What are the economic stakes in this conflict? Diamonds and gold are abundant in Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone. Does the current US administration have allies or campaign donors who have an interest in Liberian diamonds and gold? Yes, none other than Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition. Greg Palast reported in a recent C-Span interview that Pat Robertson is rarely seen praying off camera. However, he notes one exception. During a trip to Liberia, he told one group, before journeying to one of his mines, Lets pray for diamonds. Robertsons ties to the Bush administration and his interest in Liberian diamonds and gold have been well documented. So the question arises: What role has the Christian Coalition played in the Bush decision to send troops to Liberia at this time? Is the current instability in Liberia jeopardizing the Christian Coalitions diamond holdings? Does the instability threaten a major Bush campaign funding source?

Whatever the proximate causes of the US move to send troops to Liberia, the event must be seen as part of the overall strategy, the so called Plan for an American Century, according to which the US seeks total world dominance.

Comparison with first and second century Rome sheds light on the current US strategy. By 200 B.C. Republican Rome had defeated, though not completely destroyed its primary enemy, Carthage (as the US has apparently subdued Russia). Nothing stood in its way. Greece was still independent, though Romans began intervention there to prevent other less democratic powers—Macedonia and Syria—in their attempts to gain control over eastern Europe. The ideological conquests were as significant as the military ones. Under the consul Flamininus, Greece was granted its liberty, as Rome drove out all would be undemocratic conquerors. Rome was hailed amongst the Greek City states as a nation which unselfishly crossed seas in order to free others. That was the public message, given out by the liberators and the liberated.

But when Romans spoke to Romans, what was the message? One can see a great resemblance in the following speech, given to Roman soldiers by Porcius Cato, to some of Wolfowitzs behind closed door presentations:

You are not simply fighting for the independence of Greece, though that would be a fine enterprise. After [defeating Macedonia] you will open up to Roman domination Asia, Syria, and all the wealthy kingdoms stretching as far as the rising sun. How far then will we be from having our Empire stretch from [Portugal] to the Red Sea, limited only by the Ocean that embraces the world? How far from having the entire human race revere the Roman name only after the Gods?

This speech was given at a time when Rome was still a representative Republic, and far from dominating the whole of the known Western World, well before the rise of the Imperial Caesars.

So when the question arises—Why Liberia, and why now?—we will be given all sorts of phony replies: We have an historical relationship with Liberia, because it was founded by former US slaves; terrorists are involved in the Liberian diamond trade; the US has a humanitarian duty to keep the peace in an unstable West Africa; Charles Taylor is a bad man, just like Saddam Hussein.

Will journalists point out that when Liberia was founded, former US slaves were sent to conquer the surrounding peoples, and create an elite class of Americo-Liberians, which has governed the nation until the present day? Will they point out that the ethnic strife in Liberia is a direct result of Western meddling? Will US journalists point to a terrorist connection with the diamond trade, while neglecting to examine the role of the Christian Coalition in that same trade? Will a phony humanitarianism be put on the table as a just reason for intervening, while all geo-strategic, military, and financial motivations are ignored? And finally, will Charles Taylor be demonized, in spite of the fact that he won the last election with 75% of the vote, in what are regarded to have been free and fair elections?