It now looks as if Saddam Hussein is finally gone. Many Iraqis are indeed cheering in the streets that their dictator is apparently dead. To look at the US media and announcements by the Bush administration, one would believe that everything is wonderful and a peaceful democracy in Iraq will soon be a reality.

So what's the peace movement's problem?

Many people in the peace movement predicted that Iraqis would be cheering in the streets. Our problem wasn't that we thought Saddam Hussein was a wonderful guy. The issue for us was the process used by the Bush administration and, more importantly, their intentions for removing Saddam in the first place.

The most important question now is, "What happens next?" President Bush recently remarked, "I hear a lot of talk about how we're going to impose this or that leader. Forget it." (Boston Globe, April 9, 2003, p. A1) To hear this one would think the answer to the question is thus "Self determination for the Iraqi people." Unfortunately, this thought is not based on facts as much as one would hope. There's every indication that the US will do exactly what the peace movement predicted - take control of Iraq through a puppet regime. This belief is firmly backed by our past actions toward Iraq, our short and long term plans, and the overall guiding policy of the Bush administration.

Historically, the US has never supported democracy in Iraq. The stories and events are a laundry list of broken promises and back stabbing, especially for the Kurds. Without getting into all the sordid specifics, the US government was involved in anti-democratic and, frequently, violent operations in Iraq in 1963, 1974, throughout the 1980s, supplying Saddam with money and weapons, and onward into 1990, then 1991 when we prevented the Shia and Kurds from overthrowing Saddam because we wanted a military coup and not a popular insurrection, and then throughout the 1990s when we helped destroy the Iraqi middle class through sanctions that targeted the civilian population and ultimately made Saddam stronger domestically.

There is little evidence to support the argument that our hypocritical policy has changed now.

The short term plan presented by the Bush administration is to have a US military leader of Iraq. The problem is, their choice is former US Air Force General Jay Garner. William Hartung, director of the Arms Trade Resource Center, summarized this development quite succinctly, "Nothing embodies the Bush administration's shortsightedness and moral bankruptcy more than its plan to employ . . . Garner as the head of the Pentagon's rebuilding effort for Iraq." Why morally bankrupt? Garner is likely to gain financially from the war because of his close relations with the weapons industry. He is also long time supporter of Ariel Sharon and his brutal tactics in dealing with the Palestinians. In sum, as Hartung points out, "If the Bush administration were to consciously set out to pick a person most likely to raise questions about the legitimacy of the post-war rebuilding process, they could not have selected a better man for the job than Jay Garner."

In the longer term, once Garner's term has finished, the administration has expressed its desire to eventually place into power a convicted felon, Ahmed al-Chalabi, a man who was referred to by one European newspaper as a "thug." One member of the Iraqi National Congress, the external Iraqi rebel group funded by the US to overthrow Saddam before the recent invasion, stated, "They say Saddam has 300 suits; well, this guy has 400."

This is not what "liberation" looks like.

One of the things that drives the peace movement, beyond the current plans for Iraq, is our disapproval of the Bush administration's long term plans for the world.

In 1990, years before September 11th, conservative activists and politicians began to express their view that the United States should take a different approach to global politics. Specifically, they argued that we needed to disregard international treaties and prevent any other nation or nations from gaining power, economically or militarily.

The Bush Administration adopted this global view with the release of the Nuclear Policy Review in March 2002 and their National Security Strategy in September 2002. Using the "war on terrorism" as a cover, they have accelerated this agenda of radically re-framing US foreign policy.(Note: Portions of this explanation of the new "Bush doctrine" were taken from statements issued by California Peace Action.)

The new National Security Strategy, now frequently referred to as the"Bush doctrine," denigrates the idea of international cooperation. According to the Bush Administration, we must have "American political leadership rather than the UN."(Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses, September 2000). In their view, international agreements that interfere with perceived US interests should be discarded. In the blunt words of Donald Kagan, a leading strategist of the far right, "Treaties are popular among weak nations."

In 1992 Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, issued a statement entitled "The Defense Planning Guidance," with the following explanation of US foreign policy: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival . . . We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

This overall view toward the US role in the world, as clearly spelled out by Cheney, is closely related to the often criticized protest chant, "No blood for oil." Those supporting the US invasion of Iraq have frequently dismissed this argument because we get only a small fraction of our supply from the Middle East. However, other parts of the world do get a large percentage of their oil from the region. The most noteworthy is Europe. US control of Middle Eastern oil ultimately results in increased influence and control of Europe. This fits together like a perfect jig-saw puzzle with the Bush administration's long-term policy and goals.

The Bush administration now appears to be looking for the next step in their global strategy. Will it be Iran? Syria? North Korea? All such military actions are being suggested in the cause of "expanding democracy." And yet, the history of US military actions and, more importantly, the National Security Strategy shows that Bush has other motivations.

Given this history of US actions toward Iraq, its short and long term plans, and the overall guiding policy of the Bush administration, the peace movement finds little comfort in the fact that Saddam is now gone. While his demise is certainly not mourned, we are still concerned, and with good reason, about what will happen next.

A number of religious leaders, intelligence analysts, politicians and others have predicted that, in the long term, a US invasion would result in increased hatred and terrorism against the United States. If the Bush administration continues on its hypocritical path of saying one thing to Americans while behaving the exact opposite in the Arab World, this prediction will undoubtedly come true.

The only way to create true peace and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East is to bring the United Nations back into the process. President Bush must act multilaterally, support the UN, and take steps that support the will of the Iraqi people. Ultimately, Bush must prove, not to the American public, but to the world and especially the Arabs, that this war was not about oil and world domination. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is heading in the opposite direction. This is one of the reasons that the peace movement will continue to voice its dissent.

Patrick Carkin served in US Army Intelligence (1989-1990) and was honorably discharged after refusing to carry a weapon and requesting a position as a medic. He is currently Co-Director of NH Peace Action and the owner/administrator of birddogger.org, a web site tool to assist those who challenge US politicians. He can be contacted at info@nhpeaceaction.org.

###