Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Invasion of Iraq: Undeclared Motives - Introduction
America in Iraq: why, where and where to (3)
I hope that we have by now established through the previous discussion that the present US administration invaded Iraq on flimsy evidence and had more or less an unconvincing case. The ‘declared motives’ were rather weak to say the least.
We are therefore left really in the dark. One has to find the most logical explanation in terms of events on the ground. These are murky waters. There is considerable danger of slipping into unsubstantiated, conspiracy-oriented explanations.
Numerous reasons for the true aims of the invasion of Iraq have been proposed. None has been, nor likely ever to be, publicly admitted! Some of these are evident (as will be seen from the discussion) but one cannot be certain which the most prominent reason is.
It is likely that the actual reasons are more than one; hence a number of forces within the US establishment could be seen to act in collaboration or in competition. For example there have been: Reports of conflict between the Pentagon and the State and CIA; Reports of conflict between the professional military people and the civilian (neocons) leadership of the Pentagon; Reports of conflict between the oil industry and the neocon approach; And there is of course always the ever present, yet almost invisible shadow of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” as well as many other semi-phantom powers and special-interest entities.
All these should not confuse us. But they do seem to indicate that there was no overwhelming consensus within the US government establishment on the post-invasion plans. Some of these forces were not the ones initiating the policy. They probably fought over details or control of the implementation or to realize their own visions with the broadly defined objective.
Since we are operating in murky waters here, the logical approach would be to consider all possible options (which we may not know all of) and apply our known observation of what happened actually on the ground to those theses to find out which ones are likely to fit!
One problem is that there is a possibility of the existence of more than one objective and more than one force operating.
And there have been mistakes and errors which confuse the issue. In this case, it is always useful to go back to the beginning when mistakes and input from other parties have not yet confused the issues.
On top of that, there may have been not only tactical changes of US policy but possibly strategic changes due to discovered facts, changes on the ground and / or later discovered limitations to the original objectives. These may not be known in the short term due to the secrecy that usually shrouds the administration’s deliberations (especially those related to policy, foreign policy and particularly those related to national security).
This is truly a difficult task.
Past experience with the entities being considered may help… or it may be a hindrance! For examples, observers of US foreign policy usually form an opinion of their undeclared intentions from past experience. But we cannot do that if we want to convince an unbiased observer.
A possible criticism that may be expected is that it is not ethical to base an argument around speculation and guessing in the absence of concrete proof. Based on my previous arguments, particularly regarding the ‘evidence’ used to go to war I ask: is it acceptable to go to war on the basis of guessing and hints but not to attack war on the same bases?
The proposed tentative arguments have some quite strong points on their side that should encourage this pursuit: People are dead and dying everyday! Ordinary Iraqis whose country is being devastated and whose lives have been shattered, Americans who are losing sons and daughters everyday and the rest of the world, whose future is probably being shaped to some extent in Iraq today… all have a right to know. At least they have the right to inquire further!
There are also strong indications that the process of death and devastation will go on for a number of undetermined years. I cannot yet see any light indicating the end of this tunnel. Even the usual chorus of active rosy picture painters has been rather quiet lately.
In any case, we know that this route has led to disaster… or has it?! Some people may not even agree to this conclusion!
Basic assumption: No nation would go to war and risk the lives of its boys and girls and spend enormous amounts of money without (what are believed to be) good reasons.
Do we have to assume that those who decided to invade Iraq are rational? My personal position is: Yes!
In the following series of posts, I will address the main theories that have been put forward to explain the possible undeclared motives behind the invasion of Iraq:
1. Securing control over a major oil resource
2. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
3. Avenging 9/11
4. Creating a haven for foreign investment in a rich country
5. Eliminating Saddam’s long-term threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading the world into conflict intentionally
I hope that we have by now established through the previous discussion that the present US administration invaded Iraq on flimsy evidence and had more or less an unconvincing case. The ‘declared motives’ were rather weak to say the least.
We are therefore left really in the dark. One has to find the most logical explanation in terms of events on the ground. These are murky waters. There is considerable danger of slipping into unsubstantiated, conspiracy-oriented explanations.
Numerous reasons for the true aims of the invasion of Iraq have been proposed. None has been, nor likely ever to be, publicly admitted! Some of these are evident (as will be seen from the discussion) but one cannot be certain which the most prominent reason is.
It is likely that the actual reasons are more than one; hence a number of forces within the US establishment could be seen to act in collaboration or in competition. For example there have been: Reports of conflict between the Pentagon and the State and CIA; Reports of conflict between the professional military people and the civilian (neocons) leadership of the Pentagon; Reports of conflict between the oil industry and the neocon approach; And there is of course always the ever present, yet almost invisible shadow of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” as well as many other semi-phantom powers and special-interest entities.
All these should not confuse us. But they do seem to indicate that there was no overwhelming consensus within the US government establishment on the post-invasion plans. Some of these forces were not the ones initiating the policy. They probably fought over details or control of the implementation or to realize their own visions with the broadly defined objective.
***
Since we are operating in murky waters here, the logical approach would be to consider all possible options (which we may not know all of) and apply our known observation of what happened actually on the ground to those theses to find out which ones are likely to fit!
One problem is that there is a possibility of the existence of more than one objective and more than one force operating.
And there have been mistakes and errors which confuse the issue. In this case, it is always useful to go back to the beginning when mistakes and input from other parties have not yet confused the issues.
On top of that, there may have been not only tactical changes of US policy but possibly strategic changes due to discovered facts, changes on the ground and / or later discovered limitations to the original objectives. These may not be known in the short term due to the secrecy that usually shrouds the administration’s deliberations (especially those related to policy, foreign policy and particularly those related to national security).
This is truly a difficult task.
Past experience with the entities being considered may help… or it may be a hindrance! For examples, observers of US foreign policy usually form an opinion of their undeclared intentions from past experience. But we cannot do that if we want to convince an unbiased observer.
A possible criticism that may be expected is that it is not ethical to base an argument around speculation and guessing in the absence of concrete proof. Based on my previous arguments, particularly regarding the ‘evidence’ used to go to war I ask: is it acceptable to go to war on the basis of guessing and hints but not to attack war on the same bases?
The proposed tentative arguments have some quite strong points on their side that should encourage this pursuit: People are dead and dying everyday! Ordinary Iraqis whose country is being devastated and whose lives have been shattered, Americans who are losing sons and daughters everyday and the rest of the world, whose future is probably being shaped to some extent in Iraq today… all have a right to know. At least they have the right to inquire further!
There are also strong indications that the process of death and devastation will go on for a number of undetermined years. I cannot yet see any light indicating the end of this tunnel. Even the usual chorus of active rosy picture painters has been rather quiet lately.
In any case, we know that this route has led to disaster… or has it?! Some people may not even agree to this conclusion!
Basic assumption: No nation would go to war and risk the lives of its boys and girls and spend enormous amounts of money without (what are believed to be) good reasons.
Do we have to assume that those who decided to invade Iraq are rational? My personal position is: Yes!
In the following series of posts, I will address the main theories that have been put forward to explain the possible undeclared motives behind the invasion of Iraq:
1. Securing control over a major oil resource
2. Creating a country to neocon design and to “Project for the New American Century” requirements
3. Avenging 9/11
4. Creating a haven for foreign investment in a rich country
5. Eliminating Saddam’s long-term threat
6. Intentional Devastation of Iraq
7. Leading the world into conflict intentionally
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 8:10 PM 
Comments:
I would be grateful for any suggestions of other possible motives to discuss in this series.
I have already written most of the material. I will therefore post more frequently in the coming few weeks, leaving a few days between posts to allow time for discussion.
To keep the posts short, I will dedicate a separate post to each of the above ‘theories’.
I would appreciate it if comments and discussions remain focused on the theory being discussed in each post.
_____________________________________________________________________
A bilingual, well articulated article by Basim Almustaar link that was written in October of 2003 suggests a reason other that the obvious ones.
_____________________________________________________________________
dear abu, i just read this ... or well, i am going to read it now, but it seems interesting!
"Building a case against the president is not as crazy as it sounds
If you think President Bush should be impeached, it’s time to get serious.
We’re facing huge obstacles—and they have nothing to do with legal standards for impeachment. This is all about media and politics.
Five months into 2005, the movement to impeach Bush is very small. And three enormous factors weigh against it: 1) Republicans control Congress. 2) Most congressional Democrats are routinely gutless. 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a war criminal."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1434/Impeachment_Fever_and_Media_Politics
-c-
www.streamtime.org
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
You have listed many but I want to discuss #6. I find it extremely embarassing as a US citizen to admit this. Let me restate it, poor innocent(!) Iraq has been designated a kill-zone for the war between Al Qaeda and the US by Bush(Bring 'em on!)and the wahabbis are predictably joining the fray with all the murderous fury they have. This is an absolutely hideous crime against the Iraqi people. It is a calculated way to keep the battle of extermination in a Muslim country away from US (and Saudi?) soil. It harkens back to the battle of Verdun in WWI where the German general staff created a kill zone to annihilate the French army by attrition (BTW,the Verdun operation failed). It was an objective of the US to remove military bases from Saudi Arabia (keeping infidels out of Arabia), which was also a problem with Saddam around--so why not move them to Iraq?(Iraqi Kurdistan was already a base). So a series of convergent, logical, but heartless motives have conspired to ruin the ruined people of Iraq. As for the various insurgents, who I am often accused of seditiously ignoring(Charles) I am reminded of Proverb 28:3 "A poor man who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain which leaves no food". I see the rich of Saudi Arabia and the rich of the US, watching this sick game.
"Like a roaring lion and a charging bear is a wicked ruler over poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor, but he who hates covetousness will prolong his days. ..The righteous considers the cause of the poor but the wicked does not understand such knowledge.'
I started reading the Proverbs of Solomon after I gave up on the Quran. I thought it would give me some clues. Don't worry Circular, I'm not a religious fanatic, but I do have moral sensibilities.
_____________________________________________________________________
I vote for:
Eliminate Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel by transforming Iraq into an Afghanistan-like American colony.
And failing that
Destroy Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel by promoting a debilitating civil war.
It is really difficult outside of the United States to understand how intense the American identification with Israel is.
For some Americans it is for racial reasons - helping European Jews such as Sharon exert their supremacy over dark Arab Palestinians such as Arafat. For other Americans it is for religious reasons - the belief that the bible demands that Christians help God bring his prophecy that Jews would control Israel.
For most Americans it is a combination of the two - racism reinforcing religious bigotry while religious bigotry reinforces racism.
Anyway, if your next series deals with the mechanisms with which the Americans exert control over the elected Iraqi parliament this link may be of interest:
Link
[Al-Hakim also accused the United States of blocking Iraq's purchase of undisclosed "heavy weaponry."]
Is Iraq not free to use its revenue to purchase what it pleases? If not those who want to see Iraq independent, stable and peaceful (which I do not think includes the US administration) would be interested in knowing exactly what restrictions have been placed and how those restrictions are enforced.
_____________________________________________________________________
More on the _Impeachment_ at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-23.htm :
Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 by the Boston Globe:
The 'I' Word: Impeachment
by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese
The impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.
Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.
President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution./.../
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel!
What do you think Iraqis in government have for reasons when they do not condem US war crimes on Iraqis and Iraq?
Why do you think we saw so little reaction from Iraqis in government when US torture of Iraqis was reported on world media?
Why do you think we still have Iraqis in government who act as if the US cares more about Iraqis and our future then we do ourselvs?
Why do you think we have not seen more condemnations from the Iraqi government against US war crimes in Iraq?
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
Cile,
Good to see you around again!
Nadia,
Do you really want me to answer those questions?
Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they have more important things on their minds.
Iraqis in government… I like that! There are two tough requirements in those two words ;)
_____________________________________________________________________
Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they have more important things on their minds.
I my view protecting the human rights of your people is the most important thing to do. They faild.
-- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
"Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt"
I think that is exactly what a lot of people said when Saddam came to power too? And see where it got us. The fact that Iraqis have been tortured by the US forces in Iraq and they behaved as if it was just a slap in the face that had happened says alot about many of the Iraqis in government. Either they have lack of understanding what human rights means or they approve of torturing Iraqis.
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
Nadia,
Will you hold your horses please? I was only being sarcastic.
I would have thought that was evident from the second sentence implying that these people are neither Iraqi (in agenda) nor constituted a government (in the normal sense).
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Forgive me.
_____________________________________________________________________
"But I think you exaggerate the claims of torture,"
Charles you are free to think what ever you want. I however know for real with facts that US torture on Iraqis have been enormous. You can not change that fact.
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Forgive me."
Abu Kkaleel no forgiveness needed, missunderstandings happens that's all : )
For me the human rights issues are very important, and I am very suprised that Iraqis in government have not acted more clearly on this matter. It's as if: you got electric shocks under Saddam well then it was torture and if you got electric shocks by US soldier well then it's not?!!! This is very dangerous.
- Nadia
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles,
Nadia asked me a question and I allowed you one comment on the subject. That should be sufficient.
I will not allow you to derail the discussions on this blog like before.
I will not allow you to set the tone for those discussions.
Otherwise, you are welcome to comment like everybody else.
I hope that I am clear enough.
That is a reality.
_____________________________________________________________________
Displaced Agression
NYT Editorial on Saturday, June 25th:
"The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one."
The US couldn't take action against the Saudi Arabian breeding grounds because it would risk taking oil markets offline and precipitate a global recession.
We are using the river plains of Iraq to take the fight to the Islamic/Saudi/Wahhabi Supremecists.
Will you ever forgive us?
_____________________________________________________________________
Just a few days ago, Mr. Bush confirmed this in a public address.
The question is: for how long will the American public remain acquiescent to this criminal policy?
Only when a wrongful act is stopped and admitted can forgiveness be a possibility. Is that fair enough?
_____________________________________________________________________
If your information on things such as torture is so umistakably accurate, then could you please continue to enlighten us on other important issues that nobody seems to have a posative fact on. Like, why did we go to Iraq. What is the best course of action for comming out of Iraq. Nobody has stated these terms with any sort of certitude, and without that how do we know what is justified and what is not? (Hypothetically) If national security is at hand, then is torture an appropriate option? That's just a hypothetical situation. All we seem to be doing is complaining without any degree of certitude, proof of sources, or any idea of how to fix the problem.
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
I would be grateful for any suggestions of other possible motives to discuss in this series.
I have already written most of the material. I will therefore post more frequently in the coming few weeks, leaving a few days between posts to allow time for discussion.
To keep the posts short, I will dedicate a separate post to each of the above ‘theories’.
I would appreciate it if comments and discussions remain focused on the theory being discussed in each post.
A bilingual, well articulated article by Basim Almustaar link that was written in October of 2003 suggests a reason other that the obvious ones.
# posted by 
: 31/5/05 9:31 PM
: 31/5/05 9:31 PM dear abu, i just read this ... or well, i am going to read it now, but it seems interesting!
"Building a case against the president is not as crazy as it sounds
If you think President Bush should be impeached, it’s time to get serious.
We’re facing huge obstacles—and they have nothing to do with legal standards for impeachment. This is all about media and politics.
Five months into 2005, the movement to impeach Bush is very small. And three enormous factors weigh against it: 1) Republicans control Congress. 2) Most congressional Democrats are routinely gutless. 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a war criminal."
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/1434/Impeachment_Fever_and_Media_Politics
-c-
www.streamtime.org
Hello Abu Khaleel,
You have listed many but I want to discuss #6. I find it extremely embarassing as a US citizen to admit this. Let me restate it, poor innocent(!) Iraq has been designated a kill-zone for the war between Al Qaeda and the US by Bush(Bring 'em on!)and the wahabbis are predictably joining the fray with all the murderous fury they have. This is an absolutely hideous crime against the Iraqi people. It is a calculated way to keep the battle of extermination in a Muslim country away from US (and Saudi?) soil. It harkens back to the battle of Verdun in WWI where the German general staff created a kill zone to annihilate the French army by attrition (BTW,the Verdun operation failed). It was an objective of the US to remove military bases from Saudi Arabia (keeping infidels out of Arabia), which was also a problem with Saddam around--so why not move them to Iraq?(Iraqi Kurdistan was already a base). So a series of convergent, logical, but heartless motives have conspired to ruin the ruined people of Iraq. As for the various insurgents, who I am often accused of seditiously ignoring(Charles) I am reminded of Proverb 28:3 "A poor man who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain which leaves no food". I see the rich of Saudi Arabia and the rich of the US, watching this sick game.
"Like a roaring lion and a charging bear is a wicked ruler over poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor, but he who hates covetousness will prolong his days. ..The righteous considers the cause of the poor but the wicked does not understand such knowledge.'
I started reading the Proverbs of Solomon after I gave up on the Quran. I thought it would give me some clues. Don't worry Circular, I'm not a religious fanatic, but I do have moral sensibilities.
# posted by : 31/5/05 11:47 PM
: 31/5/05 11:47 PM I vote for:
Eliminate Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel by transforming Iraq into an Afghanistan-like American colony.
And failing that
Destroy Iraq as a strategic threat to Israel by promoting a debilitating civil war.
It is really difficult outside of the United States to understand how intense the American identification with Israel is.
For some Americans it is for racial reasons - helping European Jews such as Sharon exert their supremacy over dark Arab Palestinians such as Arafat. For other Americans it is for religious reasons - the belief that the bible demands that Christians help God bring his prophecy that Jews would control Israel.
For most Americans it is a combination of the two - racism reinforcing religious bigotry while religious bigotry reinforces racism.
Anyway, if your next series deals with the mechanisms with which the Americans exert control over the elected Iraqi parliament this link may be of interest:
Link
[Al-Hakim also accused the United States of blocking Iraq's purchase of undisclosed "heavy weaponry."]
Is Iraq not free to use its revenue to purchase what it pleases? If not those who want to see Iraq independent, stable and peaceful (which I do not think includes the US administration) would be interested in knowing exactly what restrictions have been placed and how those restrictions are enforced.
# posted by : 31/5/05 11:50 PM
: 31/5/05 11:50 PM More on the _Impeachment_ at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-23.htm :
Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 by the Boston Globe:
The 'I' Word: Impeachment
by Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese
The impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.
Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.
President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution./.../
Hello Abu Khaleel!
What do you think Iraqis in government have for reasons when they do not condem US war crimes on Iraqis and Iraq?
Why do you think we saw so little reaction from Iraqis in government when US torture of Iraqis was reported on world media?
Why do you think we still have Iraqis in government who act as if the US cares more about Iraqis and our future then we do ourselvs?
Why do you think we have not seen more condemnations from the Iraqi government against US war crimes in Iraq?
- Nadia
# posted by : 1/6/05 5:43 PM
: 1/6/05 5:43 PM Cile,
Good to see you around again!
Nadia,
Do you really want me to answer those questions?
Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they have more important things on their minds.
Iraqis in government… I like that! There are two tough requirements in those two words ;)
Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they have more important things on their minds.
I my view protecting the human rights of your people is the most important thing to do. They faild.
-- Nadia
# posted by : 2/6/05 5:12 PM
: 2/6/05 5:12 PM "Let us give those people the benefit of the doubt"
I think that is exactly what a lot of people said when Saddam came to power too? And see where it got us. The fact that Iraqis have been tortured by the US forces in Iraq and they behaved as if it was just a slap in the face that had happened says alot about many of the Iraqis in government. Either they have lack of understanding what human rights means or they approve of torturing Iraqis.
- Nadia
# posted by : 2/6/05 5:19 PM
: 2/6/05 5:19 PM Nadia,
Will you hold your horses please? I was only being sarcastic.
I would have thought that was evident from the second sentence implying that these people are neither Iraqi (in agenda) nor constituted a government (in the normal sense).
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Forgive me.
"But I think you exaggerate the claims of torture,"
Charles you are free to think what ever you want. I however know for real with facts that US torture on Iraqis have been enormous. You can not change that fact.
- Nadia
# posted by : 3/6/05 9:23 PM
: 3/6/05 9:23 PM "Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Forgive me."
Abu Kkaleel no forgiveness needed, missunderstandings happens that's all : )
For me the human rights issues are very important, and I am very suprised that Iraqis in government have not acted more clearly on this matter. It's as if: you got electric shocks under Saddam well then it was torture and if you got electric shocks by US soldier well then it's not?!!! This is very dangerous.
- Nadia
# posted by : 3/6/05 9:32 PM
: 3/6/05 9:32 PM Charles,
Nadia asked me a question and I allowed you one comment on the subject. That should be sufficient.
I will not allow you to derail the discussions on this blog like before.
I will not allow you to set the tone for those discussions.
Otherwise, you are welcome to comment like everybody else.
I hope that I am clear enough.
That is a reality.
Displaced Agression
NYT Editorial on Saturday, June 25th:
"The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one."
The US couldn't take action against the Saudi Arabian breeding grounds because it would risk taking oil markets offline and precipitate a global recession.
We are using the river plains of Iraq to take the fight to the Islamic/Saudi/Wahhabi Supremecists.
Will you ever forgive us?
# posted by : 27/6/05 8:17 PM
: 27/6/05 8:17 PM Just a few days ago, Mr. Bush confirmed this in a public address.
The question is: for how long will the American public remain acquiescent to this criminal policy?
Only when a wrongful act is stopped and admitted can forgiveness be a possibility. Is that fair enough?
If your information on things such as torture is so umistakably accurate, then could you please continue to enlighten us on other important issues that nobody seems to have a posative fact on. Like, why did we go to Iraq. What is the best course of action for comming out of Iraq. Nobody has stated these terms with any sort of certitude, and without that how do we know what is justified and what is not? (Hypothetically) If national security is at hand, then is torture an appropriate option? That's just a hypothetical situation. All we seem to be doing is complaining without any degree of certitude, proof of sources, or any idea of how to fix the problem.
# posted by : 7/12/06 6:48 PM
: 7/12/06 6:48 PM << Home
