The vast majority of the population of this country gets all its news from TV. These people are not subject to much media “spin”. All they know is that bombs go off every day in Iraq and Howard says that it would be a victory for the terrorists if our soldiers came home.

On the other hand the minority like to think deeply about the issue and come up with a range of theories. Maybe watching only TV is not such a dead loss as anybody who is not part of Bush’s inner circle is only guessing at the reasons the US invaded Iraq.

A broader view might go something like this.
Oil as you say has been fundamental. Pipe lines for oil and gas from Central Asia were planned not through Iran an enemy, (see Mossadeq) but Afghanistan.
However Afghanistan started as a pay back for Russia following her invasion in 1979 and used trained Mujahideen as opponents. These were funded and equipped variously by the US and Saudi Arabia together with others, the training mainly in the hands of Pakistan. Students came for many places to which many returned the source of our current so called Terrorist crisis, so well used as political tool see Herman Goering.

Iraq which had always been a focus of the neocons at least since the letter to Clinton advocating war 1988 and became reality following removal of Iraqi from Kuwait and their being made subject to security council provisions on disarmament later used as a ruse for war in 2003.

During this time the media generally supported the Government line as exemplified by the analysis of Friel and Falk in The Record of a Paper. The propaganda line, shown as such by release of the Downing Street Memos, was followed not only by the group in USA but by Australia and the UK (plus some others Spain Italy Poland etc).

This is very brief but can be checked out using the many sources now available. In summary the so called free world was conned, easily done given the general disinterest in F. Affairs by the public, into trashing another country killing many and acting as the past history of Colonial arrogance and special pleading would suggest they should; this regardless of the UN.
It is of course doubtful however much the few cry for application of the International law that these people will be brought to justice.
Victors justice says Saddam should hang and hang he has, closure to one part of the story?
Induced Terrorism is still active, grown indeed and still much used for political purpose.
The West needs the oil wealth and governments go along with this.

I believe Marko's is this subject's most succinct and incisive treatment to cover considerations of policy, basic strategic-level dynamics and their supporting displacement by fake agendas and a lame, authorized dissent. It is appalling that the public is still fed so much delusional hand-wringing as a "critical" alternative view of this major war crime; reinforcing the canards and distractions designed to legitimize and protect the perpetrators.

At operational levels it appears much dirtier still, where other lies misrepresent reality to the soldiers themselves i.e., for "internal bureaucratic reasons" a la Wolfowitz's indulgent revelation. It has become clearer with time that the media apparatchiks have run a standard line about "sectarian strife, civil war, suicide bombings": all to sustain a hackneyed view of "fanatical ragheads killing each other". This may be termed the "aw shucks defence" for the war's start and continuation.

Much of Iraq now is Vietnam's Phoenix Program writ large: covert terror by proxy gangs recruited from at least 2004 among the more psychopathic Baathist trusties and Arab freelancers (expect Egyptian and Algerian veterans as key intermediaries). Bombings against mass civilian targets are invariably reported as "suicide attacks" (try getting our intrepid journalists to check that!), where the populace is at odds with collaborationist forces' corruption and anti-guerrilla mission. But just as the adventurism of Vietnam had more modest pretexts of democracy (puppet Republic of Vietnam) and justification (Gulf of Tonkin), Phoenix's terror was nowhere near as ambitious or ruthless as black ops in Iraq.

Note too the very sparse and often late reporting about the "suicide" of US Army Colonel Ted Westhusing, a military ethicist appointed cynically to head Iraq special operations and counterterrorism: much anonymous evidence to claim he too - like David Kelly - was a suicide. Perhaps if Wolfy had been more candid, he too could have been reported as "withdrawn...isolated...morbid", rather than the lesser - and less fatal - charge of being a bureaucratic pimp at the World Bank.

these comments are all very interesting and real thought out and funny enough I was just starting to read The New York Times edition of the Pentagon Papers again (on Vietnam) and the comments on Vietnam by Mil-Observer seem apt to me. It's striking to see some parallels, esp about counter-insurgency and the fact that intelligence agencies were saying in the '50s already that Vietnam venture won't work. They also spoke of America's Generals being accustomed to winning...same thing here given the Colonel's take on the US General Officer Corps?

I'm no lefty but I have to agree with Mirko in this instance.

For the first time in my life I will vote ALP purely over Iraq.

There are some thing that go beyond the pale; whatever you think of Chirac, at least there was a right-wing politician willing to say 'non' to this madness.

cheers,

gw

Wow a long dissertation .
As much as has been included is left out .
Should we be there ?
No of course not ; it is a religious war , never get involved in Politics or Religion ? Who said that ?
Most Peoples mother when they were three .
How can the West help these Arabs ? Is the answer don't get involved in their philosophy .
If we don't get involved , how will we tolerate their philosophy when they export it ?