Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Why "We" Were/Are STILL In Iraq.

As the story immediately below here on this blog, and many more, over the last several weeks, announces, the USer "combat" role in Iraq has been "reduced." This reduction while mainly cosmetic, still bolsters the insistance on understanding why "we" were there in the first place....

Some folks think it was a personal vendetta, GWB vs. Saddam. Others still maintain it was to get rid of Iraq's (non-existent) WMD. Still others repeat the falsehoods about the 9/11 attacks. Not true, any of it.

The PNAC--which got was the power behind getting Shrub appointed--took us into Iraq to play their part in the Great Game: the geo/energy politics of Central Asia, which has diverted--and beggared--"Euro" empires (including ours) for 300 years.

The PNAC-loaded Busheviks invaded Iraq for four reasons, mainly, all implicated (dictated) by "that old Kissingerian real-Politik":

1) To (re-)establish a USer military presence in the oil-belt, after Usama bin Laden sent his pals to politely ask us to leave Saudi Arabia; which we did, peremptorily...

2) To control the distribution of Iraqi oil. (OIF--Operation Iraqi Freedom--really WAS originally scheduled to be called Operation: Iraqi Liberation. No, really. Would I shit you?
You can't make this shit up!)

3) Protect Israel's northern front from Saddam. The original plan was to divide Iraq into three sectors which would then be so fragmented and splintered that they'd never again pose a threat to Tel Aviv.

4) Put pressure on Iran's regime, and foment unrest among rest of the Kurds not in Iraq. The partitioning scheme--which Biden favored, to protect Israel-- would also have wrecked serious havoc in the border provinces of Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

I enumerate these only for accounting, not hierarchical purposes.

No comments: