The Bush Administration's rationale for starting a preemptive war, or in other words a war of aggression, in Iraq is absurd. Going to war to spread freedom and democracy is about as justifiable as the Nazi slogan, Arbeit Macht Frei. They must have studied their Orwell very carefully because they have been trying to convince us that War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Black is White, Up is Down etc. The end justifies the means. We have to gut the Constitution in order to save it. We have to limit freedom in America in order to save it from being limited by terrorists. Torture is justified. Wiretapping is justified. Stripping the Constitution of Habeas Corpus is justified all in the name of saving and protecting freedom and democracy. And it's been well documented that they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They manufactured and doctored intelligence, and then convinced the American people and a lot of others that a preemptive war was justified. So why exactly did they want to go to war with Iraq; what was their goal; what does victory mean in their terms?
The fact is that the Bush Administration is actually winning the war in Iraq when winning is defined in terms of their own goal which is the permanent occupation of Iraq, basing huge military assets there on mega-bases which they are building and which are nearing completion (the only projects in Iraq which are on schedule) and extracting wealth in terms of oil, banking and other assets. In other words the twenty-first century equivalent of colonialism. Not your grandfather's colonialism to be sure. But the Bush Administration can't be honest with you about their final goal for Iraq so they've had to make up a series of elaborate charades which they would have you believe are their goals like spreading freedom and democracy. Wouldn't freedom and democracy be better spread by waging peace instead of war and at far less cost? The only problem is that, while the Bushies are actually realizing their real goals, they have run out of believable excuses to justify them! Their propaganda efforts are just falling flat because they've run out of disguises. The Emperor has no new clothes!
Thus the Emperor stands before you naked. Naked aggression, naked Emperor! They know very well what they're trying to acccomplish. They just can't tell you, and they've run out of suits to try on, hence the nakedness. All the interminable fighting actually serves their interests because it justifies keeping an American military presence in Iraq interminably. It also justifies the continued involvement of American corporate interests who profit from war. Secondly, relative to the number of Iraqi deaths, the number of Americans killed is very low. This is also a successful part of their plan - to minimize the number of Americans killed in order to minimize protests against the war. Thus turning the fighting over to Iraqis while Americans "redeploy" inside safe mega-bases and just become occupiers is a part of the plan which is actually working. Then the American troops will only be called out when some situation threatens to get out of hand. Even the Iraq Study Group recommended getting American combat troops out of Iraq before 2008 or redeploying them providing conditions on the ground justify this. The operative word is "combat"; they say nothing about American support troops a.k.a. occupational forces. And redeploying could mean inside as well as outside Iraq. Again read occupational forces. And finally the ultimate hedge: "providing conditions on the ground" etc. etc. It's interesting that the Iraq Study Group still is not willing to have the US relinquish it's hold on Iraqi oil. Here are some of its recommendations:
• As soon as possible, the U.S. government should provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law that defines the rights of regional and local governments and creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment. Legal clarity is essential to attract investment.
• The U.S. government should encourage the Iraqi government to accelerate contracting for the comprehensive well work-overs in the southern fields needed to increase production, but the United States should no longer fund such infrastructure projects.
Notice that "the US government should provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government...[to] create a fiscal and legal framework for investment." The first question one might ask about this statement is why, at this point, the US should even be concerned about Iraqi oil resources. Shouldn't the focus be on stabilizing the country? Isn't this totally paternalistic as if the Iraqis themselves don't know how to best utilize their own oil resouces? Oh, I guess they're little children who need our "help" to exploit their own resources. Maybe they don't want "to attract investment." Maybe, in other words, they don't want to privatize their oil industry. But isn't this the real reason we went to war in the first place - to ensure that Iraq's oil industry would be privatized and on favorable terms to US and British oil companies, I might add? And, if not, why then were the Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) already written into the Iraqi Constitution by Jerry (L. Paul) Bremer III? PSAs are extrememly lucrative for the oil companies whose investments the Iraqis presumably and presumptiously want to attract. And we have to encourage the Iraqi government to "accelerate contracting." No Iraqi contractors need apply. Again it's not your Grandfather's colonialism.
The fact that the Iraqi situation has become a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis is not really a threat to American interests so long as the war does not get out of hand and so long as not too many Americans get killed. Eventually, a government will be established with whom we can do business. You might ask why does the Bush Administartion not take sides in the civil war thus bringing it to a swifter conclusion and, since the Shiites are in the majority, just squelch the Sunnis and let it go at that? The problem is that our good allies in the region, the Saudis, are Sunnis and they don't want to see their fellow Sunnis squelched. Now the Bush family and the Saudis have been in bed together for years. A Saudi Prince, Salem bin Laden, invested in George W's first oil venture, and George H W was watching television at the Carlyle Group with bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, when the planes hit the World Trade Center. Although most of the hijackers were Saudis, there were no repercussions to the Saudi royal family. In fact the Bushes hustled the bin Laden family out of the country to prevent any reprisals against them. Since Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, they might have started there in their quest to spread freedom and democracy in the middle east.
So the plot thickens. There is no clear strategy of what to do in Iraq because there are no clear goals - at least publicly admitted ones. The elaborate charade of changing rationales covers the clear minded goal of the neocons themselves - to permanently occupy Iraq. The mega-bases nearing completion and the world's largest embassy belie construing the situation in any other way. That's why some folks want the troops brought home immediately, some want to send more troops in, some want a timetable - there is no clarity because there is no public agreement as to goals. And as far as training the Iraqi troops so they can stand up while we stand down, training only better equips them to fight each other which is precisely what they are doing now. The Bush Administration would have us believe the violence is random sectarian violence when in fact the Iraqis know precisely what they're doing and whom they are killing. The killing is not random. They have no loyalty to a central government despite the fact it was democratically elected. American troops are just in the crossfire, that's all.
The real debate should be over whether or not we want to permanently occupy Iraq and whether or not we have designs on their oil. But the lack of a meaningful debate suits the Bush regime just fine since vagueness and obfuscation and continued turmoil veil and justify their goal in Iraq - to turn Iraq into an American military coaling station and to extract oil and other wealth for the benefit of American and British corporations. Perpetual conflict also benefits the American corporate interests who profit off of war.
Today on "Meet the Press" someone said that our options are getting progressively worse by the day. Not only that but we are paying about $2 billion a day only to have our options get progressively worse. This, of course, is totally absurd. If we get out today, we'll be getting out under better conditions than if we wait till tomorrow and we'll save $2 billion to boot! So why are we staying in? In one word: PRIDE. The power elite can't stand the thought that US prestige has been irretrievably diminished in the world, and they think that somehow they can retrieve it. The neocons can't stand the thought that they are not in a position to control the world, that the world won't heel to their command. And, finally, President Bush has staked his whole Presidency on this "splendid little war" in Iraq and, if he can't have his goddamn victory, he will just freakin bankrupt the whole damn country. Pride, arrogance, hubris - take your pick! Meanwhile, the Syrians and Iranians are content to just "have us stay there and bleed," and that seems exactly like, if President Bush has anything to say about it, what we'll do. And the longer we do it, the more we're working to secure victory for Syria and Iran who are winning without having fired a shot. Not to mention the Chinese central bankers who are financing this war. This is President Bush's own equivalent of Gotterdammerung.
