More “smart n’ sober” posts like this please, Gavin.

HEAR HEAR!! This is PRECISELY the kind of talk we need a helluva lot more of. An honest discussion of the real rationale for our invasion and occupation of the Nation of Iraq. One of the problems we’ve all had in discussing the POLICY is that the policy is so nebulous, so squishy. Why? Because, in an act of hubris unprecedented only in its scope, the government of the United States of America has been, again and again, consistently and embarassingly dishonest in the public explanation for it’s actions. To borrow a phrase from Kos (who I understand fucks goats), there’s been no way to frame the debate when the goal posts don’t just move, they disappear and reappear in a different zip code, even your occasional dry county.

One can make a cold economic calculation that America had by the 21st century squandered any good will she had ever had in the persian gulf, and that was leading inexorably to a level of petroleum insecurtiy that was hurting growth and threatening the way of life we have come to believe is our earthly birthright. That in spite of appearances, this invasion may have been the best thing to do, FOR AMERICA. If that was the case, then you could perhaps say that Bush/Cheney did nothing less than their jobs.

I’m going to go a different direction. Most nations, while dependend upon imported resources, have found that the best way to guarantee supplies of those resources is to be good global citizens–at least in one, fairly narrow way. They don’t take sides in regional debates, they offer evenhanded assistance where they can. They are an honest broker in global affairs, and don’t seek to dominate the global discussion or force their beliefs upon other cultures. Here I’m thinking of Japan, Europe, industrial nations that cannot provide for their own resource needs internally. Sure, they find they have to deal with distateful regimes and support kleptocracies that exploit their people and polute horribly, but on the upside they don’t have to squander a huge amount of their wealth on a military capability they will never need.

So are we past the tipping point? Is there no way back for America? Will it be military force and intimidation for us forever, because the world will never trust us, and will only want to see us brought low? I hope not, but I am not optimistic. I would like to see a major change in direction for America, toward a sustainable and humane foreign, economic and energy policy. But we cannot even begin to evaluate our options until we start speaking honestly about where we are and how we got here. Thanks again, Gavin!

mikey

You’re an excellent writer, Gavin.

Word.

To be fair, the eligibility for the penalties at Nuremberg were really earned by _losing_ the war. Pulling the colonists out and establishing diplomatic relations has never gotten a leader in any trouble.

There was a recent article, in the WSJ, about how the bond rater, S&P, projected a downgrade in the quality of debt of the United States to less than investment grade by 2012 (less than what GE gets now), and by 2025, it would be at junk bond level, assuming there was not a big change in fiscal policy. This would be the same level that Brazil and Panama share today (and we would lack Brazil’s soccer prowess as a distraction). The higher interest rates would suck up a greater portion of the budget, and we would be even more vulnerable to China dumping US Treasuries in the open market. And “deficits don’t matter”.

It will be a great depression with Jihadis.

Jeez, I come here expecting weapons grade snark and Gary Ruppert, and I get a big dank washcloth of Reality slapped right into my forehead.

And right before a weekend, too.

Thanks, Gavin. Short and truthy. That oughta drive the “Clap Louder” contingent fairly batty

The fact is that the conduct of the left does not suggest that they are anti-war, it suggests that they are on the other side.

As far as I can tell, the reason we’re in Iraq is that there’s oil there;

If we were in Iraq for oil, then the oil would be flowing in large amounts. But, the oil isn’t flowing, and we’re not in Iraq due to oil. The fact is that we’re there to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.

we’re building permanent military bases because we intend to maintain a presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future

And they’ll include Halliburton, and black helicopters.

The fact is that there are no plans to build permanent bases in Iraq.

But it is strange how the left hasn’t called for the closing of bases in Germany and Japan. Those bases have been around for 60 years.

Does the left only oppose permanent bases when they feel like it?

It’s not about WMDs, or about removing a threat, nor about ’spreading democracy,’ and never was; but about the simple fact that there isn’t very much oil left unclaimed in the world, and whether ensuring a supply of it militarily, through conquest, is a good or bad thing geopolitically (I wonder about that often, with clammy discomfort), the current administration is an administration of oilmen, who are also focused almost exclusively on the needs of people like themselves.

Once again. If it’s about oil, then explain why the oil isn’t flowing out of Iraq.

If it’s all about oil, then wouldn’t the “Big Bad Bush” just cozy up to all the dictators, instead of working to destroy them?

I’m sure you have some story about how Saddam was just so cuddly for resisting the U.S. and it’s oil-seeking force.

Also, if you’re concerned about a lack of oil, then you should favor building more refineries in America. In order to harness and find new oil.

So no, they’re not leaving. They intend to stay. And they can’t cite a reason for that which doesn’t make them eligible for the penalties meted out at Nuremberg, under the charge of ‘conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.’

Good thing Godwin doesn’t apply to the left.

Anyways. This was a war of self defense against a government which was determined to violate international law and shoot at planes in the no-fly zone.

We’re talking about an invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of controlling their resources.

Got any proof that we’re trying to control any resources in Iraq?

The US conquered Iraq

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

I guess that explains why Iraq is an independent nation, with independent and fair elections.. instead of being a U.S. territory like Guam or Puerto Rico.

[The US] invaded [Iraq] militarily under no provocation

Iraq was violating UN resolutions and international law, and we moved into Iraq to ensure that such violations would cease.

Gavin, I don’t know that European nation you fled to, but you really need to make sure that they didn’t put LSD in their tap water supply, because you are hallucinating.

Iraq’s former government provoked the world into a situation which was solved.

Iraq had WMDs, which has been proven numerous times.

Iraq has been freed from governmental tyranny, and we will stay until the terrorists are eliminated.

Oh my. There’s so much here, and I certainly want to let Gavin address most of it, but I can’t let this go by.

This was a war of self defense against a government which was determined to violate international law and shoot at planes in the no-fly zone.

Hey Gary. We’re the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We spend trillions on defense. We have a military capability second to none, and the margin between us and the next tier is HUGE. Are you really telling me that you and your right wing friends were AFRAID of 2003 Iraq, crippled by sanctions, attrited (dontcha love that term) by US forces in 1991, unable to even control their own country? Do you really think so little of our capability that we had to be AFRAID of Hussein and his deluded and dishonest toadies? Dood, you are the one that hates America…

mikey

Wait, Josh is sober? When did that happen. 😛

But seriously, I have to agree, we did all but officially conquer Iraq. If this were the 19th century, it likely would have been annexed. See Hawaii as a good and recent example.

I’m afraid that it really has come to this. There can be no redemption without atonement. And in ways large and small, we all will pay, and pay, and pay for the stupidity and greed of a handful of fools.

well i think the ‘permanent bases’ deal is a bit overdone, it’s more a case of ‘temporary bases’ inexorably transforming themselves into better’n’better facilities. The thing is, aircraft need constant maintenance. Else they tend to behave erratically, falling out of the sky at inopportune moments. Not only does this look bad on TV, combat commanders get itchy when the expected # of choppers gets reduced by maintenence problems, and maintenence btn commanders lose points when the availability %age falls noticeably below the required level of perfection. So no-loss ‘cost-plus’ contracts are quickly executed, and the airfield gets new paving (‘cos copters don’t like sand & mud), and hangars & warehouses are rehabbed/built (‘cos tools and spares don’t like sand & mud, either), and troop quarters are built (‘cos the guy who spends all day changing the hydraulic fluid works better if he can take a shower and put on clean BDU’s before dinner) – before you know it, you’ve spent quite a bit of money & effort on a full-blown aerodrome, which itself must be protected (by more troops, who also would like regular mail & real meals) from evil folks who might want to toss a mortar shell at them, or machine-gun / kidnap the laundry-wallahs.

Permanent bases, hell. The troops’ll move somewhere else, and leave the whole complex to rot, just as soon as they’re told to go. The bases are just part of the American way of makin’ bacon.

Dear Gary

Sadly, No!

Do you know about diamonds, you know those very expensive precious stones? Those stones whose price is kept high through the deliberate manipulation and control of the extraction process. Diamonds can be far cheaper than they currently are. However it would then be less profitable.

I want to defeat the terrorists in Switzerland. What, there arent any? Well just you wait. I go there, I sell off their countries assests, I make most of them unemployed. I will destroy the electricity grid and the sanitation and water system, I will torture their husbands and kill their their children when they drive “too close”.

There may not be my sworn enemies know, but wait until I have left. There will be plenty of enemies and certainly lots of swearing when I am done.

Gary, Bush does cuddle up to oil dictators. Remember the manly handholding with the Saudi’s in the Rose Garden. Or Condi’s little tea time with the dictator of Equatorial Gunuea, you know the man running for title of worst african despot?

Gary, do you know how long the list is of countries who thumb there noses at the UN. Its a long one, and the US is on that list as well.

Fuck it. I am wasting my time. Gary, you live in the most advanced country in the world, don’t make as if you are the dumbest jungle dweller in Central Africa. At last that guy has an excuse. “Iraq had WMD, which has now been proven several times” qualifies you for the title of the dumbest jungle dweller. Gary.

I think from now on I will have new prayer, directed at any diety which may be listening.

Dear FSM/Pink Unicorn/Allah/Yahweh/Johnny Cash/Haile Selaisse/G*D/G_D/God/Thor/Stan Lee or whoerver it may concern

Make the Americans like Gary stop being so fucking convinced that they are the epitome of creation. Let them realise that they are the metaphorical bully in the school yard. Make them realise that just because they are not the torturer in the basement like the USSR or Nazi Germany were it does not make them good. It just makes them better.

Dear above mentioned diety

Please make the Americans realise that they should not aspire to be facists and that facism is not “cool”. Also make them realise being “cool” is not the objective of life.

Please let them have at least enough sense to realise that a lie is not the truth and simply someone saying something does make it true.

Please let them realise that a country that loses 2-1 to Ghana is not that special. Really

Ramen/Amen/Ya Man/Etc, Etc. et al.

LiberalDirk – I think that Gary had an iodine deficiency when he was born that went untreated. His mum probably thought that iodized salt was some Communist plot to poison good God-fearing Americans

Were the Nazi propagandists also sentenced at Nuremberg? Because a large fraction of our press corps seriously needs to be thrown in jail. They obviously believe that ingratiating themselves to the current administration is going to bring them wads of cash and protection from any negative repercussions, and they need to be taught otherwise.

Re: so no, they are not leaving — some people knew it in 2002

Read this prescient opinion piece by Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, from Sept. 29, 2002. “The President’s Real Goal in Iraq”
Here is one link to it:

http://www.rainbowbody.org/politics/PNACgoal.htm

all i gotta say is, “DUHHHHHHH.”

it is the oil. but if you say that, the right gets all huffy, like you just lifted up the skirt of a manly looking woman and found a penis.

[I]t is the oil. but if you say that, the right gets all huffy, like you just lifted up the skirt of a manly looking woman and found a penis.

It’s an outrage for liberal commenters to talk about violating Ann Coulter like that.

As Gavin pointed out, if anyone ever admits that oil was a significant factor in the decision to invade Iraq, it’s a war crime.

It’s not so much that oil isn’t flowing (although I’m sure ‘Flowers And Candy’ Rumsfeld told Bush and Cheney that oil would be lflowing like Republican lies by this point) but that if it’s not flowing to the US, it’s also not going to India and China.

If we can’t have it, nobody can.

Gavin, this was a wonderful piece.

I have one question, though–can we really say we conquered Iraq? They don’t seem conquored, they seem like they’re fighting–among themselves or with us, but either way, it hardly seems conquered in the sense of the U.S. setting up its own cities, setting up its own government, etc., in the way that France did with Algeria, or Britain with India, South Africa, etc. I could be wrong, of course. At any rate, I don’t see the Iraqis as conquered; I don’t see us having a permanent military base, not because we don’t want to, but because I see us being driven out like Saigon.

And damn, I don’t want us to have to wait that long to finally get out of this stupid war. This war has lasted longer than Korea, and this autumn will be longer than WWII (in terms of US involvement, not 1939-1945). For what? There is no endgame, there is no “victory.”

I don’t think the war is entirely about oil, but I do think that’s part of it. I also think that by having a base in Iraq, we essentially give Osama bin Laden what he wanted–U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. This is our out, our way of appeasing the same guys we’re supposed to be fighting.

As for why the oil isn’t flowing, that’s because insurgents have this habit of blowing up the pipelines and other forms of sabotage. It’s not exactly like drilling in Alaska or Texas, where you don’t have that problem. But don’t give me that shit that our government isn’t perfectly happy to exploit someone else’s oil.

I don’t see us having a permanent military base, not because we don’t want to, but because I see us being driven out like Saigon.

I’ve heard versions of this in a number of places. One word. Fuhgeddaboutit. Ain’t gonna happen in this day and age. Oh, sure, the Green Zone and the Embassy could be overrun due to their urban settings, but the bases that are funded and being built right now as we speak are in the hinterlands. With the full-spectrum dominance of the battlefield that the modern American military enjoys, this is simply categorically impossible. There is no way for the Iraqis to mass and overrun a major encampment with all the battlefield surveillance, air, precision indirect fires and armor that the US has. No, the Americans CAN choose to stay as long as they want. They need the Iraqi government to remain dependent upon the American military presence, because the crisis would come if the so-called (by us) legitimate Iraqi Government told us to get out. We would not, but that would start to be a real problem.

On the other point, you need to think it all the way through. The oil IS flowing. Not from Iraq, but from Saudi and Kuwait and Iran and UAE and all of them, throught the gulf and the straits, and right out into the world. Bush/Cheney cabal wanted the American military presence on the oil fields not necessarilly to STEAL Iraq’s oil (although that does remain an option) but rather to ensure it’s contiued availability in the world markets. American business is willing to BUY it’s oil (it would, however, like to have some management of the pricing) on the open market, it just wants to make certain that enough oil is available. Again, Gavin’s piece DEMANDS to be read, and thought deeply about. We’re currently inconvenienced by the cost of oil. If there were a REAL disruption of the flow out of the region, the price could easily be $150.00 or MORE. That would harm all of us in America…

mikey

I absolutely share the sentiment that what the Bush administration has done in Iraq rises to the level of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Unprovoked war of aggression, torture, collective punishment, imposition of a puppet regime — no question.

But I don’t think it’s actually about oil. In fact, I can’t figure out the motives for this at all. Oil is very fungible and has a very efficient marketplace. For example, not trading oil with Iran doesn’t do anything to our oil access at all — they simply trade more to China (or other countries) and China buys a little less from the countries we do trade with. Unless there’s some wacky (and illegal) scheme to route Iraq’s oil away from the commodities market, increasing the global supply by adding Iraq back into it isn’t going to have much of a positive effect on the U.S. The refining/management/contracting companies like Halliburton are going to make a little more money be access to asymmetric negotiating power over contracts (an Iraq oil company is going to play hardball with a U.S. corporation in negotiations? right, sure thing). But I have a hard time swallowing that the entire misadventure was completely manipulated by the military-industrial complex — I guess I’m a failure at serious conspiracy theory.

There’s probably plenty I still don’t know, but the analogy seems more like: War crimes are to the Bush admin as Murder is to Manslaughter while drunken driving. These guys are basically geopolitical drunk drivers. Halliburton sold them the beer (and makes a nice profit off ambulance service after the wreck), but they got behind the wheel and commited a crime of idiocy and poor judgment with terrible consequences.

an Iraq oil company is going to play hardball with a U.S. corporation in negotiations? right, sure thing). But I have a hard time swallowing that the entire misadventure was completely manipulated by the military-industrial complex — I guess I’m a failure at serious conspiracy theory.

Aside from the snide remark about conspiracy theories–and there’s no better way to marginalize an opinion than by labeling it a conspiracy theory–I think you ought to look into the coup that toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh and made the Shah of Iran the supreme ruler of that country. It had everything to do with the nationalization of Iran’s oil, and it was largely engineered by MI6 and the CIA. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is fact. This is history–history they don’t actively teach unless you major in Middle East studies.

My point? Why be so surprised by what’s happening now, when similar things have already happened? And look what good that did.

I think they were soberly and seriously discussing “the real reason for the Iraq invasion” on CNN last night, but it was a little hard to hear over the sound effects associated with the swooping graphics, which were themselves pretty distracting, especially when I was reading the ticker, trying to find out exactly what the White Sox’s Ozzie Guillen said about that reporter, but then they cut away to talk to that poor, sad millionare Britney Spears, and why can’t those damn paparazzi just leave her alone? Then I kinda forgot what they were talking about.

rj asked
“Were the Nazi propagandists also sentenced at Nuremberg? Because a large fraction of our press corps seriously needs to be thrown in jail.”

Hmm, you might be thinking of Julius Streicher, founder & editor of Der Stürmer, which focused on “the struggle for the truth against traitors”. Streicher was executed in 1946.
Rosenberg also got the rope, but that was for his direct war crimes when he was in charge of occupied East Europe, rather than for his earlier propaganda efforts.

We spend trillions on defense

I was curious about this the other day so I Googled “US Military Budget”. Now, I only went to one site and, as we know, everything your read on the Internets is a total lie, but according to the chart, the US spends more on defense than the next 19 countries combined. So, the idea that Iraq was a threat to this country in any way, shape or form is absurd.

But that’s Gary Ruppert in a (wing)nutshell.

Mary Jones, excellent stuff at 19:11. It’s amazing the level of amnesia in this country about how if the US hadn’t propped him in the 80’s, Sa-damn would have been crushed by Iran.

The decision to make “no-fly” zones in Iraq was NOT a UN resolution, it was a decision taken by the USA with English approval, and not many others. So by GR’s logic the USA can unilaterally declare a nfz over any country, fly some jets in it, and if they get flack, then by jingo, the USA is entitled to invade.