Thread: US Imperialism in Iraq

The phrase "new imperial grand strategy" has an interesting source: the leading establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations. Foreign Affairs - America's Imperial Ambition - G. John Ikenberry

The invasion of Iraq was virtually announced in Sept 2002, along with the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy, which declared the intention to dominate the world for the indefinite future and to destroy any potential challenge to US domination. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm

The UN was informed that it could be "relevant" if it authorized what Washington would do anyway, or else it could become a debating society, as Administration moderate Colin Powell instructed them. The invasion of Iraq was to be the first test of the new doctrine announced in the NSS, "the petri dish in which this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew," the New York Times reported. U.N. Credibility at Stake Over Iraq, Warn Diplomats

In Foreign Affairs, the "new imperial grand strategy" was immediately criticized as a threat to the world and to the US. Elite criticism was remarkably broad, but on narrow grounds: the principle is not wrong, but the style and implementation are dangerous, a threat to US interests. The basic thrust of the criticism was captured by Madeleine Albright, also in Foreign Affairs. She pointed out that every President has a similar doctrine, but keeps it in his back pocket, to be used when necessary. It is a serious error to smash people in face with it, and to implement it in brazen defiance even of allies, let alone rest of world. That is simply foolish, another illustration of the dangerous combination of "arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence."

Albright of course knew that Clinton had a similar doctrine. as Clinton's Secretary of State, she surely knew that the White House had spelled out the meaning in messages to Congress declaring the right to the "unilateral use of military power for ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources," even without the pretexts that Bush and Blair conjured up. Taken literally, the Clinton doctrine is more expansive than Bush's NSS, but it was issued quietly, not in a manner designed to arouse hostility, and the same was true of its implementation. Section III - DEFENSE STRATEGY

Despite the precedents, the new imperial grand strategy was understood to be highly significant." The new approach is revolutionary," Henry Kissinger wrote, approving of the doctrine, but with tactical reservations and a crucial qualification: it cannot be "a universal principle available to every nation." The right of aggression is to be reserved for the US and perhaps its clients. We must reject the most elementary of moral truisms: that we apply to ourselves the same standards that we apply to others.The Politics of Intervention / Iraq 'regime change' is a revolutionary strategy

Arthur Schlesinger agreed that the doctrine and implementation were "revolutionary," but from a quite different standpoint. As the first bombs fell on Baghdad, he recalled FDR's words following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, "a date which will live in infamy." Now, "it is we Americans who live in infamy," he wrote, as their "government adopts the policies of imperial Japan." He added that George Bush had converted a "global wave of sympathy" for the US into a "global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism." Today, It is We Americans Who Live in Infamy

The collapse of the pretexts for invading Iraq is familiar. But insufficient attention has been paid to the most important consequence of the collapse of the pretexts: lowering the bars for aggression. The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significantly, the Bush administration now declare the right to attack a country even if it has no WMD or programs to develop them, but has the "intent and ability" to do so. Just about every country has the "ability" to develop WMD, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. It follows that virtually anyone is declared to be subject to attack without pretext. Iraq's Illicit Weapons Gone Since Early '90s, CIA Says - Los Angeles Times

To be Continued..

The invasion did depose Saddam Hussein, an outcome that can be welcomed without hypocrisy by those who opposed US-UK support for him through his worst crimes, including the crushing of the Shi'ite rebellion that might have overthrown him in 1991. Administration reasoning was outlined by New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman, "While oposing the popular rebellion, Washington did hope that a military coup might remove Saddam, and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." Two years later he added, "It has always been American policy that the iron-fisted Mr. Hussein plays a useful role in holding Iraq together." RAID ON BAGHDAD: An Assessment; The Missile' Message - New York Times

New York Times reporter Alan Cowell reported that Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view that whatever the sins of the iraqi leader he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression." AFTER THE WAR; Kurds Assert Few Outside Iraq Wanted Them to Win - New York Times

The end of Saddam's rule was one of two welcome regime changes. The other was the formal end of the sanctions regime, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, devastated Iraq's civilian society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for survival. UN Says Sanctions Have Killed Some 500,000 Iraqi Children

It is for these reasons that the respected international diplomats who administered the UN "oil for food" programs, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest over what Halliday called the "genocidal" sanctions regime. BBC News | Middle East | UN official blasts Iraq sanctions Denis Halliday - former United Nations employee resigned over Iraq sanctions - Interview | Progressive, The | Find Articles at BNET

BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | UN sanctions rebel resigns

Though sanctions were administered by the UN, their cruel and savage character was dictated by the US and Brittain. Ending this regime is a very positive aspect of the invasion. But that could have been done without an invasion. Halliday and von Sponeck had argued that if sanctions had been re-directed to preventing weapons programs, then the population of Iraq might well have been able to send Saddam Hussein to the same fate as other murderous gangsters supported by the current incumbents in Washington and their British allies: Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Mobutu.... - an impressive list, some of them comparable to Saddam, to which new names are being added daily by the same Western leaders. If so, both murderous regimes could have been ended without invasion. Postwar inquiries, such as those of Washington's Iraq Survey Group headed by David Kay, add weight to these beliefs by revealing how shaky Saddam's control of the country was in the last few years. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

According to Opinion Research Business, over a million Iraqis have been killed since the 2003 "liberation" began. A death toll that exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered). They found that nearly one in two households in Baghdad had lost at least one member to war- related violence, and 22% of households nationwide had suffered at least one death. It said 48% of the victims were shot to death and 20% died as a result of car bombs, and 30% died as a result of other explosions and military bombardments.



Just Foreign Policy - Iraqi Death Estimate

ORB - Opinion Business Research - Newsroom

According to the group Refugees International, nearly 5 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes since the fall of Saddam Hussein. More than 2 million people are now displaced inside the country, and an additional 2.5 million have fled to neighboring countries. UN warns of five million Iraqi refugees - Middle East, World - The Independent

Iraq | Refugees International

Report: World ignoring Iraqi refugee crisis - CNN.com

UNHCR | Iraq

To be Continued..

Your assinine threads about imperialism in every corner of the world are getting old.

I lke 'em. Thanks Horhey.

It's kind of interesting to see all the places where we've...interfered (to put it nicely) with the will of the people to govern themselves for our own economic and strategic interests.

And yes, I know Saddam was a dictator, but how do you think he got in power?

We fought the Cold War, or so we were told, because Communism was just wrong. If it was a faulty economic system, it would have failed on it's own, so why not allow that to happen?

Of course capitalism worldwide to be failing right now, too. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

I lke 'em. Thanks Horhey.

It's kind of interesting to see all the places where we've...interfered (to put it nicely) with the will of the people to govern themselves for our own economic and strategic interests.

And yes, I know Saddam was a dictator, but how do you think he got in power?

I havent gotten to that part yet.

We fought the Cold War, or so we were told, because Communism was just wrong. If it was a faulty economic system, it would have failed on it's own, so why not allow that to happen?

Of course capitalism worldwide to be failing right now, too. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

The US is fighting independent nationalism. They just called it communism for propaganda purposes most of the time. Most of the governments they overthrew were no different than the Democrats here. They provided basic services like healthcare, labor rights, education, infrastructure, etc. It's just independant development instead of opening up their markets and resources to US exploitation. US multinationals enslave the people in the Third World and privatize absolutely everything. The US only tolerates center to far right governments in the Third World, especially in Latin America.

Originally Posted by Horhey

The US is fighting independent nationalism. They just called it communism for propaganda purposes most of the time. Most of the governments they overthrew were no different than the Democrats here. They provided basic services like healthcare, labor rights, education, infrastructure, etc. It's just independant development instead of opening up their markets and resources to US exploitation. US multinationals enslave the people in the Third World and privatize absolutely everything. The US only tolerates center to far right governments in the Third World, especially in Latin America.

True, but I'm old enough to remember the rhetoric about Communism. We never talked about capitalism in those days, it was Democracy we were supposedly fighting for.

You know, "our" freedom. Same old bullshit. When the truth is, the average American could care less if a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Vietnam was safe or not, suddenly the collective "us" had been attacked, and we had to martial our forces and defend "us". Not to mention if we hated Communism so much, why the hell do we do business with China? the Cold war was the biggest, most expensive lie ever told and no one ever admitted it, to this fucking day. I'm still pissed about it. Look at this past election and the accusations of "Marxist" being thrown around. The American people are still divided over this crap.

In a weird way, success has been our undoing. We can't defend all our investments in "emerging markets" in the world. We simply don't have the manpower. Besides our investment schemes are all crumbling anyway.

Although I did read an article in our local paper where the state of the economy has caused a big increase in enrollment in the National Guard. It's the bonus money...

The collapse of the pretexts for invading Iraq lead to another new doctrine: the invasion of Iraq was inspired by the President's "messianic mission" - as it is called in the liberal media - to bring democracy to Iraq, the region, and the world. The President announced the "vision" in a 2004 presidential address. The reaction ranged from just a rapturous awe, to critisism, which praised the "nobility" and "generosity" of the vision, but warned it may be beyond our means: too costly, the beneficiaries may not appreciate our nobility. That this is the motive for the invasion is presupposed in news reporting and commentary. What is the evidence the US invaded Iraq to fulfill a messianic mission? The evidence is pretty straight forward; the president said so, therefore it is true. North Korea couldnt have done it better. Declarations of benign intent by leaders carry no information and they are entirely predictable, even from the worst monsters. If there is an exception to this reaction of blind acceptance in mainstream reporting and commentary, I haven't found it.

To be more accurate, there is one exception. US-run polls in Iraq, in which people are asked why they thought the US invaded Iraq. 98% said the US invaded Iraq to take control of their enormous energy reserves, establish permanent military bases and reorganize the Middle East in US-Israeli interests. 95% of Iraqis view the US as an occupying force, not a liberating one. 82% want the US to withdraw immediatly. 60% said attacks on U.S. forces are justified. Iraqi Public Opinion on the Presence of US Troops - World Public Opinion

Poll of Iraqis: Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq - World Public Opinion

Democracy means you pay some attention to the will of the people. So the US should withdraw, as the Iraqis want them to, instead of trying to set up a client regime and military bases. The United States tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq. The elections came about because of mass nonviolent resistance, lead by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

The editors of the Financial Times wrote that "the reason the elections took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them." IRAQI AYATOLLAH INSISTS ON VOTE BY END OF YEAR - New York Times

Shia protesters step up demand for Iraq elections - Middle East, World - The Independent

Middle East scholar Alan Richards observes that "although the United States initially oposed early elections in Iraq, after Ayatollah Sistani turned huge numbers of his followers out in the streets to demand such elections, Washington had little choice but to agree." Democracy in the Arab Region: Getting There from Here

The Wall Street Journal explained that Sistani "gave his marching orders: spread the word that Ayatollah Sistani insists the new government be chosen through a direct election, not by the US or US apointed Iraqi leaders." Ayatollah threatens mass street protests over Iraqi elections - Telegraph

Veteran correspondent Patrick Cockburn adds that "it was only when it became clear that the US could not withstand a Shia uprising that elections turned out to have been an immediate American goal all along." Patrick Cockburn: The true, terrible state of Iraq and the London link - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent

Once it was clear US efforts to bar elections could not be sustained, the US took credit for them while trying to subvert them. The US candidate, Ayad Allawi, was given every possible advantage: state resources and access to TV, as well as support from the US military. The most important independant media were expelled from the country. Profiles: A Man of the Shadows: The New Yorker

Continued..

Originally Posted by Horhey

....


The US is fighting independent nationalism. They just called it communism for propaganda purposes most of the time. Most of the governments they overthrew were no different than the Democrats here. They provided basic services like healthcare, labor rights, education, infrastructure, etc. It's just independant development instead of opening up their markets and resources to US exploitation. US multinationals enslave the people in the Third World and privatize absolutely everything. The US only tolerates center to far right governments in the Third World, especially in Latin America.

We get it. You like socialism. You like Chavez and his take over of private entities. You like Communism.

Are you a US citizen?

Originally Posted by justoneman

We get it. You like socialism. You like Chavez and his take over of private entities. You like Communism.

Are you a US citizen?

No, Im a Libertarian. There's more socialism here than in Venezuela. Nationalizing our financial institutions goes far beyond anything Chavez ever nationalized.

Originally Posted by Horhey

No, Im a Libertarian. There's more socialism here than in Venezuela. Nationalizing our financial institutions goes far beyond anything Chavez ever nationalized.

Are you a US citizen?