What was the aim?

[kurabrhm]

In hindsight, anyone can see that both Blair and Bush's intentions in removing Saddam were focussed on the need to divert the terrorists interests from international targets, especially western targets, and make them concentrate their efforts on hurting Iraq. Of course there were other intentions which many know but this was clearly, on reflection, quite a sinister intention.
But it has all turned out to be a great folly. Despite Western wishes, the West has not been spared of terrorist attacks. Both the bombings in Madrid and the seige of the Russian school are clear examples of this.

 

[ShadowAspect]

In hindsight, anyone can see that both Blair and Bush's intentions in removing Saddam were focussed on the need to divert the terrorists interests from international targets,

I couldn't possibly disagree more...

I often hear it said that the reason things have gone so badly in Iraq is that there was no plan to deal with the country after the initial invasion. In fact this could not be further from the truth. There was a plan which was in fact the whole driving force behind the march to war, it's just that it failed in such a spectacular fashion that it never got off the ground!

The idea was that capitalism would cure all. It's such a simple theory that it sounds... too good to be true, which of course it was.
The idea is that you cause so much chaos in Iraq that the people will too busy trying to feed themselves to mount any kind of resistance. And then you move in and create a capitalist utopia... almost over night, McDonalds and Walmart will open up on every street corner, HSBC will open a branch in every town and village... the 28 million Iraqis become happy consumers and an environment has been created where an insurgency cannot survive.

I probably haven't done a very good idea of selling this theory, maybe because I think it's total cobblers, but a neo-conservative would probably explain it to you with great passion and point out that everybody wins. But they would wouldn't they? They believe in globalization, free market capitalism, barrier and tariff free trade. They believe that people are happy as long as they have the freedom to buy what they want at the mall, even if there is no real freedom at the ballot box.
And they easily sold this plan because it gives big business huge rewards. It gives the oil men huge rewards. It basically creates a gold rush for anybody interested in money. It also creates a capitalist utopia in the middle of a troubled region where they could initiate their own 'domino effect'. The theory is that once free market capitalism spreads to the rest of the middle east the islamic/muslim world would lose the will to fight against the west. The ideology of consumerism will win out over religious extremism.

You can kinda see the logic behind it. But it does kind of depend on everybody suddenly developing the very worst of western values.

This truly was an enterprise that was supposed to kill many birds with one stone, from securing the security of Israel, opening up a new oil supply, being able to put troops closer to Iran and Syria, spreading democracy and capitalism. It even had a plus side for the military as it relied on all the new toys to make a quick 'shock and awe' impact, and then allowed for a quick get out.

It failed in spectacular fashion for two main reasons. Firstly because the idea that causing total chaos wouldn't allow an insurgency to get off the ground. It did as you know and America wasn't left with enough troops to quash what there was let alone secure borders. This hardly encouraged a gold-rush of companies wanting to invest. Secondly, the whole enterprise was illegal and against the Geneva Convention. America has no right to move in and create a capitalist utopia... it cannot sell off a country which it occupies, and it cannot set trade laws that are permanent... and big business knows it! It may sound inviting today (it doesn't but pretend for sake of argument), but a legitimate government might move all the goal posts tomorrow.

These two flaws in the plan were enough to sink it, and there are yet many other flaws which can and will cause equally big holes in the Neo-con boat.

But lets get this straight, it wasn't supposed to go wrong! By now the whole country was supposed to be all warm and fuzzy with everybody driving pick-up trucks, wearing Nike trainers and munching on hamburgers. That was supposed to happen, and it doesn't tally with any kind of idea about fighting the terrorists on home ground!

Either the aim of the war in Iraq was to take peace, freedom and democracy to Iraq, or the aim was to turn it into a terrorist war zone. You can't really do both.


My opion of the REAL reasons for the war is this... The Neo-cons push for this war because they could win it. They have an idiology and over the last few years they thought they had developed strategies to sucessfully export it to the rest of the world. The ideas of pre-emptive strikes, ecconomic shock, 'year zero' and 'shock and awe', were untested, but if they worked, basically meant that they could shape the world to their great vision. I suppose that if you put yourself in their shoes, they had to give it a shot to see if their magic formular would work.
Oil is a part of this, and money, and Israel and religion. They all played a part in offering an incentive. But the real reason that we went to war in Iraq was that a bunch or right wingers thought they could make it work, and if they could make it work this time, they could do it again and again. So be glad they failed.

 

[kamahl]

I stopped worrying about whether the war was right or wrong a long time ago. I do however strongly believe that the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam.

 

[BobbieDog]

Good topic. Some agreement that this is a complex issue: both as to the motivation to war, and the choice of how to fight it; and as to whether the people of Iraq are better/worse off (should that be off or of, I'd appreciate advice on that? i'm a bit obsessive with language, and being uncertain with that one has been bugging me for days.).

I've come across the perspective SA advances with Klein: and I think it's a necessary and good one; not only for its detailed understanding, but because it well shows the scale of thinking required to comprehend the Iraq event.

I have seen in other threads that there was in fact extremely comprehensive planning in place in the USA, regarding a war in Iraq, and the management of the subsequent peace: but that this planning was disregarded, for what were political reasons; with Donald Rumsfeld being the main creator of this abandonment. It may well be that nothing which has arisen post invasion in Iraq, was not anticipated in that planning: and that all of the difficulty we, and most crucially the Iraqi people now face, has all been triggered by the administration abandonment of that planning.

Are the Iraqi people better of than under SH? The saddest of facts, is that Iraq in now replete with reasons, which amount to the daily life of many, many Iraqis: which support argument that Iraq and its people were better of under SH. Not only is this an academic matter, for it daily increases the numbers of those who will take up arms against us in Iraq.

GWB has hammered the message so hard, that the war on terror will not be fought on American soil: that it will be fought abroad, in other people's back yard; that the thesis advanced by Kubrahm must be considered as seriously and carefully as the suggestions that Iraq may not have had WMD at the point of invasion, and that Iraq under SH was no part of AQ.

There are countless people involved in what is the "motivation" of America, here to invade Iraq. Could some sizeable constituency of these people have seen, while knowing that Iraq was unconnected with AQ and the war on terror, the possibility of making that country the primary battlefield, the main theatre of physical conflict? If so, how right did they get it? Did they miscalculate in thinking they could contain the conflict to Iraq? Did they fail to see how Iraq might become a recruiting and training ground? Did they just fail to consider the possibility, that whatever they might choose to do, they might still lose in their chosen battlefield?

In all this of course, it’s the Iraqi people who suffer: and that has to be wrong, no matter what any other facts and truths. Reflection such as here should be about the most direct and quickest route to easing the suffering of that people.

 

[Singing Bush]

Good topic. Some agreement that this is a complex issue: both as to the motivation to war, and the choice of how to fight it; and as to whether the people of Iraq are better/worse off (should that be off or of, I'd appreciate advice on that? i'm a bit obsessive with language, and being uncertain with that one has been bugging me for days.).

It's "off" and you don't need an additional period after the period enclosed by the (). Behold my grammer genius!

Are the Iraqi people better of than under SH? The saddest of facts, is that

Iraq in now replete with reasons, which amount to the daily life of many, many Iraqis: which support argument that Iraq and its people were better of under SH. Not only is this an academic matter, for it daily increases the numbers of those who will take up arms against us in Iraq.

Though I'm sure it depends a lot on what groups of people you are referring to, yes, as a whole I think the Iraqi people were better off, at least in the short term, under Saddam. That said, the potential for a much better future for the Iraqi people is now much greater than it ever was or could have been under Saddam. Whether that future will be realized or not is still, of course, to be seen.

 

[Singing Bush]

In hindsight, anyone can see that both Blair and Bush's intentions in removing Saddam were focussed on the need to divert the terrorists interests from international targets, especially western targets, and make them concentrate their efforts on hurting Iraq.

While we cannot know for sure their true intentions, I think it is likely this was not one of their intentions. Ever since the war was first postulated it was supposed to be a quick and glorious victory as the Saddam regime crumbled and the freedom loving Iraqis happily fell in line w/ the Coalition authority. Additionally, the great thorn in both their sides politically resulting from the continued conflict in Iraq makes it further unlikely that this was one of their goals. If they wanted a backyard to club terrorists in they already had Afghanistan. And lastly, the same end result, neutralizing terrorists, could likely have been effectively accomplished w/ less money by simply continuing the War on Terrorism through policing measures.

 

[Singing Bush]

I couldn't possibly disagree more...


The idea was that capitalism would cure all.

That's an uh... interesting theory you have there. Would you uh... happen to have any evidence to back it up?

 

[kurabrhm]

I couldn't possibly disagree more...



The idea was that capitalism would cure all. It's such a simple theory that it sounds... too good to be true, which of course it was.
The idea is that you cause so much chaos in Iraq that the people will too busy trying to feed themselves to mount any kind of resistance. And then you move in and create a capitalist utopia... almost over night, McDonalds and Walmart will open up on every street corner, HSBC will open a branch in every town and village... the 28 million Iraqis become happy consumers and an environment has been created where an insurgency cannot survive.

Eh??? WHat are you talking about here? A capitalist utopia in Iraq? Don't we have that already in Gulf states such as the UAE? Its too early to have a good well functioning capitalist system in place in Iraq. The country is in a mess right now. The biggest problem is the insurgency. How do we tackle it? Its a tough job but until it has been fully dealt with i doubt we'll see the likes of HSBC and McDonald's in Baghdad. Although I'm sure they're all waiting in a line!


I probably haven't done a very good idea of selling this theory, maybe because I think it's total cobblers, but a neo-conservative would probably explain it to you with great passion and point out that everybody wins. But they would wouldn't they? They believe in globalization, free market capitalism, barrier and tariff free trade. They believe that people are happy as long as they have the freedom to buy what they want at the mall, even if there is no real freedom at the ballot box.
And they easily sold this plan because it gives big business huge rewards. It gives the oil men huge rewards. It basically creates a gold rush for anybody interested in money. It also creates a capitalist utopia in the middle of a troubled region where they could initiate their own 'domino effect'. The theory is that once free market capitalism spreads to the rest of the middle east the islamic/muslim world would lose the will to fight against the west. The ideology of consumerism will win out over religious extremism.

Well let's hope that free market capitalism does spread throughout the middle east and that Iraq serves as a good springboard to this. Because you know the Gulf states, which do well on their own, are just too weak geopolitically to make the kind of difference in the wider mid east that Iraq can potentially make.

You can kinda see the logic behind it. But it does kind of depend on everybody suddenly developing the very worst of western values.

This truly was an enterprise that was supposed to kill many birds with one stone, from securing the security of Israel, opening up a new oil supply, being able to put troops closer to Iran and Syria, spreading democracy and capitalism. It even had a plus side for the military as it relied on all the new toys to make a quick 'shock and awe' impact, and then allowed for a quick get out.

It failed in spectacular fashion for two main reasons. Firstly because the idea that causing total chaos wouldn't allow an insurgency to get off the ground. It did as you know and America wasn't left with enough troops to quash what there was let alone secure borders. This hardly encouraged a gold-rush of companies wanting to invest. Secondly, the whole enterprise was illegal and against the Geneva Convention. America has no right to move in and create a capitalist utopia... it cannot sell off a country which it occupies, and it cannot set trade laws that are permanent... and big business knows it! It may sound inviting today (it doesn't but pretend for sake of argument), but a legitimate government might move all the goal posts tomorrow.

These two flaws in the plan were enough to sink it, and there are yet many other flaws which can and will cause equally big holes in the Neo-con boat.

But lets get this straight, it wasn't supposed to go wrong! By now the whole country was supposed to be all warm and fuzzy with everybody driving pick-up trucks, wearing Nike trainers and munching on hamburgers. That was supposed to happen, and it doesn't tally with any kind of idea about fighting the terrorists on home ground!

I'm sorry but how does anyone envisage a traditional country like Iraq to transform from being traditional one day to modern and Western the next? The idea that you've put forward is just absurd!! Pick up trucks - - yes maybe. Nike trainers sure would catch on with the young ones. But modernised Western capitalism is much more than just Nikes and pick up trucks! And you can't expect traditional iraqi's to embrace Western consumerism that easily!

Either the aim of the war in Iraq was to take peace, freedom and democracy to Iraq, or the aim was to turn it into a terrorist war zone. You can't really do both.


My opion of the REAL reasons for the war is this... The Neo-cons push for this war because they could win it. They have an idiology and over the last few years they thought they had developed strategies to sucessfully export it to the rest of the world. The ideas of pre-emptive strikes, ecconomic shock, 'year zero' and 'shock and awe', were untested, but if they worked, basically meant that they could shape the world to their great vision. I suppose that if you put yourself in their shoes, they had to give it a shot to see if their magic formular would work.
Oil is a part of this, and money, and Israel and religion. They all played a part in offering an incentive. But the real reason that we went to war in Iraq was that a bunch or right wingers thought they could make it work, and if they could make it work this time, they could do it again and again. So be glad they failed.

Right Wing neo cons - -- isn't that a rather lame modern version of the party that Goerring and Hitler belonged to??

 

[BobbieDog]

That's an uh... interesting theory you have there. Would you uh... happen to have any evidence to back it up?

This is Baghdad Year Zero, a feature by Naomi Klein, originally from September 2004, published Friday, September 24, 2004. It is part of Features, which is part of Harpers.org.

Written By

Klein, Naomi

I haven't got the URL for the article, but I do have the article as word file. I did post the URL in some other thread, if I can get round to rememebering which one.