Atilio A. Boron
One of the first lessons taught in any course about the U.S. political system is that wars often reverse the declining popularity of presidents. With Donald Trump’s approval rating at 45% in December 2019, the “twin deficits” (trade and fiscal) growing uncontrollably as well as public debt and threat of impeachment against him, the White House advisors and consultants probably recommended that the president resort to the traditional remedy and initiate a war (or a high impact military operation) to restore his popularity and place him in a better position to face this year’ s November elections.
This would be a plausible hypothesis to explain the immoral and bloody attack that killed Qassem Soleimani, the most important general in Iran. Washington officially reported that the operation was explicitly ordered by Trump, with the cowardice that is traditional among the occupants of the White House, fond of throwing bombs thousands of miles away from Pennsylvania Avenue and annihilating enemies or supposed terrorists from drones driven by some morally and psychologically deranged young men from some Nevada underground cave. The same media took it upon themselves to portray the victim as a heartless terrorist who deserved to die in this manner.
With this criminal attitude, the situation in the Middle East has become extraordinarily tense, to the satisfaction of the neo-Nazi regime that governs Israel, the barbaric monarchies of the Persian Gulf and the scattered thugs of the defeated – thanks to Russia – Islamic state. The perverse calculation is that in the next few days the popularity of the New York tycoon will start to rise once the US propaganda machine is set in motion to dull the conscience of the population for the umpteenth time. As mentioned above, this appeal to war has been used routinely in the history of that country. As former President James Carter pointed out last year, the United States was at war for 222 years of its 243 years of independence. This is no accident, but it is in keeping with the nefarious belief, deeply rooted after centuries of brainwashing, that the United States is the nation God has placed on earth to carry the banners of freedom, justice, democracy and human rights to the far corners of the globe. It is not a question now of making a precise count of the wars initiated to help presidents in distress, but it is worth bringing up a recent case that also involves Iraq and whose outcome was different from what was expected.
In fact, in 1990 President George H.W. Bush (Bush Sr.) was in trouble facing his re-election. Operation “Just Cause”, the name given to the criminal invasion of Panama in December 1989, had not had the desired effect because it lacked the volume, complexity and duration necessary to produce a decisive impact on public opinion. Some time later, the Washington Post headlined on its front page (October 16, 1990) that the president’s popularity was plummeting and commented that “some Republicans fear the president may feel forced to initiate hostilities to stop the erosion of his popularity”. The Democrats predictably won the November 1990 midterm elections. Bush understood the message and opted for the age-old remedy of doubling the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf without declaring war. Shortly thereafter, a statement from one of Bush’s top advisors, John Sununu, was leaked, which said, in words that fit the situation today, that “a short, successful war would be, politically speaking, gold dust for the president and would guarantee his re-election”. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait offered Bush Sr. that opportunity on a platter: to go to war to “free” little Kuwait from the yoke of its overbearing neighbour. In mid-January 1991, the White House launched Operation Desert Storm against Iraq, a country already devastated by economic sanctions and its long war with Iran, and against a ruler, Saddam Hussein, previously demonized to an extent by the lying world media oligarchy with the unforgivable complacency of the “Western democracies, and to the disgrace of Argentina the government of Carlos S. Menem joined. But, contrary to the expectations of his advisors, Bush Sr. was defeated by Bill Clinton in the November 1992 elections. And it was done with four words: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Who can say that such an outcome could not be repeated this time? This, of course, said without the slightest hope that an eventual Democratic successor to the New York satraps might be more favourable, or less dire, for the future of humanity. What we are sure of, however, is that the “international order” built by the United States and its European partners is in an advanced state of decay. Otherwise, one cannot understand the complicit silence or hypocritical condemnation, if not open celebration, of the White House allies and the “free press” in the face of a crime perpetrated against a high ranking military leader -not an unknown alleged “terrorist”- of a United Nations member country ordered by the president of the United States in open violation of international law and, even, the very Constitution and laws of the United States. A new war is on the horizon, provoked by Washington invoking the usual pretexts to cover up its insatiable imperial ambitions. The “military-industrial complex” is celebrating with champagne while the world is shaking with the tragedy that is coming.
