Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq a Failed Imperialist Venture
American troops were not welcomed with flowers in Iraq but their departure from cities and towns has been.
Iraqis celebrated National Sovereignty Day Tuesday as U.S. troops were yanked out of populated centres and put into remote bases.
In time, even that hidden presence will begin to grate on the Iraqis, just as a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia had spurred Osama bin Laden and others.
Yet this limited troop pullout is being hailed as a triumph. One is reminded of Richard Nixon's 1973 boast of "peace with honour" in Vietnam. The 1973 Paris treaty that led to the U.S. troop withdrawal was a face-saving formula.
In Iraq, too, the U.S. has little choice but to get out.
Not only did the Iraqi invasion and occupation prove the limits of military power, it also exposed how incapable America has become at nation-building. Its postwar incompetence was stunning.
America plunged Iraq into chaos, shattered the infrastructure and destroyed the society, reducing human beings to their basest instincts. They turned on each other and found safety only in family, tribe, clan and sect. Shiites and Sunnis, who had lived together for ages, ethnically cleansed each other's neighbourhoods, which to this day remain separated by barricades, walls and checkpoints.
Having unleashed the forces that put Iraq's three main communities at war with each other, the U.S. toyed with the idea of dividing the country into the Kurdish north, a Sunni centre and a Shiite south, much like the British had divided India in two in 1947.
Having created the chaos, violence and jihadism, the U.S. said, in colonial fashion, it had to stay to curb the chaos, violence and jihadism. Having crippled the state, it had no choice but to prolong the occupation until the natives were ready to govern themselves.
Iraq exhausted America more than the 1917-32 British invasion and occupation sapped the British. It also created killing fields on a vast scale.
Yet Iraqis have been brushed out of the American narrative – Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, it is democratic, it is stabilized, it is this and it is that.
There's nary a mention of how many Iraqis are dead (between 100,000 and 1.2 million, depending on who's counting), how many maimed (not known), how many displaced (4 million), and how many tortured with Saddam-like methods in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (not known).
Besides the damage to U.S. credibility, and not just in the Muslim world, the Iraq adventure empowered Iran far more than the U.S. would ever acknowledge.
Finally, the quest for oil may also turn out to be a mirage.
This week, Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, a U of T graduate, put development rights up for international bidding. No more no-bid contracts for U.S. firms, unlike under the Bush-Cheney domain.
Nor did George W. and Dick get what they wanted out of the Status of Forces Agreement. Passed by the Iraqi parliament last fall, it stipulates that all U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011. No U.S. military operation can be carried out without Iraqi consent (a provision Hamid Karzai can only dream of). Iraqi soil cannot be used by the U.S. to launch a war on any neighbour (Iran).
Iraq is the imperial adventure that both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, one a neo-con hawk and the other a liberal hawk, fully backed. A monumental failure in judgment, their common stance was, and remains, an affront to the collective will of Canadians.
25 Comments so far
Show AllGood luck getting the US to follow the agreement for 2011. I hate to say it, but you had better not put down your arms.
Google "US Indian treaties".
It all depends on how you define 'failure' doesn't it?
For most of us, the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan and soon to be Pakistan) was and is a monumental failure; not to mention it's criminality. It has (like the war in Vietnam) unnecessarily cost us blood, treasure, and respect around the world. We are seen as a rogue state by most of humanity, except by our sycophants, and the greatest threat to world peace and stability.
But for much of the corporate community, and their political shills, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a spectacular success. And as usual the corporate class reaps the benefits while the working class pays the costs. It means more profits, a more authoritarian and less accountable government at home, greater public jingoism and destructive patriotism during what has become a perpetual 'war', and the withdrawal of many from, or their dissatisfaction with, the political process because they see what a sham it really is. More than ever before, our form of 'democracy' (and I use the term broadly) is a spectator sport.
Whether it is true or not that a people deserve the government they get, we've got a corrupt and unresponsive government and I suggest that this side of a complete social meltdown there isn't anything we can do about it.
could you ever have thought of a common denominator as to why librals and conservatives alike agreed on invading iraq? they used to say if you find two fish fighting in a pond, look for the british finger as the instigator. that was replaced now by the israeli finger, so much feared even to mention, people like the writer takes the fifth ammandmant from subjecting him self to the wrath of israe mossad.long live freedom of the press in the western world. or shall i say in pravda world.
"Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff - A monumental failure in judgment"
These are the choices Canada faces in the next election - and why no one wants an election.
We keep hearing about American interests (with a big A) in any talk of any thing outside our borders, but here at home, american interests get the well known one finger salute.
"just as a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia had spurred Osama bin Laden and others."
Everyone understands that the next cycle of imperial blowback will turn the USA into a full-fledged police state. USans want facial recognition surveillance at every street corner, every building lobby. It will help grow the economy, increase prosperity.
The U.S. deliberately destroyed Iraq FOR ISRAEL. Israel alone benefited from the mayhem, which was long planned.
An article by Israeli Oded Yinon in the Journal, Kivunim ("Directions")of the World Zionist Organiztion, Feb. 1982, states:"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short term target. Iraq, rich in oil, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets."
The U.S., a puppet of Israel, shed its blood and treasure to carry out the Zionist program spelled out above. Now, the Zionists would have the U.S. destroy Syria and Iran. Dr. Israel Shahak wrote in his booK OPEN SECRETS:"Israeli strategies are aimed at establishing a hegemony over the entire Middle East...without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, INCLUDING NUCLEAR ONES."
Senator J. William Fulbright stated in his book THE PRICE OF EMPIRE:"We have lost our freedom of action in the Middle East and are committed to policies that promote neither our own national interest nor the cause of peace...The Israeli government dominates our policy in the Middle East."
Blaming the Zionist state for America's transgressions in the Mideast is one way to avoid putting the blame where it really belongs, on America's quest for Empire. Yes, the Zionist state, aided and abetted by its U.S. supporters, may influence U.S. policy in the Mideast, but only within a framework of well defined U.S. strategy aimed at world conquest. That the "tail" doesn't wag the "dog" was amply demonstrated in the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli Suez Canal fiasco, whereby, following a few words of admonishment from President Dwight Eisenhower, the three partners in international crime called off their attack upon Egypt. Likewise today, any time U.S. policy makers decide that it's in our national interest to put a leash on Israel, it could and would force the Zionist state to call off or end its agressive behavior towards one or more of its neighbors. The fact that the U.S. isn't restraining Israel speaks not to that entity's independence from U.S. control, but to our governments approval of its actions. A windfall benefit for the U.S. is that should one of Israel's aggressions fail or otherwise go wrong, our government can claim that it tried to stop Israel but the settler-state wouldn't listen. What's called plausible denial. And then if homegrown opposition to our government really heats up, there's always the ultimate fallback position, scapegoating, and, voila -"Don't blame us, it was the Jew". Thus the net result could be that Zionism, which got its start as a 19th Century so-called Jewish National Liberation Movement, ends up devouring its own. Unless, of course, we see through all the subterfuge and trickery of our government, rise up en masse, whereupon it'll be up to us, the what sort of world.
I put the blame squarely where it belong. On the Bush Administation. Blaming Israel is cop-out. The invasion of Iraq was an Anglo-American decision. No other ethnic group needs to be blamed.
Well maybe we missed this time,but just wait until Hawaii starts mouthing off.
Only when the country is broke with no recourse will the population understand that under the Clinton and Bush Families,
our industrial base was sold out to China, in what can only be described as a complete doublecross to the working classes by
the ruling elite of this country. We are in a major depression and it will only get worse and it might be to late for the people to rise in revolt by the working classes.
Damn, I wish I owned an ammunition factory.
One down (Iraq) and one to go (Afghanistan). Hopefully the American empire is crumbling and the American people will demand that this total waste of money be directed at addressing the needs of its people rather than empire for the multinational corporations.
There was loot won for the usual fascist corporate interests.
But not nearly the loot that was expected to be won.
Simply put: a catastrophic national disaster of the largest magnitude for Iraq where millions have been killed, maimed and made refugees; a 3-7 Trillion dollar failure and rip-off for the American people, where thousands of soldiers were killed, maimed and damaged for life, a huge success and 100s of billions in profits for the ruling elite and their corporate sponsors.
The kleptocratic parasites win, everyone else loses miserably. That's the way imperialism works
"America plunged Iraq into chaos, shattered the infrastructure and destroyed the society, reducing human beings to their basest instincts. They turned on each other and found safety only in family, tribe, clan and sect. Shiites and Sunnis, who had lived together for ages, ethnically cleansed each other's neighbourhoods, which to this day remain separated by barricades, walls and checkpoints."
What Goes Around Is Coming Around -- to the USA
I am in agreement that America plunged Iraq into chaos, and destruction with the public having been convinced about the stores of (mythical) WMDs by Bush & Co. In my humble opinion, this was criminal, and those responsible should be held accountable starting with Bush, then Cheney, and down the line. What a waste also of the over 5,000 U.S. military personnel killed, and the thousands wounded!
Iraq is Amerika's 21st century Vietnam.
The M/I/I complex made out like bandits though.
Just to point out the original plan was to scale U.S. forces down to 30,000 by December 2003.
The original plan was for flowers from happy Iraqis. The original plan was a 2-month campaign. The original plan was to cost a few billions, max, because the operation was going to pay for itself with oil money. The original plan was for a full-on US colony with the usual puppet government: the gov't is run more by Iran than anybody else...What a joke!
NOTHING WORKED OUT AS 'DREAMED'. (there was really not much real planning)
Iraq a failed imperialist venture? Yuh think?!?!?!
Wow, was his head in buried in the sand all these years or is he really that naive? Mr Siddiqui is wrong. The US occupation of Iraq was a successful imperialist venture. Just ask those who are reaping unaccounted fortunes for embarking with Bush on Operation Iraqi Freedom: Exxon, BP, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. It seems Mr Siddiqui's expectations are based on Bush's thinly veiled lies of "liberation", "democracy" and "defeating terrorists". Did Mr. Siddiqui not read those damning leaked pre-9/11 memos, reports of the DoD indiscriminately funding Shia and Sunni factions, Baker & Bott negotiating oil contracts, the yellow cake lies, etc?!?!?!? Sorry for bursting your bubble Mr Siddiqui, but US interests were never concerned about setting an example of democracy, making a good impression or hurting anyone's feelings in Iraq. I am appalled, given the abundant evidence to the contrary, that you would swallow the corporate spin on the Iraqi con job, hook, line and sinker, amazing!
Peas, you're not arguing that the "imperial adventure" was a failure. You're saying that the business venture behind the imperial adventure was a success.
But it's too early to say if this atrocity will pay off for the corporations you named. Perhaps this war will mark the end of corporate personhood, and that would mean it wasn't "a success" for these money-seeking institutions.
What Peas sez ^
Cheney Inc.'s omelette is done to a perfect, fluffy turn. So a few eggs got broken ...