One index of the United States' imperial arrogance is the change in its rhetoric over the past decade. Starting with the superficially plausible explanation that the Gulf War was necessary because aggression and occupation cannot be allowed (an assertion that required a detailed knowledge of the situation's specifics to refute), it then progressed to the notion, evident in the August 1998 bombing of Sudan's biggest pharmaceutical plant and in Desert Fox, that the United States is justified in bombing countries if they have, or potentially might produce, so-called "weapons of mass destruction"  the same United States being, of course, the largest stockpiler, seller, and user of such weapons.

This clearly absurd justification has now been superseded, in this year's raids against Iraq, by the idea that aggression is justified to destroy purely defensive systems (in this case air defense) that might deter American warplanes and spy planes carrying out clearly aggressive and illegal overflights. Brazenly dismissing the traditional idea of the military's purpose, to protect the populace from external aggression, this argument could be made only by a government supremely confident that no one who matters in the world will dare to point out that the American emperor has no clothes.  It is also parallels the progression of Vietnam rhetoric, which started with the supposed need to defend democracy (as represented by dictators like Diem) in southeast Asia and ended with the idea that Vietnam must be destroyed to preserve American "credibility," a consideration whose moral bankruptcy is obvious.

The feebleness of Bush Administration propaganda, while clearly indicative of complacence and arrogance, should not, however, be taken as a sign of stupidity or cowboy-ism, as it often has by the world press.

Their plans in the Middle East are, in fact, diabolically clever, and have already met with significant, though not complete, success. Smart sanctions, the new plan for Iraq, are not intended to address civilian needs in Iraq, and are only minimally intended to keep Iraq from rearming. Their primary purpose is to further militarize and extend U.S. control of the region, in part by attempting, in a small way, to rebuild the Gulf War coalition.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a perfect opportunity for the United States to increase its control in multiple ways  get the Arab states on its side, subordinate OPEC, institute a permanent land-based military presence with the excuse of the need to contain Iraq, and so isolate the Palestinians that they saw little choice but to enter into a "peace process" that was really an orderly, phased capitulation to Israel.

Ten years later, OPEC has reasserted itself, the Palestinian struggle has had a resurgence, helping to forge unity among Arab states, and the world is tired of killing Iraqi children. The U.S. response has been twofold. One side is the good-cop approach of smart sanctions, sold as allowing Iraqis to get consumer goods, but involving extensive land monitoring on all of Iraq's borders, with presumably heavy U.S. military participation. The bad-cop approach is support for a coup in Iraq, which is militarily and geopolitically untenable but offers a useful threat to make the relevant actors get on board with smart sanctions.

The renewed hypertrophy of the U.S. military budget, the attempt to revive a nuclear first strike capability through the National Missile Defense program, the recrudescence of Vietnam-era counterinsurgency as in Plan Colombia (which ought perhaps now to be called Plan South America), and the increased military control of the Middle East all point to the same thing  the United States is by far the most serious military threat to the world. The damage Iraq could do if free is nothing compared to the damage the United States is doing and will do if this unilateral reign of terror is not ended.