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.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013


About this time every March we remind ourselves that it is the anniversary of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. This year is the tenth anniversary and, for some reason, ten year anniversaries seem to hold a greater fascination for folk than other anniversaries and, as a consequence, this particular tenth year anniversary has renewed the debate over whether or not Western leaders deliberately lied in order to get their respective peoples to support the war.

As I have demonstrated in my previous post here, John Howard, one of the most dedicated of Western leaders determined to follow George W. Bush into war, has been proven to have lied. And, of course, if John Howard has been proven to have lied, than so too have George W. Bush and Tony Blair by virtue of them both having been privy to the same intelligence from the man who had actually destroyed Saddam’s WMDs – crucial intelligence that the rest of the world was denied.

But what’s missing from the debate is the real reason why lies needed to be told in the first place. In other words; if there was a need to lie about the reasons for the West to go to war against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people, what were the real reasons?

In the aftermath of the invasion when it was discovered there were no WMDs afterall, the goalposts were shifted and the Western warlords told the world that the reason for the invasion was that Saddam was a nasty tin-pot dictator who abused his own people. Well, indeed he was, but then so what; the world is full of nasty tin-pot dictators who abuse their own people. Why pick on Iraq?

The answer is one that nobody wants to talk about, and nobody wants to talk about because…. they fear being labelled an anti-Semite.

Israel is the reason Iraq was invaded and Saddam ousted and it was the neoconservatives and their influence in the George W. Bush administration that powered the run up to the war. However, other players with different agendas were also keen to jump on the Iraq invasion bandwagon and together, in pursuit of their respective interests, they made it happen with total disregard to the consequences.

Saddam Hussein had for years been a thorn in Israel’s side. During the First Gulf War, Saddam had launched SCUD missiles at Israel. During the Second Intifada, which began when Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, Saddam provided support to the Palestinians. As the Intifada progressed, the neoconservatives became increasingly bellicose toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the neocons and their allies sought to implicate Saddam Hussein in the attack, as well as Osama bin Laden, demanding that the US and their allies effect regime change in Iraq.

Others that supported the call to war included the military industrial complex, whose nominal head was Vice-president Dick Cheney who also represented the invasion and post-invasion support logistics companies; nationalist Republicans who saw an opportunity to expand US regional hegemony; oil companies who believed that Iraq’s massive oil reserves could fall to their control; post-bellum ‘reconstruction’ contractors who saw a opportunity to make billions of dollars in rebuilding that which the military and subsequent war had destroyed; and the Christian Zionists who saw such a war as part of the great struggle against Islam. But it should be made clear that the primary reason for the invasion and destruction of Iraq was for the benefit of Zionist Israel. Without Israeli Zionists and their neoconservative US supporters there would have been no war.

It may take another ten year anniversary before the mainstream media plucks up enough courage to accept the reality that they were lied to by their governments – and that they became complicit in those lies – and then be able to confront the reasons why they were lied to.

No comments: