The neocons in Iraq: one of the worst blunders in human history

[Jack Rabbit]

Originally posted in a response to a thread started by Armstead.

The neoconservative invasion of Iraq is one of the worst strategic blunders in human history.

Napoleon's invasion of Russia was wise and brilliant compared to this. In fact, it makes the US in the Vietnam War look noble.

That it was to be a long-term disaster was obvious from the start. Neoconservative designs on Iraq were long term and had nothing to do with Saddam, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people. The design was colonial; post-Saddam Iraq was initially governed by that great Iraqi statesman, Jerry Bremer, playing the role of a legendary lawgiver and decreeing Iraq's economy open for private foreign investment. The neoliberal paradigm that is rejected by voters in Latin America was imposed on the people of Iraq by force of arms. The only way that paradigm could be maintained is by continued foreign occupation. Bush would have to keep US troops there indefinitely in order for his corporate crony pigs to continue feed at Iraq's trough. Whether Iraq would be governed by an American governor general or by native puppets made little difference; the military-economic structure of neoconservative Iraq would look like the British Raj in India. Occupation was the real goal and there could be no exit strategy.

As for the civil war in Iraq, it would be wrong to blame Bush and the neoconservatives for it directly. If Saddam had died quietly in bed in March 2003 there would have been a civil war in Iraq. It wouldn't have played out quite the same way, but it would have happened. What is fair is holding Bush and his aides accountable for dismissing the idea that this was any sort of possibility and being completely unprepared for it.

The invasion of Iraq has set that back years the goal, even if the merely stated goal, of making the US and its "interests" safe from terrorism. Prior to the invasion, Zarqawi was in Iraq, but had difficulty setting off firecrackers. After the invasion, he was allied with al Qaida and setting off IEDs. Prior to the invasion, there were no active international terrorists in Iraq; what presence there is of international terrorists in Iraq has come about since the invasion. After all, international terrorists like lawless, chaotic environments, like Lebanon in the 1980s, Afghanistan in the 1990s and Iraq today. There's no one there to stop them from training future terrorists or operate in relative freedom.

Meanwhile, resources were diverted from Afghanistan that were used there to fight real terrorists who posed an immediate and real threat to the American people. Instead of rebuilding Afghanistan into a reasonably modern state that would be stable and prosperous enough to keep al Qaida from operating within its borders, there is now open talk of bringing al Qaida's old allies, the Taliban, back into the government.

Often, officials of the Bush regime or demagogues like Newt Gingrich remind Americans that we could see another September 11 and give that as a reason to keep neoconservatives in power. I, too, am fearful of another September 11; to me, that is a reason why Bush and Cheney should be removed from office as soon as possible and neoconservatism buried with a stake through its heart. Bush and his neoconservative aides are incompetent, deceitful, cynical, tyrannical, elitist, megalomaniacal and inept. They are a danger to Americans and to all people.

[lyonn]

1. Good essay Jack

You have set-out what seems obvious as to why we invaded Iraq. It is so clear that the "liberation" of Iraq was far from their goals. Neo-cons wanted control of the country, then on to others in the ME. That is the only explanation for how things could have gone sooo poorly in Iraq once it was invaded.

How do these loonies (bush, rummy, cheney) still retain any credibility with the masses and the press?

[AlinPA]

2. I have always believed that the reason for invading Iraq was to make Bush**

appear as a "wartime president" and to rally 'murcans to vote for him in '94. The whole thing was for US politics and "patriotism" orchestrated by Karl Rove. He totally controls the White House. Cheney was the one who made it happen, carrying out Rove's plan. Now it is hard to get out because Halliburton and the other companies have tasted the high profits, taken over and won't permit the White House to quit.

[ljm2002]

3. Great post!

One correction, if you still have time to edit: you say, "After all, international like lawless, chaotic environments, "

You probably meant to say something like "After all, international criminals like lawless, chaotic environments, "

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Thank you

Those familiar with my post probably are aware that I'm a lousy proofreader.

[greenman3610]

5. The PNAC document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses",

made it clear that Iraq was critical to their plan, with or without Saddam.


"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm#III

[Jack Rabbit]

6. I've read it

One or two of it's higher level strategic ideas make some sense, but the entire work is predicated on the justification of colonialism and the need for an indefinite supply of petroleum.

President Bush -- the one who actually won an election -- said, "the American way of life is nonegotiable." My response, for which I make no apologies to neoconservatives or their right wing minions -- is that if we need to go to war in order to get the fuel that
sustains the American way of life, then it is negotiable.

[Peace Patriot]

7. You make a very good point--that the likely reason there was no exit plan is

that there was no exit contemplated. It was pure imperialism and colonialism from the start, on the part of the NeoCons--but completely lacking in the British skill (which so often reminds me of the Romans) of successfully occupying a country, so that once the initial carnage is over, the country is fairly well-run, local people are successfully involved in running it, and most people are relatively content. The British had a complete foreign service that was devoted to this task--and people were well-trained for it, in local culture and languages. They were very knowledgeable people, and often had great interest in local culture. I'm not excusing British imperialism. I'm just saying that it was very successful for a time, with a minimum of chaos, very similar to the Roman "Pax Romana."

Contrast this with the Bushites who sent young Republicans to run Iraq, and screened OUT speakers of the language because they were too sympathetic to the local culture, and didn't like having to sieg heil to Bush! I mean, it's just disgusting. And so stupid as to be beyond belief. It also suggests a fundamental disrespect toward other human beings and cultures--which must surely have struck the Iraqis, when chubby-faced young Bush worshipers told them how to run their country, in a culture that is about 5,000 years older than ours. The British--for all their faults--were not nearly as snotty as young Bushites. Many of them were genuinely interested in understanding the people they were colonizing. We have no such foreign service. We don't even require Spanish in our schools in California and Texas, where half the population is Hispanic. American multi-linguists are rare--and are usually the result of immigrants learning English in addition to their native tongue. It is not cultivated in our schools. We almost have a horror of it (for various reasons--partly the old American belief in avoiding "foreign entanglements"). And we have no such capacity (as the British) to occupy other countries. They had an entire professional class specifically trained for that purpose.

But this dunderheaded incompetence may point to the deeper motive--or perhaps a split motive. You have the war profiteers like Halliburton and Bechtel, and all the manufacturers of war materials, just in it for the quick multi-billion dollar theft. The longer the bloodshed continues, the more multi-billion thefts they can pull off, by pretending to be fixing things, and by supplying and re-supplying US soldiers with war materials and supportive goods--giving these corporations quite a lot of motive, too, to stir up trouble with their own private death squads. And you have the NeoCons, with imperial designs, combined with the oil cartel and their designs on the resource; and, behind all these you have a far rightwing political ideology that insanely combines 'christian' values with corporate greed. None of these forces has any interest in the stability of Iraq, only in exploiting the Iraqis, looting the US federal treasury, exploiting war themes back home, and exploiting the chaos that the invasion created. As Rumsfeld said of the looting of Baghdad, freedom = the freedom to loot. In the contest between NeoCon ideology and corporate war profiteer looting, corporate war profiteer looting won. The incompetent NeoCon ideologues could never had run a country anyway. What did Halliburton, or Bechtel, or Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheney care about that? Everybody was making money hand over fist. (Freedom = the freedom to loot.)

So I think, on the whole, it was a long term looting expedition, rather than a long term imperial project. The reason for the lack of an exit plan was not so much the imperial intention as it was the lack of relevance of an exit plan to the looting. They would loot until the well ran dry, then they would exit. If this cost some American lives, what did they care? US soldiers are now the cannon fodder for wars that are manufactured by war profiteers, for war profiteers. In other words, the NeoCons' ideology and imperial intentions were just a sort of policy showpiece. Yeah, this or that is why we're "going in." WMDs. Democracy. Whatever. Gimme that no-bid contract!

Some of the NeoCons might have believed that their nuttery was actually driving policy, and had their own crazy beliefs about its chances of success. And there might be considerable cross-over of groups and motives around this war (NeoCons, or rightwing 'christian' billionaires, or the corporate news monopolies--which I haven't yet mentioned, a big factor in the delusions of war-- with heavy investments in the war corporations). But, for the sake of argument, I'm thinking of them as distinct forces for war, with different main purposes for war. At the center of it all was a really stupid, uninformed President, whose main skill is swagger, and who couldn't even speak his pre-written lines very well. I think of him as a puppet, easily manipulated by more intelligent people--easily conned by the NeoCons, without power or conscience to stop his own VP from looting the government, giggly with glee at Rumsfeld's, Cheney's and Rove's foulest schemes, and neither having, nor seeking, control over the whole situation. Somewhere in his dark little soul, he knows it's all a con. But he can't be bothered with the details. It's as much as he can do to play president.

Imagine an Eisenhower or a Churchill running this war--or an intelligent, well-intentioned president like JFK or Jimmy Carter, or Clinton. Can you imagine any of them putting up with the Cheney/Halliburton situation? Cheney would have been out on his ear in a week. Or Rumsfeld, in his arrogant refusal to the listen to the advice of his own generals? Out! Or the Cheney, Libby and (I think) Rumsfeld (as mastermind) cabal that outed Valerie Plame and the entire WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed? All three would have been lucky to keep their heads on their shoulders, under the command of any of the above (or almost any president). Same with the NeoCons. Real presidents don't listen to ideologues, or, if they do, they sure as hell get a wide range of additional advice.

So Bush was easy ground for the war profiteers to plow--or anybody with their own motives, ideological, political, religious, financial. Cheney and Rumsfeld held the keys to the lucrative contracts. I don't think they were ever fooled by the NeoCons. I really don't. They are master thieves, and the immense amounts of money they now have, and the immense amounts of money they doled out, give them immense FUTURE power. I don't think they care what happens to this country--at all. They are global corporate predators, and have never considered this country to be anything other than a big bank to rob. The Great Crusade--the "clash of civilizations"--preserving western culture against the new medieval Islam? B.S. for the 'christian' right. I don't think they care a whit about western civilization, or even know what it is. (Freedom = the freedom to loot.) Immense amounts of money and the immense amount of power it gives them is all they were after. And they is all they are left with. They didn't even want an "empire"--or they would have been more careful builders of it. They did NOTHING to create an "empire"--except slaughter a lot of people, and inflict their own country with a $10 TRILLION deficit (the part we know about). What have they built? What do they have to show for all this expenditure of life and treasure? NOTHING! But they do have vast treasure built up in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, I'm sure--and a network of global corporate predators that owe them, big time.

So we are kind of shadow-boxing when we argue with NeoCon ideology or imperialism, or with rightwing 'christian' hypocrisy, or with "conservatism." None of that is on-point. All of it is more or less window dressing. Think about it. Conservatism--small government, fiscal responsibility, reverence for the Constitution, opposition to "foreign entanglements, " dislike of sudden change and of radical ideologies. They've turned conservatism on its head. 'Christian values'? The same. Christianity is unrecognizable in the Bush Junta's hands (except as a throwback to the 5th Century.) American hegemony in the world? The New Roman Empire? They couldn't even provide clean water in Iraq. And America's good name and moral power are gone, and the US military is a wreck. And think of the horror and spectacle of Katrina. Was that the legend of a great empire?

Bush strikes me as an empty man, who is moved mostly by crude, self-serving images--like the image of himself as "a war president." And around this emptiness circled the jackals, each of them getting what they wanted, which, for the chief monsters of this catastrophe was mountains and mountains of easy money, out of our pockets into their foreign accounts. We have been turned into the biggest "Banana Republic" of them all.

[Scurrilous]

8. K & R

Great post. :thumbsup: