E
enkidu
Guest
Because she is a tough retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who knew the facts about Iraq before the invasion:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski128.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski128.html
She gives cogent REAL reasons why Bush & Co. (including a lot of Democrats) invaded Iraq.People in America, in the Pentagon, at CIA and the State department knew much of the factual status of Iraq, including that:
Iraq was in a weakened military state, with no air force, or navy and not much of an Army, in part due to the destruction of the first Gulf War, a dozen years of sanctions and being bombed by the US and the UK since 1991 . . . .
And, most importantly, because she has a clear vision of WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW IN IRAQ and HOW US FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.One reason has to do with enhancing our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. There was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia, and thus the troubled monarchy. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important that is, if you hold that is Americas role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.
A major reason for the invasion, and the urgency of it, is that sanctions and containment had worked, and over the years, almost too well. They had become counterproductive. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit. Some of you may have read Naomi Kleins Harpers article, published in September 2003, called "Baghdad Year Zero." She makes a compelling case for the convergence of business interests and a kind of neoconservative free market ideology and that the invasion and occupation was a clean slate transformation of a command economy into a free trade utopia. Neoconservative ideology does not embrace free trade in the sense that libertarians or Adam Smith embrace it, but instead prefers significant state involvement and leans towards a social democratic model of domestic governing. However, Kleins article will be eye-opening for those of you who still think that we went in for the reasons stated by the administration.
Another reason is a uniquely American rationale, and it relates to our currency, and our debt situation. Saddam Hussein decided in November 2000 to sell his Food for Oil program oil sales in euros. The oil sales permitted in that program arent very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving from the dollar to the euro.
The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a bigtime debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but its not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. A recent article by Robert Freeman called "The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral" has this to say:
This run-up in debt represents the most rapid, predatory looting of public wealth in the history of the world. The interest costs alone will consume the government and, soon, the entire economy. In fiscal 2004, interest costs came to $321 billion against a deficit of $415 billion. So three quarters of all the current year borrowing is spent paying interest on past borrowing. This is the most immediate symptom of the deficit death spiral.
Disassociate ourselves immediately from our hand-picked and CIA sponsored puppets. Offer Allawi (or whoever our current puppet is) and the other twenty Iraqis who support Americas agenda in Iraq safe passage and a nice pension.
Withdraw militarily to our key bases in Iraq, and stand down in preparation to depart.
Send a presidential representative who has credibility in the region, to make a farewell visit to major Iraqi political centers. This representative must not be a neoconservative ideologue. We can have no James Bakers or Henry Kissingers (or Kissinger protégés like Jerry Bremer), no Tommy Franks or even John Abizaids. Im thinking someone like retired Marine Tony Zinni who knows the region and the players, and has personal credibility with them. The guidance for the envoy is to simply diplomatically facilitate the extrication of America forces from Iraq. The envoy would work locally with whoever the regional leader is. Sound crazy? This is exactly how we deal in Afghanistan, working with local warlords, finding common ground by not dictating how they run their territory. Do you think Hamid Karzai runs anything outside Kabul? Some say he doesnt even run Kabul, yet we are able to function in Afghanistan because we know how to deal.
Abandon all hope of getting our money back, gaining contracts or military bases in Iraq, having Iraq as a democracy that likes us or even having Iraq as a single unified state. The new Iraq, or the various states of the former Iraq, will get to decide if they want euros or dollars for their petroleum. We might get lucky on one or more of these things, but probably not. Thats what happens when you break things. Sometimes they cant be put back together. Deal with it.
After a short time, we completely depart from Iraq. We have already moved many of our regional resources from Saudi Arabian bases into Iraq, so withdrawing from Iraq will seriously reduce our total military presence in the region from what it was during the sanction enforcement decade. We and our regional allies will have to deal with that too.
Power struggles in Iraq will continue, and people in Iraq will continue to suffer and die. However, this will be short-lived once we leave. If we stay, it continues and can only continue on the model of Vietnam in this regard. Almost a decade of an insurgency that only grew more intense and more deadly, consuming lives on both sides, until one side said "We win," and then went home. Iraq is not worth 55,000 dead American sons and daughters, not now or in ten years. It isnt worth 1100, 1500, over 2000 dead American sons and daughters today. Most Americans already understand this in their hearts, but it is painful to admit it.
Unfortunately, this road map for the President also requires that he come clean with the American people on the real reasons for why we are in Iraq, the horrible mistakes of policy and planning that were made, and the waste of resources and lives for which this administration is responsible. We will all have to deal with this no matter what.
