Bush Does Iraq: Anatomy of a Failed Operation

[babylonsister]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Jayne20.htm


“I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.”

-- George Bush, NBC’s Meet the Press, February 8, 2004

“Bring ‘em on.”

-- George Bush, July 2, 2003


In retrospect the Iraq invasion was a remarkable plan, a bold strategy to sustain U.S. hegemonic dominance worldwide for at least the next several decades. By subjugating Iraq as a client state, the Bush administration could prolong America’s singular role into the indefinite future. As Arnold Toynbee’s theory of history explains, the present epochal “challenge” posed by our nation’s unprecedented national debt as well the loss of industries from outsourcing employment to China, Mexico, and elsewhere would have been remedied by the simple expedient of capturing and harnessing Iraq’s extraordinary natural resources that have almost begged to be exploited in this fashion. Just as South American gold enriched Spain’s economy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and just as India’s treasures subsidized the inception of England’s industrial revolution during the late eighteenth century, so too could the capture of Iraq help our nation to consolidate its unique destiny at the pinnacle of modern civilization going into the twenty-first century.

For unlike Vietnam, which possessed little to exploit and few dominos to be kept from toppling, Iraq occupies the heart of the Near East, the very cradle of civilization, and its triangular parcel of territory contains enormous untapped oil reserves, perhaps the largest in the world. Of all underdeveloped nations from Albania to Zanzibar, Iraq is potentially the most lucrative prize for whatever superpower possesses the imperialist chutzpah to capture and take control of its oil and water resources as well as its pivotal location in the region. And who better than the U.S.? Our nation’s earlier policies in Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq itself might have borne difficult consequences, but the direct invasion of Iraq would seem what might be described as a slam dunk. Relative to the modest cost and effort required, a cornucopia of untold benefits would accrue to our nation for many years to come. Or so it seemed.

If there were no justification to invade Iraq, an excuse would need to have been have found. And this, it seems, is exactly what has happened, for there was too much at stake. The ample benefits to be gained from invading Iraq can be listed here with relative brevity:

1.

First and perhaps least, the cumbersome economic embargo on Iraq for the previous decade could finally be brought to a close.

2.

The huge oil reserves that had already been promised by Saddam Hussein to sixty foreign oil corporations could be diverted to U.S. oil corporations, whose substantial profits would produce trickle-down benefits to the rest of our economy starting with Texas.

3.

The threat posed by Hussein to create a Middle Eastern bourse whereby the currency for oil transactions would be shifted from the dollar alone to include the Euro and other currencies could be eliminated, protecting the value of the dollar as well as the health of the U.S. economy dependent on its strength. Moreover, with the elimination of this threat in Iraq, its likelihood elsewhere, for example in Iran or Venezuela, could be discouraged, if not almost completely prevented.

more...

[acmavm]

1. Have to finish this later but it seems to be one of the most lucid and

rational (if that word applies) explanation of what motiviated bush** and the neocons to invade Iraq.

I know there have been other articles that have laid out the reasons for Shock and Awe, but this one is really good.

[Botany]

2. Great Article

"Approximately 100 Iraqi have been killed per day since January 2006, according to a UN estimate, some in combat with U.S. troops, but most in internecine conflict among various factions. "

[Jack Rabbit]

3. K & R

!!

[cliss]

4. really good article.

Thanks for posting. This article comes about as close as anything I've read, that's actually more or less out in the mainstream.

This is all true. The US did not have any benevolent reasons for going in there....except maybe benevolence towards Halliburton et al.

But there were actually more reasons for going in there. One of the best souces of he accurate truth:

http://www.stangoff.com/

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks for those links. nt

[Demeter]

5. Add To the Indictment Bill

Prima Facie evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Also stupidity. I know stupidity isn't a crime, but in honor of the PNACers, I propose that we make it one, retroactively!

[teryang]

7. Colonialism by conquest never had a chance

Don't think there was any way to avoid the insurgency. The basic mistake was the invasion itself. Can you label a deliberate war crime a mistake? This is moral wrong above all which affects how the invaders are perceived. Did the US ruling class expect Iraqis to be acquiescent to an unjustified invasion and occupation, after a prior military defeat inflicted by the same party, followed by draconian sanctions for a dozen years?

Colonialism by conquest has gone the way of the horse and buggy. But I guess while oil flows into US coffers and some American corporations profit, the plutocrats and the neo-brutalists that govern our affairs can argue it's a success of sorts. After all, it's kept them in power thus far and that's the point, the only point.

No intelligent or culturally sensitive management of conquest and imperial rule would have made it more palatable. I also don't understand the point of pretending that a more sensitive or intelligent occupation was possible, other than one leaving the status quo ante intact with a rapid pullout. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the US military would know that it isn't.

The fact that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bremer and others attempted this (as an economic policy) shows them to be monsters. Can this be described as a "tragic role?" The role was undertaken with relish. These people, along with bush, and the torture enablers are war criminals.

The reference to jiujitsu is actually misapplied, we are the victims of the application of intelligent martial arts. We are wasting our treasure, have lost ALL of our international prestige, have accelerated our decline, and there isn't going to be a soft landing.

The original invasion never succeeded in subduing the population of Iraq. The media presentation of "mission accomplished" was delusional propaganda at from the outset, beginning at the very point where Saddam's statue was toppled in Baghdad by pro-Chalabi emigres rather than Iraqis. There were people in video clips taken at the same time cursing and giving GIs the figurative finger.

The author implies (IMHO) that a kind of strategic colonialism was planned to be the solution for the export of our manufacturing prowess and energy crisis. His acknowledgement of the big picture from Kevin Phillips and other historians strengthens his analysis which is otherwise too eclectic and apologetic. It is Phillips notion that improvident war accelerates rather than mitigates such decline.

This wasn't a tragedy, it was and continues to be a war crime. We are led by war criminals, not tragic figures. The mincing of words concerning the "need for torture" and implying that it may have some utility in conflict is really appalling.