US internal politics are fuelling the appetite for war against Iraq

WHILE Ireland's brave political visionaries have been busy crusading against our very own "axis of evil" the FAI and Sky Sports the US government has begun to step up plans for an attack upon its favourite foe, Iraq.

Even as the beat of war drums in Washington and London grows louder, however, the tortuous procrastination of the Bush administration has been as fascinating to observe as its obvious thirst for war. If, and when, the invasion of Iraq does commence January of next year is now being touted as the most likely date it will surely be one of the most long-heralded and openly premeditated military assaults in recent history.

Almost six months have elapsed since George Bush's state-of-the union address in which he pointed the finger directly at three countries Iraq, North Korea and Iran and accused them of amassing weapons of mass destruction and forming an axis of evil.

"I will not wait on events while dangers gather," he declared, "I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer." A rapturous Economist crowed: "America has a cause it must pursue overseas. Limited engagement is not an option. And in taking on that burden President Bush, like President Reagan before him, is a man of instincts, who favours straightforward yardsticks to guide him."

Bush has continued to insist ever since that a change of leadership in Baghdad remains a key objective, yet he hardly seems any closer to settling upon an agreed course of action to bring this about. His administration has divided internally between the proponents of three different strategies for removing Saddam Hussein: providing logistical and intelligence help to his enemies in the hope of inciting a mutiny within his military circle; providing air and limited ground support for an assault by opposition groups; or an outright invasion. Unfortunately for Bush, no "straightforward yardsticks" have emerged.

In recent weeks, the portends of war have become more frequent and ominous. Tony Blair has reportedly been invited to travel to Camp David in the autumn to meet President Bush and discuss plans for war. The second most senior figure in the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, is visiting Turkey this week to discuss strategy. On July 5, the New York Times reported the existence of a five-inch thick dossier detailing plans for an invasion of Iraq involving 250,000 men. The leaked document outlined a plan for air, land and sea-based forces to attack Iraq from three directions the north, the south and west in a campaign to topple Saddam. Britain's Ministry of Defence announced that crack British troops are to be specially trained in anticipation of possible attacks on Iraq.

Yet the New York Times added that nothing in the leaked military planning document "or in interviews with senior military officials suggests that an attack on Iraq is imminent", and pointed out that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had not even been briefed on the plan yet.

Just to cloud matters further, USA Today reported a further leak last Thursday, in which anonymous State Department and Pentagon officials suggested an American military assault would not be politically plausible without a further act of provocation from Saddam Hussein, such as invading a neighbouring country, re-commencing attacks upon Shi'a Muslims or Kurdish minorities or producing a nuclear weapon. "There has to be a defining moment," said one State Department official, "which is a recognised international offence in order to justify an attack under the [United Nations] Charter." This contradicts claims made by senior members of the Bush administration including Rumsfeld over the past year that they already have all the justification they need for an attack or invasion.

Ultimately, there is no doubt that the US, aided by Britain, will launch a Gulf War Mark II operation of some description within the next year. As an Observer leader noted on Sunday: "It is difficult to imagine President Bush credibly running for re-election in two years time without before having tried to take Saddam out, whatever the risks." Left-wingers like John Pilger still entertain the fantasy that it is the desire to control oil supplies that drives US interest in Iraq. But in truth it is domestic political considerations that are fuelling the appetite for war.

It is no coincidence that the recent uproar over corporate shenanigans in the United States, increasingly engulfing the Bush administration itself, has come at a time of flagging interest in, and enthusiasm for, the war on terrorism. In the aftermath of September 11, Bush's business record at Harken Energy would hardly have registered a blip on the political radar he was virtually immune to domestic political criticism but the changing mood was summed up by a recent New York Times column in which Maureen Dowd took the president to task: "How can Bush lecture companies on setting a moral tone, getting tough on accounting practices and ending 'malfeeance', as he calls it, when there are pesky questions about his own windfall at Harken Energy?"

However, Bush's desperate need to sustain the war on terrorism runs deeper than merely the immediate desire to distract attention from corporate scandals and plummeting stock markets for his administration, ultimately, has no other sense of purpose. It has no discernible domestic agenda other than to fuel public fears and capitalise upon this climate with repressive measures to curb individual freedoms.

In his state-of-the-union speech in January, Bush focused mostly upon foreign affairs, and his effort to re-cast American foreign policy as a straightforward moral imperative a struggle of good versus evil. But when it came to domestic policy proposals, he had nothing more inspiring to offer than a new national-service organisation called USA Freedom Corp to encourage citizens to give up two years for voluntary service. He argued that the best way to boost the economy was to restore consumer confidence by winning the war against terror. Thus, domestic and foreign policies all hinge upon a war with no apparent end, against an indiscernible enemy.

But with less known about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden now than at the start of the war, with hardly a single al-Qaida leader of importance caught, with the bombing or rocks, empty caves and Afghan wedding parties no longer capturing the imaginations of domestic audiences and with the aims and purposes of this bizarre war becoming no more clear as time goes on, the war on terror desperately needs a new focus. Who could fit the bill better than Saddam Hussein, the ultimate tin pot Third World rogue dictator? For over a decade, Iraq has been a regular punch bag for US leaders anxious to flex their muscles on the international stage or distract attention from domestic problems.

The difficulty for the Bush administration, and hence all the procrastination, is that there is a limit to the number of times you can keep picking upon a particular country before world opinion increasingly begins to question what is being achieved by it all. And the justifications being forwarded for yet another assault upon this wretched nation are threadbare. Not one credible piece of evidence has been found linking Iraq to September 11. According to the CIA, there is no evidence of Iraqi involvement in terrorist operations against the US "in nearly a decade". Earlier this year, Tony Blair promised to publish a "damning dossier" detailing Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities and terrorist links. It never materialised.

This will not deter Bush and Blair from going to war, of course. But by choosing to beat up on Iraq yet again, they risk no longer being admired as tough guys but despised as thugs.