AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

CHENEY RECKONS IRAQ INVASION ‘A SUCCESSFUL ENDEAVOUR’ – BUT SUCCESSFUL FOR WHO?

Just as Vice-resident Dick Cheney was telling American and Iraqi leaders in Baghdad how ‘phenomenal’ the security improvements in Iraq had been, a massive suicide bomb went off killing some 42 people.

Cheney also spoke of how the invasion of Iraq had been a ‘successful endeavour’ that had ‘been well worth the effort’. One needs to ask, however; who has it been ‘successful’ for?

It certainly hasn’t been successful for the nearly 4,300 allied soldiers killed in Iraq and the tens of thousands that have been wounded, many of them so badly that they will need care for the rest of their lives.

It certainly hasn’t been successful for the hundreds of thousands, possibly even a million or more Iraqis that have died or the 4.5 million refugees that have fled their homes because of the ‘successful endeavour’.

It certainly hasn’t been successful for the millions of remaining Iraqis who now have to contend with unemployment which runs at 60-70% across Iraq and who have to endure the breakdown of health and other basic utility services which have been falling into ruin since sanctions in Iraq began after the first Gulf War.

It certainly hasn’t been successful for the victims of the rampaging and highly organised criminal gangs with connections to the corrupt Iraqi government that go around murdering, threatening, kidnapping and bombing for control of neighbourhoods that are awash with American taxpayer’s dollars.

So, who has the ‘endeavour’ been ‘successful’ for? Well, for a start, it’s been highly successful for the Israelis who wanted to be rid of Saddam and for who the war was instigated for in the first place by the neoconservatives in the Bush administration.

Not only were they able to take full advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 in order to get an American public behind the invasion of Iraq, but now, in the light of the many anomalies that have appeared in the official story of what happened on that fateful Pearl Harbor-like day, one must question if and to what extent those same neoconservatives and allies in Israel may have been involved in the planning and perpetration of that crime. It does seem, after all, that it is they, the Israelis and neoconservatives, which have benefited most from the disaster.

But the Israelis and their neoconservative supporters in the US are not the only ones that can concur with Cheney’s assertion that the invasion of Iraq was a ‘successful endeavour’. America’s vast and cripplingly expensive Military and Industrial Complex has benefited enormously from both the Iraq war and America’s invasion of Afghanistan. Companies that have been given massive contracts to supply the troops with everything from a packed lunch to a hospital bed have also benefited greatly – especially those companies that Cheney himself had once been CEO of, KBR and its parent company Haliburton, which have made billions from contracts awarded to them from a government that didn’t bother to even look at other suppliers.

The private security companies in Iraq would also be inclined to go along with Cheney’s remarks about the invasion being a ‘successful endeavour’. They too have been given billions of dollars worth of contracts to provide security, curiously enough, for the US troops in Iraq. (There’s something odd about an invading army that needs to be protected by a private army of mercenaries.)

Then, of course, there is the oil. It’s not yet fully in the hands of the American oil barons but at least it’s not in the hands of Saddam anymore. The Americans do have some semblance of control over Iraq’s oil and the invasion and general uncertainty about security in the region caused by America’s wars has managed to push the price of oil up to levels where oil companies are now making unprecedented profits, all at the expense of the average person on the street – literally.

So, from his point of view, Cheney is right; the invasion has been a ‘successful endeavour’, and one that they won’t be walking away from any time soon.

For the Iraqi people, however, the invasion was a monumental disaster which has left them in a state of total despair. The forty two people that died as Cheney spoke, I'm sure, were not thinking that the invasion was a 'successful endeavour' just before they died. Nor, I suspect, are their relatives and friends who now have to pick up the pieces and try to get on with their lives wondering if its really worth it.

For the American people too, Iraq has been a poisoned chalice which has ruined their nation both economically and morally. For the rest of the world one hopes that the lesson of Iraq has been learnt but, of course, we’ve heard all that before. The world never seems to learn.

And judging by the noises still coming from the likes of Cheney, the neocons that are left, and the Israelis, it isn’t over yet.

2 comments:

Andrew B. Noselli said...

VP: Iran May Have Resumed Weapon Program

Retaining his tough stance against Iran, Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that Tehran may have restarted the nuclear weaponization program that a U.S. intelligence report said was halted in 2003.

Speaking in Oman, a U.S.-allied Arab monarchy and neighbor of Iran's, Cheney told ABC News, "The important thing to keep in mind is the objective that we share with many of our friends in the region, and that is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be very destabilizing for the entire area."

In December an intelligence report known as the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran's nuclear weapons development program was stopped in the fall of 2003 because of international pressure. The report, however, cautioned that Tehran continues to enrich uranium and still could develop a bomb between 2010 and 2015 if it decided to do so.

Critics of the Bush administration said the report should dampen any campaign for a U.S. confrontation with Iran.

But Cheney that that while the NIE said Iran had a program to develop a nuclear warhead, it remains unclear if it has resumed that activity.

"What it (the NIE) says is that they have definitely had in the past a program to develop a nuclear warhead; that it would appear that they stopped that weaponization process in 2003. We don't know whether or not they've restarted," he said.

"What we do know is that they had then, and have now, a process by which they're trying to enrich uranium, which is the key obstacle they've got to overcome in order to have a nuclear weapon," he added. "They've been working at it for years."

The vice president's visit to Oman, part of a 10-day trip to the Mideast, fueled speculation that the United States was ratcheting up military pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. As a quiet U.S. military ally, Oman allows the United States to use four air bases—including one just 50 miles from Iran—for refueling, logistics and storage of pre-positioned military supplies.

Cheney denied that he'd stepped up his opposition to Iran's nuclear policy.

"I've been pretty consistent over time about Iran," he said. "I don't think I've ratcheted up the rhetoric. I felt strongly for a long time, and a lot of us have, that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons."

Cheney officials said the vice president wanted to visit the sultanate to show U.S. appreciation for its cooperation in fighting terrorism, but that Iran would be a top topic of discussion.

Before dining with Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said, Cheney borrowed his 60-foot royal yacht and went fishing.

A Cheney spokeswoman said the vice president, his wife Lynne, and daughter, Liz, a former State Department official who is traveling with her father as a private citizen, headed out under sunny skies into the Gulf of Oman on "Kingfish I." Cheney has had a personal relationship with the sultan going back to the time when the vice president was defense secretary, but the sultan did not go along on the fishing trip.

DEAR DAMIAN, DO YOU THINK IT IS LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE CONFLICT WITH IRAN BEFORE THE END OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ? -ABN

Damian Lataan said...

Hi Andrew

Sorry for the delay in responding. I think whether or not Bush will launch an attack against Iran – though I think it’s important to mention that it would not be an invasion but, rather, a massive bombing attack designed to force the Iranian government into capitulation and ‘regime change’ – will rather depend on a number of factors not least of which is; who looks like winning the election. If McCain looks like he’ll get then I think Bush may well leave it to him. On the other hand, if it looks like Obama will get up then Bush might just decided to have a go himself; he’s got absolutely nothing to loose – not even his reputation!

The other factor in the Iran equation, of course, is Israel. They may force Bush’s hand. Israel may well decide to force the issue by attacking Hezbollah and Hamas with a major offensive against Lebanon, the Gaza and Syria all at the same time. If this happens then Iran could easily be drawn in. Even if they are not, Israel may choose to believe they will be and make a pre-emptive small attack on Iran which one might look upon as a detonator for the larger ‘explosion’ that would occur by the US then having to respond massively against Iran in order to protect Israel from Iranian retaliation.

Naturally, there are many scenarios which may occur but I think that an attack in some way or another against Iran is likely before Bush is gone if for no other reason than I doubt if McCain will get up. The American people generally have had a gutful of all this – but what does Bush care?.