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.”