isn’t going to be tolerated.

There is a second reason for the obstacles these nations have set in America’s path to Iraq, and it is by far the most important. If you’re bright enough to guess it’s oil, you’ve been paying attention. Iraq’s vast oil resources are as important to places like Russia and France, as they are to the US. In fact, the two nations have been in high-level talks with Baghdad to secure oil contracts that are dependent upon the lifting of UN sanctions. It’s a case of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” Hussein gets his sanctions lifted and these nations get lucrative oil deals. The US plan to attack Iraq and implement regime change puts a serious monkey wrench in these matters.

Any new Iraqi government may decide to render all contracts made during the Hussein regime null and void. Russian and French oil companies could lose a fortune, and their place in the oil game. Worse still the fears of America in Baghdad leaves them back in the situation from 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Back then it was voices like Russia that stayed the US hand from pushing into Baghdad. It was bad enough a large American presence was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The thought of them running the second largest oil reserve in the world, Iraq, was intolerable. Now with Bush Jr. talking about taking Iraq by force again, those fears have resurfaced anew. French and Russian thinking is, a new Iraqi regime put in place by US hands would give American oil companies a distinct advantage over their foreign competitors. And if there’s anything worse than the precious, black substance in the hands of unruly Fremen, be they a decadent monarchy or a megalomaniac dictator, it’s the slick commodity in the hands of American capitalists.

With all these complexities the administration of Bush Jr. has jumpstarted a domestic and global propaganda campaign, trying to shore up support for their jingoistic adventure. Greed can’t look outwardly like greed. People won’t support it both home and abroad. A “War for Oil” just won’t sell. Men and women aren’t going to lay down their lives willingly or send off their sons and daughters to make some rich people richer or ensure their SUV’s stay full. They’ll flee to Canada first and resort to horses. But selling a “War on Terrorism,” especially to a domestic populace “shook” after September 11^th, is a much easier task.

But living up to the anti-Iraq propaganda campaign of the Bush Sr. administration hasn’t gone exactly as planned. Attempts to link Iraq to Al-Queda haven’t yielded great results. And the reason for this is most probably because there aren’t any. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, murderous, dictator. In that regards he has a lot in common with ruthless, murderous monopolizing capitalists.  But he’s not an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist. For one Hussein runs a secular government that regularly exterminates (and I mean that literally) Islamic extremists. Fundamentalism just isn’t Hussein’s style mainly because he realizes they aren’t controllable and could lead to his downfall. In fact, groups like Al-Queda have plotted the overthrow of the Iraqi leader already. So claims of a Saddam Hussein-Al-Queda link aren’t just erroneous when reported in the news, but they are outright lies when members of the Bush Jr. administration repeat them and fully know better.

In fact, the only Al-Queda in Iraq operates in the northern region. They aren’t allied with Hussein, but rather Kurdish opposition---the same opposition the US hopes to ally with. Thus a war with the current Iraqi regime could place the US and Al-Queda trained fighters on the same side. Greed makes odd bedfellows. This hasn’t stopped the Bush Jr. administration of linking Saddam Hussein with Al-Queda in the most nebulous manner possible. The hope is that if a lie is said often enough, especially to a people whipped into paranoia over biological and chemical weapon wielding terrorists, it will eventually take on a life of its own. Like false claims of babies being taken from incubators back in the 1990, emotion is being used to counter logic. Yet the American public isn’t as “sheepish” as before. And support for war fluctuates back and forth around the 60% marker---so far.

Things haven’t exactly gone the White House’s way with the legislative branch of government either. At first attempting to go swashbuckling into Iraq, they were surprised at the “slow your roll” admonishment they received from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Many hadn’t divorced themselves from the policy of “containment” and saw no reason to tackle the monstrous task of  “regime change” in Iraq. The idea of a US President with near absolute war powers didn’t sit well either. And a war with no set endgame or clear reasoning, when another was still simmering in Afghanistan, needed some form of clarification. Legislators weren’t going to be left trying to explain a War for Oil to their constituents in an election year. It would take months to finally get approval to use limited force, and even still many are calling for a lowering of the war rhetoric and thinking things through.

But the biggest stumbling block to the administration of Bush Jr. has come from a most unexpected place, Iraq. If invading Kuwait in 1990 was a trap, Saddam Hussein has decided not to fall for it again. With savvy political flair, he has wooed and courted everyone from former enemies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, to major players like Russia and France. Appealing to the UN to save it from naked American aggression, Baghdad has managed to at the least slow down a US led attack. Hussein has even agreed to let weapons inspectors back into Iraq, taking the ace card right out of Washington’s hand. Iraq has decided to play along with those who least want war in order to frustrate America’s plan. And so far, it’s worked.

The Bush Jr. administration is finding itself in a troubling situation. With Iraq now claiming they will submit to weapons inspectors the need for immediate war is greatly diminished. If the UN inspectors go in, are not barred by Iraq and everything goes smoothly, then the US “given” reasons for war disappear in a poof of peaceful resolution. Saddam Hussein will have played his hand well. And the Bush Jr. administration will be left with two options. (1) The US will have to back down and attempt to trump up new charges against Iraq to get the backing of the UN, or wait for Hussein to slip up and quickly seize the opportunity for war. That could take years. (2) The US will say to hell with the UN, and go it alone.

I’ll go out on a limb and make a prediction. If the US can’t convince (read as “buy out” or “bully”) those who oppose a war, the administration of Bush Jr. will likely attempt to go it alone. Why? Because America is itching to get Iraq and Saddam Hussein, like a mob boss tying up loose ends with old business partners who aren’t needed anymore and know too much. They may want the UN backing, but the US wants Hussein out of Iraq more. Several top US officials like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have urged the Iraqis to assassinate Hussein. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has even suggested, quite graphically and quite publicly, that the people of Iraq use “one bullet” to do away with Hussein. As Leslie Gelb of the US Council on Foreign Relations so boldly stated, “we're coming and they (the Iraqi people) can either live with us or go down with Saddam."

Such brazen talk has shocked much of the world. But it shouldn’t be surprising. Remember, this war isn’t really about weapons of mass destruction (though Hussein may certainly still possess them), oppressive regimes and certainly not terrorism. It’s about what began so long ago---ensuring oil interests and stability. US paranoia about anarchy in the region keeps it in constant shifting alliances and power plays. And some form of control over Iraq’s vast oil resources would tip the balance decidedly in America’s favor.

There is also the thought that if the US dares to go it alone, dissenters will quickly turn to allies. Russia and France for instance may not back an American war, but can they stand by and watch the US take Iraq, set up an opposition government and then reap the oil benefits? To not participate in the war means their worst fears could come to be: exclusion from Iraqi oil rights. America is hoping that the threat of going it alone will force others to join them or risk being left out in the cold when all is said and done.  Or at least, that’s the plan. If anything, history has shown that these things never work out exactly the way they’re supposed to.

Going it alone is fraught with problems. First of all, there’s money. Contrary to popular thought wars don’t always help economies---certainly in the long run. Ask the old Soviet Union about arms races and bankruptcy. Ask Bush Sr. about the rise of the economic recession of the early 1990s. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a moderate war with Iraq could have a $9 billion price tag PER MONTH! With a spiraling economy and a once projected $231 billion surplus turning into a $127 billion deficit, the US could do without another monthly bill. But saber rattling in the midst of domestic turmoil is not a new phenomenon. Time will tell if local and world markets can absorb the havoc that comes with most wars.

A war with Iraq will also cause some lives for certain, probably more than before. Hussein isn’t as foolish as to take on the US in the open desert---not again. American air power ensures that any army that meets it on open ground like that will be annihilated, unless it has a near limitless troop supply (like China) or a near-comparable air force (like Russia). This war is going all the way to inner Baghdad and other cities. It will be urban warfare, a much more dangerous exercise. But that’s not to say it won’t be won.

Iraq can’t stand up to the US military might. It couldn’t do it when it was at its height in 1990. With nearly none of its former strength, it’s almost impossible now. And unlike old US enemies like Vietnam or North Korea, there’s no large regional power to help arm and supply Iraq. The problem for the US is not taking out Hussein, but firstly doing so and still maintaining global political support. If that can or can’t be achieved, the secondary problem is what to do with Iraq once Hussein is gone. If the US goes it alone, it will have to practically rebuild Iraq (add in a few more $billion). And while colonization and annexation was nice in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, it’s a real headache in the 21^st century.

This brings up a key problem in US assumption. It is taken for granted that if the US installs a new regime in power it will remain under their control. It is thought that American influence and guidance will create a democratic, open market Iraq---complete with McDonalds and prime oil contracts on every corner. But that’s a rather lofty prediction. Who is to say such a thing is guaranteed? No government remains a puppet forever. And it is sheer arrogance that makes America think that it can convert several thousand years of culture and conflict (taking it back to Mesopotamia here folks) with a coup, greater access to DVD players and all the finer trappings of western society. Stability is hardly ensured with Husseins’ removal. There are numerous opposition groups in Iraq, all wanting their piece of the pie. Most don’t get along. Iraq could splinter into four or more countries and be plunged into civil war if ethnic Kurds attempt to establish a homeland. As Kurds are spread out through various countries, including NATO’s Turkey, possible future conflict could be far-reaching and problematic. A bad situation in Iraq could be made worse. Down the road, the entire region could become engulfed in conflict.

There is yet another problem with going it alone in Iraq, by the far the most dangerous: world opinion. The days of the overbearing superpower are gone. The US can’t do what it wants, when it wants regardless of world criticism. Hiding behind a “War on Terrorism” isn’t going to fool the world community either. With the US sticking its chest out with belligerent nuclear strategies and pre-emptive strike policies, even going as far as to publicly declare it will not let any other country rise in equal power, many are beginning to think the greatest threat to global security is not Iraq or the Al-Queda---but Uncle Sam. There is even a new term for it: “America-phobia.”

This new aggressive benign Imperialism is being called a Pax Americana, in comparison to the Roman Empire’s time of peace and security by force. An era of US power and tranquility through a Bush Jr. “might is right” doctrine, lifted from the “Reassurance” doctrine of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, is foreseen for the world. In truth America may have the might to remove Saddam Hussein. But this is mostly because, quite honestly, no one cares enough about him to seriously stop it. Again, he is a brutal dictator---not exactly the poster child for sovereignty and freedom. But what comes after Iraq? When oil is secure, what else will need to be monopolized? Who is the US going to take on next? And is the world going to sit by and watch it happen again and again? Are other countries going to be attacked and knocked down each time America finds they’ve gotten “too big for their britches?” Does the US expect China, Russia, France India and other powers to be relegated to post WWII Japan and Germany status? Are we returning to the days of an unchecked CIA that topples governments and creates “regime change” at will? But perhaps the real question is whether this Pax Americana Empire is even realistic.

The US of the 21^st century is not the power that emerged in 1945, despite all the bombastic patriotic claims. Militarily America doesn’t have the manpower or strength to police the globe. It takes months just to deploy troops in one hot spot. Where would the resources and money come to put out fires worldwide? Military expenditures would be astronomical. And the US could find itself in the same bankruptcy the Soviet Union did, and for the same reasons.

This is not the era of colonization. And even with all its firepower, other people have firepower and a host of factors that may give them victory against a US military stretched to its limits. Without a great deal of diplomacy with the rest of the world to allow bases on their soil, the bulk of America’s military forces would be trapped on the North American island-continent. The US could only resort to using its navy, missiles and long-range bombers to ensure rule. The nuclear poker chip is still deadly, but almost obsolete in the post-Cold War era. Besides, enough people have Oppenheimer’s deadly toys to not be bullied by such things.

Economically, Europe and Asia are not only major competitors but they are indispensable to the global market. When the stocks get bearish in Malaysia, its felt in NY. And if America’s economy falters and the key citizens of the burgeoning Empire aren’t satisfied, there could be trouble at home as well as abroad.

What is more, as nations around the world grow, industrialize and develop their own technology, the US role as superpower is eroded bit by bit. America in the next decade could decrease to only 1% of the global population. As a commentator noted, “One percent of humanity might be able to lead the other ninety-nine percent now and then. But it cannot rule them.”

If this coming war with Iraq, which the Bush Jr. administration calls “unavoidable,” does occur we could be looking at the birth of a true Empire---or at least an attempt. We should expect to see more of it in time to come. We should brace ourselves for the backlash of anti-American sentiment that will flourish as hatred for the Empire grows. This won’t come from just the Muslim world, but anyone who decides it doesn’t want to be an American protectorate. We should also keep an eye on the domestic front. Empires tend to become as iron-fisted at home as they are in foreign lands.

All empires share two things in common. Firstly, they are made from greed, paranoia from outside threats and a need to dominate. They forget they are part of the world but rather think they are the axis upon which the world spins. They give up on diplomacy to achieve solutions and opt for naked aggression. Secondly, they eventually fall. Once a state decides to become an Empire, it has set in motion its own collapse. It may not come today. It may not come years from today. But it will come. It’s a fact of human history that is oft repeated. The Romans didn’t see their end marching to meet them. They were too busy basking in their self-described exalted place in the world. There may be no Visigoths waiting to sweep down on us from savage Germania today, but like then power by brute force inevitably sows its own destructive destiny.

MORPHEUS- Exposin Fake Shyt

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.