Iraq: mother of refugee crises. Part II.

Blog No. 58.

This blog, which was also written in 2004, immediately after the events described, continues on from the previous blog on this subject:

Israel’s Benefit from the Coalition’s War on Iraq. Part II. The Inherited Plan.

There have been many justifications advanced for the American invasion of Iraq. None of them appear to have been of sufficient moment to justify leaving the Afghanistan job only quarter finished.

To steal the oil. The oil motive is the most popular explanation for the American invasion of Iraq and clearly the easiest to latch onto. Vice-President Cheney, with his Haliburton background, is an oil man through and through and would have been frustrated that while the US was hooked on sanctions against Saddam, it would never be able to get him pumping his oil at maximum levels. Clearly Cheney would also be acutely conscious of the coming crunch in World oil supplies as new discoveries start to fall heavily behind current extraction and as current extraction rises in line with China and India’s economic growth.

One of the beneficiaries.

However, in the Saddam case it would have been much easier, much cheaper and with much less risk of a hiccough in supplies, to adjust the sanctions regime and do a deal (not for the first time) with Saddam, than to spend billions on a war guaranteed to alienate the Moslem proprietors of most of the World’s oil reserves.

In regards to the longer-term oil crunch, it is hard to see how military occupation (at least without depopulation) of the oil producing lands would result in more oil flowing to the USA than would have been the case if the World’s strongest economy simply concentrated on out-bidding the other nations trying to get their hands on a share of the available supply. There is nothing in their past history to indicate that the Arab owners of the oil would not be prepared to sell to the highest bidder – provided that bidder had done nothing to make dealing with them totally culturally unacceptable.

A military solution to the USA’s future oil supply problem – and certainly the continued deliberate alienation of Iran – simply does not make sense either in terms of expense or of outcome.

Another aspect of this question is why, given that the Administration has to be fully aware of the impending oil supply bottleneck, does it seem to be making so little attempt to mitigate its effects by taking conservation and alternative energy source measures? Just a fraction of their current annual military budget of US$500 billion diverted into these channels would be likely to place them in a far more favourable position than their current policies. The only argument that makes sense under these circumstances is that they are giving precedence to foreign policy initiatives that are not America’s.

To help the armaments industry. The Afghanistan expenditure should have sufficed to calm the industry’s hunger for several years. Even with open hostilities in Iraq now ended, the American manufacturers of small arms ammunition cannot keep up with demand and the USA taxpayer is paying overseas suppliers (Israel and UK) to make up the shortfall.

To punish Saddam for having “tried to kill my Dad.” There are several recordings of Bush Jr’s statements to this effect – but modern international wars are not waged on such personal fits of a leader’s petulance.

To bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Yeah, right! Just as in Equatorial Guinea, Algeria or Angola.

Iraq democracyTo prevent WMD getting into the hands of terrorists. Had the Administration seriously believed this argument, there would have been no invasion. North Korea was spared, as it was known to posses WMD. Iraq was not spared, as it was known not to possess WMD. The US Intelligence agencies, which had so thoroughly penetrated the UN’s weapons inspection teams, and which, in 1995, had debriefed Saddam’s defecting son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, who had had the responsibility of dismantling Iraq’s WMD programme, must have been confident that the invading forces would not have to face WMD (other than perhaps, a few limited range chemical weapons.) Nor could the US Intelligence agencies have left the key decision makers in the Administration unaware of the well-informed Scott Ritter conclusion that WMD did not exist in Iraq.

bush liedTo exert pressure on terrorist supporters in the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. One of the major goals, or rather justifications, behind the Administration’s decision to invade Iraq was to impress on Middle Eastern states that America was more than a Mogadishu paper tiger and was both willing and able to use its military power against states failing to cooperate in its war against Islamic terrorism. Occupied Iraq was to provide a secure land base in the Islamic heartland from which America could project that awesome military power at will.

Since the invasion of Afghanistan and during it, there had been no evidence of Iranian support for terrorism – other than against Israel. The only terrorism Syria was supporting was against Israel. Only a desire to exert military pressure on the Saudi regime to take stronger steps to cut off financial support reaching Al Qaeda could hold up as the pursuit of a justified American interest – Syria and Iran were targets that suited Israeli interests.

The problem with the pressure on Saudi, the WMD and any other “War on Terrorism” related arguments, is that the decision to invade Iraq had been taken well before the Twin Towers were destroyed. We now know that getting rid of Saddam was top of the agenda at Bush’s first high level national security meeting held on the 30th January 2001, just 20 days after he had taken over the presidency and eight months before the hijacked planes flew out of the sky. Second item on the agenda at that meeting was to move American policy away from the Clinton-tainted Israeli Palestinian peace process and in Bush’s words to “tilt it back toward Israel.” The agenda was free of all mention of terrorism.

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” Click: Clean Break is a 1996 document prepared for the Netanyahu government by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The main authors of the document were David Wurmser and his wife, at that time employees of the Institute, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. The two latter prominent Bush administration neo-cons, were strategic theorists from the Reagan administration who were out of a Government job during the Clinton era and had offered their services to Israel in the interim.

It is apparent from their CV’s (readily accessible through the Web,) that these three major players in the lead-up to the American invasion of Iraq, are all Zionist Zealots. They could only be called American Patriots by an observer unable to see any distinction between the self-interests of the two nations.

Clean Break
Chorus line-up for the Zionist national mayhem

Despite the blatant display of their loyalty to a foreign power, as evidenced by their authorship of “A Clean Break” and much else similar, when the Republicans came back into office under Bush Jnr., Perle was appointed Chairman of the Defence Policy Board and Feith was appointed Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, directly under Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the senior post responsible for “defence” policy in the Pentagon. Wurmser became Mr Cheney’s top Middle Eastern expert in the State Department.

The policy document they had prepared for the Netanyahu Government (and which Perle handed over to the Israeli Prime Minister in person,) dealt with the enhancement of both the economic and the military security of the State of Israel. The key points in their military proposal was that Israel abandon the peace-oriented policies of the recently assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, and instead adopt an aggressive, balance of power, pre-emptive approach to the re-ordering of the surrounding states. Aggressive war would be waged. Lebanon would be re-invaded as a springboard to the removal of the Syrian, followed by the Iraqi, regimes. The Clinton Administration’s and American public opinion’s support would be won by using the pretext of removing the threat of “Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure” and by “drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction programme.” Once Syria was engaged, the war could be expanded to take down Saddam Hussein’s regime (“an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”) and possibly replace him with a member of Jordan’s Hashemite Royal Family.

Netanyahu rejected the proposals. However, the authors of the document continued to lobby both in Israel and to the Clinton administration for the increase, and acceptance as legitimate, of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, the abandonment of the Oslo accords and, in unison with Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo-con set, the removal of Saddam Hussein by military force. Clinton was unimpressed by the neo-con arguments, but the younger Bush, with his questionable IQ, total ignorance of international affairs and born-again Christian’s naïve enthusiasm for Zionist expansion, offered his tabula rasa mind to the neo-cons’ board-marker.

The pro-Israel lobbyists within the Administration immediately seized upon the 9/11 attacks as a Heaven (or Hell) sent opportunity to achieve an American invasion of Iraq. It then became necessary to persuade the officials within the Washington agencies that the war was justified so that they in turn, could sell this story to the American public and to potential overseas allies. Wurmser and Feith played crucial roles in this endeavour. Wurmser was asked by Feith to establish a secret intelligence unit called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. The task of this unit was to counter the CIA’s claims that it could find no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The mission was to cherry-pick all items of intelligence that could be used as pro-war propaganda within the Administration and to swing the minds of the legislature.

By August 2002 the momentum within the Administration towards the decision to invade Iraq was irreversible. Feith then created a new Pentagon sub-unit, the Office of Special Plans, which absorbed Wurmser’s unit. This unit was linked to a similar unit in Sharon’s office. The close links with Sharon’s administration involved regular visits to the Washington Office of Special Plans by high-ranking Israeli officials and IDF officers. Israeli originated (and highly dubious) intelligence was linked directly to the American-produced article to create the firestorm of anxiety, which led Congress to hand over its war-making powers into the hands of the President. Anyone who wants further detail on the above machinations should read Chapter 12 of “A Pretext for War” by James Bamford. The book’s sources are amply footnoted.

Colin Powell’s vial antics at the UN.

In the event, the military proposals contained in the Clean Break document were put into effect not by the Israeli, but by the American Administration. Though the intended sequence was reversed (Iraq and then Syria, rather than the other way round) it is still the same Zionist realm that is being secured.

Syria was fortunate that, as the Iraqi resistance blunted the US Administration’s appetite for fresh military adventures, regime change in Syria, the anticipated Phase II of the invasion of Iraq, was curtailed and has to-date only involved American sabre rattling and economic sanctions. However, Syria cannot relax. It can anticipate that Sharon will take up the American battle flag as soon as he feels the Iraqi flank is secure. Israel’s current involvement in Kurdistan could be an indication of this intention. (Note: 2015. Current events in Syria would confirm the accuracy of my original analysis.)

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.