I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I brought your attention to an
organization that celebrates the American empire created in 1898-
1899, which happens to include among its members and frequent
guests Colin Powell, Richard Myers, and others in top positions in all
branches of the military and many civilian positions in the
government.  It is not a conspiracy. It is an organization that the
Defense Dept. recognizes.  This is how your government's leaders
and your military's leaders behave.  While you may not celebrate
imperialism, they do.  They are no doubt very happy that you have
little knowledge of the organization.  Since being reprimanded by
Woodrow Wilson in 1913, they have avoided the press.

But they are clearly a problem.  In the same month that a series of
articles about this group singing the "Damn, damn, damn the
Filipinos" song were published earlier this year, the United States was
trying to send troops to the Philippines to fight against a Muslim group
there.  If you were a Filipino, and you knew that the officers of the
military coming to fight in your country meets each year to sing that
"Civilize 'em with a Krag" song and others from an imperial war in
which as many as one million Filipinos died, would you think of them
as friendly assistants in a war on terrorism or as racist brutes?

As it turned out, the planned deployment of U.S. troops became so
controversial in the Philippines that the peace process with the
Muslim Filipinos broke down, the civil war widened, there were calls
for the resignation of the Philippine president, and the military
exercises involving U.S. troops were cancelled.  Most of that reaction
was the result of the Bush administration's war rhetoric leading up to
the invasion of Iraq, but at least two articles about the organization
were published in the Philippine Inquirer during the debate, and it
became a hot topic in Filipinos' blogs, email lists and news groups.

I disagree that it appears that the U.S. intends to "liberate" Iraq.
Bechtel Corp. was just given a $680 million contract for work to be
done there, and many other U.S. corporations are going to be given
big, multi-decade contracts that will have to be paid by Iraq's future
government.  Bechtel is the same Corporation that Rumsfeld was
lobbying for when he went to Iraq in 1983 as a special envoy of the
Reagan administration (see http://www.ips-
dc.org/crudevision/crude_vision.pdf).  Bechtel didn't get into Iraq until
the U.S. overthrew its government and assumed control of divvying up
the spoils of conquest.  Maybe you think that's a coincidence.  I don't.

Most U.S. criticism of that contract has highlighted the fact that
Bechtel has close ties to the Republican administration, making it look
too much like spoils.  My criticism is more in line with that expressed
by Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi, who protested that
"No one has the right to commit Iraq to obligations and costs. Only an
Iraqi government can do that" (see:
http://maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=2508).  But the United
States has stated that only it and Britain can make decisions about
the rebuilding of Iraq, with Colin Powell explicitely stating that that
right is based on the "blood and treasure" the coalition spent in the
war -- in other words, he is asserting a right of conquest to control
Iraq's future.  You say the administration wants to liberate Iraq, but
everything the administration is doing, and much of what it is saying,
leads me to believe otherwise.

The next time you hear someone in the Bush administration talk of a
government of, by and for Iraqis, listen for the inevitable "but" and the
conditions that come after it.  As soon as you hear that "but" you will
know that the United States has no intention of liberating Iraq.  The
"but" and what comes after it will be the modern equivalent of the Platt
Amendment.


Jim Zwick