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 ?

Beljac’s argument is flawed.

Firstly, if we look at the interview with Wolfowitz where he claims that presenting the WMD issue as justification for going into Iraq was a “bureaucratic” reason, Beljac has made a mistake, (deliberately or out of ignorance,) common among the “blood for oil” brigade. He presents this as an admission by Wolfowitz that the WMD issue was merely a pretext for invasion. In fact it shows the exact opposite.

What Wolfowitz said was that there were a number of concerns regarding Iraq- WMD, links to terrorism, (although there was much disagreement over this issue, and its link to WMD,) Saddam’s criminal treatment of the Iraqi people, and Wolfowitz’s own concern with removing a destabilising influence from the Middle East (ironic, yes.) While certain figures in the administration had concerns over Iraq for various reasons, the one thing they agreed upon was that they believed Saddam had WMD and that this posed a serious threat, especially after 9/11.

Regarding oil,

Surely, given what Saddam did to the Kurdish oil fields in 1991, it was reasonable to expect that he would do the same to his own if it became clear he would be defeated? Protecting the Iraqi oilfields from a scorched earth policy during the invasion was a priority. This is especially important given another Wolfowitz comment on oil:

"The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52375-2005Mar20.html

Sure, they messed up. The comment immediately preceding this "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself," was a big mistake. This mindset went a long way toward ensuring Iraq’s descent into chaos after the invasion. But his comment on oil makes sense - the same goes for much of Africa- if peace could be maintained, and the countries run equitably and efficiently,

its mineral wealth could go a long way toward relieving its poverty. (Beljac said the same thing in his article. But If Saddam had been allowed to destroy the Iraqi oilfields during the invasion, would he not criticise the US for allowing Iraq’s most important natural resource to be destroyed?)

In claiming that the “comprehensive” economic sanctions inflicted on Iraq undermine Wolfowitz’s argument that “Saddam’s oil meant he could resist US economic pressure,” Beljac ignores the fact that the US had a fair idea that the sanctions were being circumvented, and that this went to high levels of the UN and major corporations around the world. (No excuse for AWB- that is a national disgrace.) Furthermore, what little aid money was going into the country was going into the coffers of the Baath Party and not into humanitarian projects. The sanctions were proving ineffective against Saddam’s government, but were having a devastating effect on Iraq’s population (itself much the fault of Saddam’s cynical exploitation of the issue and his robbery of money meant to help the Iraqi people.)

Thus to continue to pressure Iraq with economic sanctions would have been completely immoral, but it would also have been extremely dangerous to lift the sanctions and allow Saddam to rebuild his military might, let alone his “latent” WMD capability, (work-choices or no work-choices.)

In his article Beljac calls for more solid analysis in our media, but there is little in this article that classifies as such. He has simply made the usual list of misquotes and distortions which are used by the Left to reinforce their belief that the US is out to control the world.

To argue that this view gets little airtime is also wrong. It is presented regularly in The Age, SBS, the ABC, universities and in day to day life. The tragedy is that few people have the guts to stand up to the “blood for oil” thesis, because those who argue this shout louder and are more practiced at presenting an air of self-righteous indignation than anyone else.

A good post Marko. Too often the media update death rates in Iraq as if they were reporting a cricket match. The current coverage seems to have become a Howard/Bush/Blair bash at the expense of thought and analysis.
You make some pretty inflamatory claims. I loved the purple prose of the para. re Howards use of 'the threat of terrorism......to wage a neo-liberal jihad against the population'. I think I can guess what you mean by this. Nice writing, but surely an example of opinion not backed up by any empirical evidence in your post.
Another bold statement, 'the US invaded Iraq to deter democracy globally'. Empirically, the US has done more for democracy in the last 200 odd years than any other nation. You say that under the neo-cons that cementing US global primacy is key-I agree; but call me gullible or worse if you like, I think that it is central to not only neo-con think but backed by evidence that citizens of a democracy make better producers, better consumers, and ultimately better world citizens. Your post shows all the hallmarks of the thoroughly modern liberal whereby The worlds leading democracies get a good kicking and murderous totalitarian regimes and theocracies don't rate a mention.
Totally agree that visiting democracy on a nation is not going to work too well without the existence of a literate and agreeable populace. I think its fair to say that nobody in the media anticipated the extent of hatred boiling over in Iraq today. I'm afraid that kicking the US does not explain how anyone can detenate a bomb in a crowded market place, nor does US 'evil' explain why Saddam gassed 1000's of Kurds. And all this ignores the freedoms and security that the Kurds, all 6 or 7 million of them currently enjoy courtesy of the Coalition action.
More later

Dozer's post expands well my point about "aw shucks", further suggesting how far elitist sophistry in our media encourages ambitious acolytes. Often in this forum, discussion can get frozen too by polar bears of the black/white, left/right, democracy/Saddam tyranny i.e., of the "with us/against us" variety.

On Wolfowitz, Beljac's article did not get that point wrong: Wolfy's circumlocutuons around WMD, oil, etc., exposed the WMD fiction's essential dishonesty, while Beljac's reference to Iraq's sanction-decimated oil infrastructure was only a literal understatement.

Many people still accept that "Iraq WMD" stageplay as genuine, proving the media's power to sustain official lies and a timid political system. But such same belief only exists due to a deep public ignorance of how intelligence systems really function. Sadly, wars of aggression tend logically to deprofessionalize such organizations too (the 1940s German case is probably the classic study). This issue should concern all citizens, whether they're labeled by simplistic binaries of a loud, self-righteous, anti-US "left" or a blue-ribbon, God-fearing, property-owning "right".

Aww...shucks, Dozer: "removing a destabilising influence from the Middle East (ironic, yes.)"
- No irony there: it was a hypocritical lie conceding more moral authority, by default, to Iraq's urban guerrilla resistance fighting to remove a destabilizing influence.

Gee, I guess we goofed, a la "Sure, they messed up...a big mistake".
No: Rummy, Cheney et al chose to occupy with minimal troop numbers expressly against the routine professional military calculations passed by General Shinseki, whose career was crucified as a result. That small occupation force is another reason why we see the black ops terror of Palimpsest's "bomb in a crowded market place". The war's main point was destabilization to grip strategic assets and regional power relations. Such military considerations as made by Shinseki's staff are fundamental in operational planning, but maybe Iraq warmongers and apologists have little awareness of such business beyond priapic adolescent picture books about the SAS, nazis, big tanks and multi-million dollar jet fighters.

I suggest checks on military professional and devout catholic Colonel Westhusing's fate - no loud leftie or "thoroughly modern liberal".

I should have added, but missed due to space - and time - that the small occupation force was motivated by two other reasons:

1. To wage the war on the cheap, thereby keeping it a more opportunistic, profit-driven venture for: a) the carpetbagging firms of 'reconstruction' like Halliburton; b) the significant non-uniformed mercenaries also termed cutely "civilian contractors", and c) the collaborating local forces and their 'moderate' civilian administrators (not only the Kurdish minority).

2. To keep the Iraqi population in a condition of vulnerability, instability and corruption, with abject dependency, obeisance and aggressive collaboration their only quick options of release from poverty. A properly constituted occupation force and policy would have been more likely to yield a stable democratic polity grounded locally in an Iraqi national interest i.e., one demanding sovereignty over Iraqi assets, political structure and foreign policy (especially with neighboring states), and more effectively opposing continued occuption. Such a development would have brought wider ramifications in pan-Arab democracy and pan-Islamic foreign policy (so including of course Iran), with unpleasant consequences for Western client states and compliant forces in Israel.

So these factors would support Beljac's claim that the war has in fact been an anti-democratic venture. As his article describes it - from evidence by policy-makers' record - the war's vague cover of 'promoting democracy' nonetheless shields the true ideological motives apparent in these above factors, which describe a thoroughly modern neo-liberal enterprise. This is no Marshall Plan.

mil_observer,

Could you explain why you believe "Wolfy's circumlocutions around WMD, oil, etc., exposed the WMD fiction's essential dishonesty, while Beljac's reference to Iraq's sanction-decimated oil infrastructure was only a literal understatement."

I have explained quite clearly that "Wolfy" was saying the exact opposite of what Beljac has said he said. You have effectively replied, "no he didn't." To use Beljac’s wording, this is “unsatisfactory.”

On WMD,

The Iraq Survey Group Final Report, headed by David Kay, (the guy who told reporters "there's nothing there,”) makes some important points. It illustrates how the Iraqi government consistently sent mixed signals about whether or not it had WMD- denying that it had WMD while behaving as though it had something to hide. It shows how Saddam believed he needed to continue to give the impression that he had WMD, to secure his rule from both internal and external enemies. The US administration failed to fully appreciate this motive, and after its sensitivity to threats was dramatically increased after 9/11, it seemed ludicrous, when intel proved inconclusive as to whether Saddam had WMD or not, that they should give him the benefit of the doubt. In turn, Saddam failed to recognise that the US was serious about ensuring Iraq's disarmament, and continued his old patterns of behaviour, thus bringing about his own downfall.

Importantly, the Report also indicates that Saddam was careful to maintain a latent WMD capability, and would most likely have started to rebuild Iraq's WMD arsenal once the sanctions were lifted and the UN's back was turned.

Unfortunately, we don't get to hear this story very often, because it is just too complicated for the tabloid media to follow, and left wing media such as the ABC, SBS and The Age don't want to tell it. And none of the administrations in the US, UK or Australia have had the guts to consistently put it out there.

Thus, we get a simplistic level of debate over Iraq- whether we should stay or go, and the argument “it was worth getting rid of Saddam anyway” versus “it was all about oil.”

If we are to believe “Dozer” that the US invaded Iraq out of concern for WMD we must put this into its proper global context. This would be a particular instance of the principle that, if necessary, we must wage preventive war against “rogue states” with “WMD” (a false term in itself, but let’s leave that aside). The logic behind this was stated, at the time, by one of the more odious neo-con hangers on, Charles Krauthammer, who stated “politics has gone cosmic” for “will the world’s most dangerous regimes (or to similar effect-me) use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction”.

Notice that “Dozer”, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer actually do not believe in this principle. According to United States Strategic Command, which has operational command over US strategic nuclear forces (the only real form of WMD), the US must posture as being “irrational and vindictive” leadership elements must “appear out of control”. The US pursues a counterforce nuclear strategy. It routinely violates international law and wages wars of aggression. Even former Republican arms control diplomat Tom Graham Jr argued that such things as the weaponisation of space increase the threat of large scale accidental nuclear war i.e. “the ultimate destruction”.

Assuming rationality, if we adhere to the principle it follows that we must consider regime change in the United States, a nuclear weapon state posturing as “irrational”, “vindictive” indeed “out of control.” But Dozer, nor Wolfowitz clearly, in the remotest sense advocates this position. Moreover, if we are moral agents it follows that we in Australia, given our adherence to the principle (again assuming rationality), must direct our attention to our support for these US policies. Moral agents first and foremost are morally responsbile for their own actions. The actions of others follow.

It thereby follows that Dozer is neither a moral nor rational agent. What that makes him/her is best left for the reader to judge. That's all we need say on the matter.

Hello Marko,

You have made the next comeback which I invariably come across in this debate- How can the US demand that one country, (let alone a “rogue state”) disarm its WMD when it does not do so itself, and indeed is improving the capabilities of its own nuclear arsenal?

Firstly, you appear to assume that I either have not considered the issue, or do not care, as shown by your closing paragraph. You appear to assume that I have supported the war in Iraq because I am a supporter of the US, rather than a supporter of WMD disarmament. While I admit to the former on a number of issues, I must make it clear that I support the latter over the former.

Of course the US’s own nuclear arsenal undermined its case that Iraq should have disarmed its (non-existent) WMD arsenal, and the same applies to Iran and North Korea. However, this does not mean that until the US disarms its WMD/ nuclear arsenal, we have no right to demand that other states respect the NPT. Do you believe that the UNSC has the right to demand that states do not acquire nuclear weapons? Its own legitimacy is undermined by the same problems- the P5 all possess nuclear arsenals.

In short, the proliferation of nuclear weapons/ WMD must end, as such proliferation is potentially disastrous. All nuclear weapon states, not just the US, should engage in a systematic effort to completely eradicate their nuclear arsenals.

But here’s the catch. Why does a state seek nuclear weapons? There are two main reasons (among others,) and they both reflect a need for protection/ deterrence:

1) It fears the nuclear arsenal of another state/ rival/ enemy.

2) In order to make up for a deficiency in its conventional military capability/ deterrent.

Both reasons reinforce and are reinforced by the other.

The problem is, although an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons/ WMD by all states would solve the first problem, it does not solve the second. How do you convince a state like Russia, which shares a long border with

cont...

the most populous nation in the world, and whose conventional capability is in steady decline, to give up its trump card? Pakistan fears the power of a rapidly modernising and much larger India. Israel perceives itself (quite rightly,) as surrounded by enemies, and geography isn’t exactly on its side.

The US, on the other hand, protected geographically by two large oceans, has the most powerful air force, navy, and army in the world. It has the largest economy in the world, and houses the UN in its largest city. Despite the rapid rise of China. it remains the sole superpower in the world. It would have the most to gain from global nuclear disarmament, because it could still use its massive conventional military advantage, as well as political and economic leverage, to protect its vital national interests.

So I cannot help feel but a little cynical when I see the argument that the US has no right to demand that other states follow the NPT. It has dramatically reduced the size of its Cold War nuclear arsenal. You may counter that it has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world put together, but consider that the US and Russia still store around 30, 000 nuclear warheads each- although “deactivated,” accountability and verification problems have hampered efforts to destroy them for good.

If the US government could be convinced that the rest of the world was serious about complete nuclear disarmament, it would be all too happy to do the same. The states which would prove most troublesome in achieving complete nuclear disarmament are the ones which are currently the loudest whingers about the US’s own nuclear arsenal. And the individuals in the West who shout the loudest about the US’s nuclear arsenal today, would most bitterly resent its conventional military capability in a world without nuclear weapons.

As for regime change in the US, that is quite a simple matter, given that the US is a democracy. Such change will probably occur, quite peacefully, in about a year and a half.

Hi Dozer,

You state that you are in favour of WMD disarmament. Ok, then that means that rather than attacking what you refer to as “the Left” you should rather join it in its attempt to get the West to disarm. That would be your first priority. Nobody is impressed by a wife basher that pours scorn on their neighbour for committing the same crime.

The Washington Post has just reported on 2003 intelligence estimates showing that there would be an increase in terrorism in the region and even what it called “guerilla warfare”. What does this tell us? It tells us that not that the US is unconcerned about terrorism but that combating terrorism is a lower priority than securing power and privilege.

The same applies to nuclear proliferation. For instance, intelligence estimates have argued that ballistic missile defence will lead to an “asian chain reaction” of nuclear proliferation in response. Again, proliferation takes a back seat to procurement contracts for the aerospace industry. Proliferation is not as high a priority as securing power and privilege and if the former contradicts the latter then so be it.

When the world’s leading military power reserves the right to attack anybody it fancies then this will naturally lead potential targets to arm themselves. Evidence indicates that some 90+% of the plutonium reprocessed by North Korea was done so under the watch of Team Bush. If you were as concerned about WMD then you would have marched for peace like hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens.

Marko,

Most neo-Cons and admin officials accepted that terrorism in the region would increase. The assumption was that this would only be on the short to medium term, but in the long run deal with one of its key causes. (mistake).

Although WMD disarmament is a poster issue for the Left, it is by no means the exclusive domain of the Left. Reagan, contrary to his image as painted by the Left, was a passionate advocate of nuclear disarmament. His vision for missile defence/NMD/SDI, and indeed the concept of missile defence itself, has been similarly distorted.

In my thesis I argued specifically that NMD could be the key to reaching nuclear disarmament. To take up your point:

The reason NMD has the potential to lead to an “Asian chain reaction” of nuclear proliferation is because it provides, in theory, a first strike capability- (I’m sure you understand this but for the sake of making my argument-) a nuclear armed state can launch a nuclear strike on its opponent’s nuclear arsenal, destroying, say, 90%. This leaves a Missile Defence shield to mop up the retaliatory strike when the opponent sends over the remaining 10%. Thus, developing NMD will most likely push other nuclear armed states to increase the size and effectiveness, and reduce the vulnerability, of their nuclear arsenals, to reduce the chances of such a first strike succeeding.

But NMD, in itself, doesn’t hurt anybody. The missiles used to destroy nuclear armed ICBM’s carry no explosive, relying simply on the force of impact to destroy a target. (Technical issues still remain, but are often exaggerated.) The reason NMD poses such a proliferation problem is that we live in a world where international stability and security is guaranteed by threats of mutual genocide- the crux of the ABM Treaty was that the USA and USSR would leave their cities vulnerable to annihilation from nuclear attack, precisely to make a nuclear attack unthinkable, indeed, MAD. Such a policy is, at its core, immoral. So, the problem with nuclear weapons is not missile defence. The problem with nuclear weapons is nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the problem with complete nuclear disarmament is that the technology cannot be unmade, (although expertise in A-bomb making would over time erode.) Any country which chose to build a nuclear arsenal in a nuclear free world could do a lot of damage in a hurry. Similarly, states may be tempted to rebuild nuclear arsenals if a confrontation seemed inevitable. This is one of the key stumbling blocks in reaching WMD disarmament and explains why certain states are dragging their heels. But it is in such a situation that the utility of NMD would come into its own, especially if it is a technology shared throughout the world.

NMD only works against a small nuclear arsenal- any more than from a few dozen to 100 missiles may overwhelm it, depending on which intelligence estimates one reads. But extreme sensitivity would exist to the development of nuclear weapons in a nuclear free world- thus it is highly likely that a “rogue” actor may only be able to develop a very small nuclear arsenal before it is discovered, and the threat would be felt universally. The international community would be much emboldened in confronting a state which developed nuclear weapons, if protected by Missile Defence.

My thesis presented a blueprint to drawing down the size of nuclear arsenals while increasing the capability of Missile Defences. I made the point that unless disarmament momentum was maintained, the process would become destabilised, with or without, but especially with, NMD. I also argued that in order to convince states such as NK and Iran to follow suit, their own security interests must be addressed.

Proponents of nuclear disarmament should view Missile Defence as an opportunity, rather than a threat, (or one link in the military industrial complex which supposedly starts every war.) The US can only be convinced to disarm its nuclear arsenal if it can do so in a way which doesn’t undermine its security or its position. Unfortunately, I get the impression many disarmament advocates care more about criticising the USA than they do about disarmament.