The occupation of Iraq by the US seems to continue to move closer towards comprehensive failure. One thing history tells us is that brutal empires come and go; perhaps complete failure in Iraq with the resistence combining to send the invaders packing will spell the end of the US empire.
As each day passes, the occupation of Iraq by the US and its allies moves a little closer towards comprehensive failure. Where will it all ends: the welcome decline of US power, domination, and hegemony, perhaps. Have they passed the turning point, and already heading for disaster with their Middle East adventures? Has this been triggered by the illegal invasion of Iraq, or was the writing on the wall before, and did the neoconservatives see Iraq as an opportunity to reverse the decline.
Well, I don’t really know the answers to thee question, but there is a reasonable possibility that the following could happen. It’s not a new prediction, but one that was floated before the invasion of Iraq.
It has become apparent that the bottom line objective for the US led the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to control Iraq’s energy resources. This was achieved; so in these terms it has been a success, and was kind of announced when Bush gave his victory speech from the US aircraft carrier about four years ago.
Oh and killing Sadam Hussein, too, that was an objective, too. And ¨the mission was accomplished on that one too. But the brutal way in which it was executed only inflamed opposition to the US occupiers, and it turned out to be a propaganda failure.
The laws Bremer wrote (see many articles by Naomi Klein) before he left Iraq made it crystal clear that the aim of the neo-conservatives was to impose neoliberalism on Iraq. Just as the US supported coup that put Pinochet into power in Chile in the 70´s who went on to impose neolibralism to the exclusive advantage of US corporations, but spectacularly failed.
Bremar, as the US´s man governing the new ¨free Iraq tried to impose neoliberalism too under the jackboot of US occupation, almost exclusively to the advantage of US capital, with a few crumbs thrown to the British. This has proved disastrous again. But even more catastrophic than the effects it had in Chile in the late 70´s. This neoliberal aim has not been achieved; instead the Iraqi economy has collapsed, along with it’s infrastructure, civile and social society: a modern well-developed, advanced Arab state has been thrown back into the dark ages. What an achievement!.
As far as the deaths and destruction by the invasion and occupation are concerned, coupled with the pre-war sanctions, the US Iraq policy has been a disaster of catastrophic proportions for the Iraqi people; one which Blair and Bush ought take direct responsible for, and, of course, their supporters and masters. That means they at least should be charged with war crimes.
The US now seem to be prepared to settle for controlling the oil with a large US military present, situated a few large military bases, one of which is under construction on the Iranian border.
It is becoming more apparent that it is unlikely that they will achieve this, and could be ejected from Iraq by resistance which appears to be uniting across factions.
Apart from the chaos, deaths and destruction, that could lead to all out civil war, another possibility predicted by the anti-Iraq war movement was that the conflict could broaden across the Middle East, and destabilise the region. This appears to be happening.
You could say, that, the US would explicitly confirm its desperation and weakness, by attacking Iran on the pretext that it posses, or will so soon, Nuclear weapons.
But do you remember what Tony Bliar said: I know Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.”, and then Colin Powel and his madness and lies about Iraq possessing anthrax, and mobile, chemical weapons delivery systems, the 45 minute nonsense, and all the rest of the black propaganda .. All lies! So, how can anyone belie anything the US and Britain say about Iran?
And why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons – Israel, India and Pakistan have been allowed to develop and retain them. The double standards at play by the US and its allies are mind-boggling. In fact all nations should as a matter of urgency get rid of there Nuclear weapons.
What’s more, it makes sense for Iran to want nuclear weapons; it would defend them against US aggression, and prevent attack.
They are a nation threatened by the largest military power in world history; in the past the US and Brittan have helped impose a dictatorship on them, as they did in Iraq; and we know the US will not attack a nation that possess nuclear weapons.
An attack on Iran would be met by massive world wide opposition, could pull in more support from neighbouring Arab states against US occupation, and domination in the region.
You would think that it was in the interests of the US to follow rational and accepted foreign policy norms in the 21st centaury, and then thy might stand some chance of survival as the worlds dominate political and economic power. Instead they seem to be rushing towards the precipice, because a brutal expulsion from Iraq would accelerate the end of the US Empire - something that’s on the cards,
One thing history tells us is that brutal empires come and go. Perhaps the US Empire will be the last that the world has to endure. One thing is sure, that Bush will be back in his box in 2008. But will that signal a change?
Well, I don’t really know the answers to thee question, but there is a reasonable possibility that the following could happen. It’s not a new prediction, but one that was floated before the invasion of Iraq.
It has become apparent that the bottom line objective for the US led the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to control Iraq’s energy resources. This was achieved; so in these terms it has been a success, and was kind of announced when Bush gave his victory speech from the US aircraft carrier about four years ago.
Oh and killing Sadam Hussein, too, that was an objective, too. And ¨the mission was accomplished on that one too. But the brutal way in which it was executed only inflamed opposition to the US occupiers, and it turned out to be a propaganda failure.
The laws Bremer wrote (see many articles by Naomi Klein) before he left Iraq made it crystal clear that the aim of the neo-conservatives was to impose neoliberalism on Iraq. Just as the US supported coup that put Pinochet into power in Chile in the 70´s who went on to impose neolibralism to the exclusive advantage of US corporations, but spectacularly failed.
Bremar, as the US´s man governing the new ¨free Iraq tried to impose neoliberalism too under the jackboot of US occupation, almost exclusively to the advantage of US capital, with a few crumbs thrown to the British. This has proved disastrous again. But even more catastrophic than the effects it had in Chile in the late 70´s. This neoliberal aim has not been achieved; instead the Iraqi economy has collapsed, along with it’s infrastructure, civile and social society: a modern well-developed, advanced Arab state has been thrown back into the dark ages. What an achievement!.
As far as the deaths and destruction by the invasion and occupation are concerned, coupled with the pre-war sanctions, the US Iraq policy has been a disaster of catastrophic proportions for the Iraqi people; one which Blair and Bush ought take direct responsible for, and, of course, their supporters and masters. That means they at least should be charged with war crimes.
The US now seem to be prepared to settle for controlling the oil with a large US military present, situated a few large military bases, one of which is under construction on the Iranian border.
It is becoming more apparent that it is unlikely that they will achieve this, and could be ejected from Iraq by resistance which appears to be uniting across factions.
Apart from the chaos, deaths and destruction, that could lead to all out civil war, another possibility predicted by the anti-Iraq war movement was that the conflict could broaden across the Middle East, and destabilise the region. This appears to be happening.
You could say, that, the US would explicitly confirm its desperation and weakness, by attacking Iran on the pretext that it posses, or will so soon, Nuclear weapons.
But do you remember what Tony Bliar said: I know Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.”, and then Colin Powel and his madness and lies about Iraq possessing anthrax, and mobile, chemical weapons delivery systems, the 45 minute nonsense, and all the rest of the black propaganda .. All lies! So, how can anyone belie anything the US and Britain say about Iran?
And why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons – Israel, India and Pakistan have been allowed to develop and retain them. The double standards at play by the US and its allies are mind-boggling. In fact all nations should as a matter of urgency get rid of there Nuclear weapons.
What’s more, it makes sense for Iran to want nuclear weapons; it would defend them against US aggression, and prevent attack.
They are a nation threatened by the largest military power in world history; in the past the US and Brittan have helped impose a dictatorship on them, as they did in Iraq; and we know the US will not attack a nation that possess nuclear weapons.
An attack on Iran would be met by massive world wide opposition, could pull in more support from neighbouring Arab states against US occupation, and domination in the region.
You would think that it was in the interests of the US to follow rational and accepted foreign policy norms in the 21st centaury, and then thy might stand some chance of survival as the worlds dominate political and economic power. Instead they seem to be rushing towards the precipice, because a brutal expulsion from Iraq would accelerate the end of the US Empire - something that’s on the cards,
One thing history tells us is that brutal empires come and go. Perhaps the US Empire will be the last that the world has to endure. One thing is sure, that Bush will be back in his box in 2008. But will that signal a change?
