America goes to war: A long history of White House lies

By Alan Bradshaw

Once again a president has shown just how easy it is to get backing for a foreign invasion by a campaign of falsehoods and evasions. In the many U.S. invasions throughout history few if any presidents gave the real reason for them. The cover story was accepted by Congress, and much of the public, in every case.

These ruses for war include: protecting Americans on foreign soil; for the security of the country; stopping aggression; and other plausible-sounding reasons. In many cases outright lies were given. If the action was covert, the president denied involvement.

A few of the many military actions will serve as examples.

In 1846, President Polk asked Congress to declare war against Mexico. He falsely claimed that it had invaded U.S. territory and shed blood. This account was based on a minor skirmish on Mexican soil, but Congress accepted the story and declared war.

Some citizens, including Congressman Abraham Lincoln, said at the time that it was merely an excuse to obtain territory. But most people didn¹t care since it added California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico to the Union.

n 1898, President McKinley blamed Spain for the explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana, Cuba. A Spanish inquiry board said it was an internal explosion and offered to submit the case to an international board.

Congress responded by declaring war against Spain, and the U.S. acquired Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and, for all practical purposes, Cuba. (In 1976, Admiral Rickover examined the evidence and concluded that it was an internal explosion that sunk the Maine.)

In 1918 during World War I, President Wilson sent troops into Siberia in a major confrontation with the new Soviet government. He said it was to stop supplies from getting to the Germans, a story which has been called a pretext by most historians. The real reason was to help the reactionary forces overthrow the Soviets. The troops stayed there until June, 1919, when public opinion forced Wilson to withdraw them.

After World War II, the world was open to U.S. corporations as other countries were forced to give up their colonies. The corporations wanted friendly governments in those former colonies so they could invest safely, employ cheap labor, control their minerals and sell corporate products.

To achieve this the U.S. sent in troops, backed military dictatorships, used the CIA for covert actions and established military bases in over 50 countries around the world.

Later U.S. presidents were also not above lying. Truman, without any evidence, insisted that the Soviet Union directed the Korean War. Such books as ³The Hidden History of the Korean War² detail the many distortions orchestrated by his administration.

Eisenhower denied U.S. spy planes were flying over the Soviet Union at just the time they shot down a U-2 well inside their territory.

Johnson lied to Congress about the Tonkin Gulf incident, which gave him a free hand in escalating the Vietnam war. He also invaded the Dominican Republic to help a military government and covered it with a story about the safety of Americans there.

Nixon was known as Tricky Dick. He conducted secret bombing raids on Laos and Cambodia to defeat progressive governments and in the process killed many thousands. In his book, “The Trial of Henry Kissinger,” Christopher Hitchens details the many falsehoods of the Nixon administration.

Of course, Reagan stretched the truth a number of times, including with false intelligence reports that the Soviet Union was giving Nicaragua chemical weapons and that a boatload of MIG fighters was on the way.

In a final example, the elder Bush, through his Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, said that they had secret satellite photos showing Iraqi troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. A Florida newspaper showed photos, including one from a Russian satellite, that showed the opposite.

The photos claiming to show the Iraqi troops were never produced, nor could they be because the Iraqi troops were never there. No matter. It was enough to get U.S.  troops into Saudi Arabia.

Today, the U.S. ruling class has good material reasons for wanting a subservient regime in Iraq. U.S. energy companies would not be happy to see Russia, China, France and other rival countries gain even greater access to the oil fields there.

A recent AP news article says that “Russian oil companies are helping rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure and are positioned to reap significant benefits in the future.”

Iraq¹s oil reserves are second only to the Saudi Arabia¹s in size. In the quest for control of the world¹s natural resources, especially oil, they are a great prize. Control of Iraq would help secure control of the oil in the ³stan² countries of the former Soviet Union, which now have U.S. military bases. It would protect the projected oil and gas pipeline from those countries.

A war on Iraq shouldn¹t cost over $50 billion, according to a Newsweek columnist. An administration official said that it would even help the U.S. economy. In addition, Iraq poses a threat to Israel, which gets billions from the U.S. for its military. A recent defense secretary said that it was necessary to “project power into regions important to our interests.”

From their viewpoint invasion is a winning deal, and for many observers a sure bet.

To gain support for an invasion the administration has painted Saddam Hussein as an uncommon evil dictator taking irresponsible actions.

But the record shows that Iraq has been acting no differently from other countries in advancing its interests in a competitive world. Iraq no doubt wants nuclear weapons as both Israel and Pakistan have them, and other potential enemies such as Iran may be working to get them. There has been no outcry from the U.S. against these countries. The U.S. even had encouraged the former apartheid government of South Africa to develop nuclear weapons. Nor have the Bushies put forth any credible evidence that Iraq has been working to get the bomb over the past 10 years, or that they could get the materials for it even if they tried.

As to Saddam Hussein¹s brutal attacks on the Kurds, other countries have taken drastic measures against separatists, including Russia, China, Turkey, Indonesia and Burma.

Iraq is a dictatorship, but Bush wines and dines leaders from authoritarian and nondemocratic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and supports many others. Iraq has ignored the UN, but Israel, Morocco, Indonesia and others have defied UN resolutions and were supported by the U.S.

The point is, then, that the claim that Iraq is a unique evil doer doesn¹t fit the facts. Its ruling class pursues its material interests regardless of the human cost, but so do others.

Of course, a sane world would not allow invasions, massacres, the loss of civil liberties, land mines, and would outlaw nuclear weapons. It would work for democracy everywhere, including Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It would work toward eliminating borders, along with improving living conditions for all.

The ordinary people of Iraq, our fellow human beings, don¹t deserve being punished. Iraq, once the most modern and prosperous Arab nation, now has been bombed and sanctioned back to a more primitive time. Hundreds of thousands have died, many of them children.

Even if we accept Bush¹s rhetoric at face value, an invasion would be morally wrong. It can only mean more misery for the people of Iraq and less security for everyone.

An invasion will, however, give U.S. corporations more of a monopoly over oil, give the U.S. military control over still another country, and help the U.S. keep control of the world financial system with a stronger dollar backed by billions in oil revenue. But it will not bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East.

History indicates that barbarism can come from the ruling class of any “civilized” country. Britain, France, Germany, Japan and the U.S. have all been guilty of committing atrocities during the last century. The system breeds war and violence.

Only the working class can bring about a better one. We need to form revolutionary union