I think that is as good a measure as anything I've seen in recent months of what those who profess to lead us expect to gain from their illegal and immoral flogging of our military forces at the Middle East with the prosecution of both of the Bush wars. The world was witness as we helped topple statues at the start of the Iraq invasion, and yet refused to step and stop the rape and looting of the sovereign nation. Our forces were predictably directed to first secure Iraq's oil facilities, including the Oil Ministry building, as the rest of the country was being razed.
The Queen was following a script when she praised the officer, but she was undoubtedly caught up in the noble niceties of war that come with ribbons, medals, and honors which mask the horror and injustice of our bloody acts which our leaders claim are done in the name of God and country.
The Bush wars were not waged in defense of any lofty ideals of democracy or liberty, or even security. This war with Iraq was the invention of a banished ruling class - enriched by the selling of the influence of their positions in government - who had nursed their broken ambitions in exile, and had instinctively constructed their sympathetic webs of wealth to obstruct the remedies of the reformers and hatch the next generation of world capitalists who would inherit the patronage of the next conservative presidency.
The Bush I administration's stated objective in their Gulf war was to protect the flow of Mideast oil to the U.S. and to prevent Iraq from obtaining a seaport from which Iraqi shipments would supposedly depress an already sputtering world market. The Bush I administration issued a national security directive which listed among its objectives; ". . . the defense of U.S. vital interests in the region, if necessary through the use of military force; and defense against forces that would cause added damage to the U.S. and world economies."
More importantly, the security directive declared that access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key, friendly states in the area were vital to U.S. national security. It was on that basis that President Herbert Walker Bush waged war with Iraq. It's first provision stated that:
1. Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security. Consistent with NSD 26 of October 2, 1989, and NSD 45 of August 20, 1990, and as a matter of long-standing policy, the United states remains committed to defending its vital interests in the region, if necessary through the use of military force, against any power with interests inimical to our own.
That manufactured mandate for war is the heart and soul of the present Iraq conflict. This Bush regime relied extensively on the UN resolutions which were born out of the end of hostilities agreements in the first Gulf War to justify the enactment of this conflict's U.N. 1441, which he asserted gave him the authority to sidestep the security council and invade.
The nation's reward for the blood and sacrifice of our men and women in the armed forces in that Gulf war was a further decrease in production by the Mideast oil giants under OPEC- the group which controls around half the world's oil trade. That resulted in the doubling of U.S. oil prices from $20 a barrel to $40, and the fostering of a crippling recession. As the National Security Strategy of 1991 stated, "Economies around the world were affected by the volatility of oil prices and the disruption of economic ties to countries in the Gulf." Oil profits for industry CEO's and administration shareholders soared.
Despite all of that, there are gullible self-seekers supporting and prosecuting these assaults on Iraq who still insist that these wars were in defense of cheap gas for them. That was the mantra from the right, although they didn't have the cover of overt statements from their elected leadership affirming their true goal of robbing Iraq of it's resources. They were more determined this time to couch their militarism in defensive rhetoric about terrorists and evil. They kept the smoke-screen of fear in front of us that flashed from the flames of the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9-11 as they amassed our military forces and wrapped us in their imperialism.
The present war with Iraq was the ambition of the corporate wing of the conservative establishment who views Iraq as a potential wedge against the domination of Mideast oil-producing nations which, in many respects, are openly hostile to American economic interests in the region, and other oil-consuming nations like China which is also competing for a greater share of the oil pie. Having failed to turn the first war to their corporate advantage, the exiled power brokers brooded and plotted to revive a public campaign against Saddam Hussein which would unseat the dictator and allow the U.S. to install an authority there compliant to American business concerns.
Before the war, Stephen Hadley, now National Security Adviser, spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in February 2003. "If war comes," Hadley said, "it will be a war of liberation, not occupation. The United States needs the support of Iraq's people and it will work to win that support."
"A critical part of the Iraq reconstruction effort will be ensuring that Iraq's oil sector is protected from acts of sabotage by Saddam Hussein's regime," Hadley continued, "and that its proceeds are applied for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
"Iraq's oil and other natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people, and the United States will respect this fact," Hadley said.
However, White House Executive Order, 13303, was a bald contradiction of that assertion by this administration that the Iraqi people are to benefit from our seizure of their resources.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
