One answer to the buzzflash question, who is the enemySat Nov 25, 2006 21:09
One answer to the buzzflash question, who is the enemy in Iraq now
by margieburns on Sat 25 Nov 2006 10:56 AM EST | Permanent Link
The web site buzzflash posts an open question today, “Who is the enemy in Iraq now?” Good question, and there will be more than one answer.
From the administration standpoint, the enemy in Iraq is anyone who might oppose a de facto annexation of Iraq to Kuwait. This would include present opponents of the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes, potential opponents, human rights organizations, mosques, Iraqi nationalists, Iraqis whose primary affiliation is regional or sectarian, and all Iraqis who just simply would prefer their country to be free of foreigners. That’s why current administration policy causes or allows the destruction of all of the above.
Saddam Hussein was accused of invading Kuwait, in the first Gulf War, to annex Kuwait to Iraq. Kuwait, after all, possesses the port capacity to funnel immense Iraqi oil treasure out to the rest of the globe. Perhaps this accusation was valid, or perhaps Saddam was inveigled into crossing the Kuwait border as a means to other Western ends.
Either way, Saddam was a piker. The vision of annexing Kuwait, with its corporate financial ties, to Iraq is picayune in scale compared to the geopolitical vision of annexing all of Iraq, like a big back yard, to Kuwait. Much destruction has been accomplished by the Bush administration, including the relatively unreported assassinations of Iraqi university professors under the Coalition Provisional Authority. Iraq now sits like a huge vacant lot studded with the gargantuan used-cars-on-blocks of the petrochemical industry, waiting for takeover.
This is not to suggest that Iraq has been emptied of people, or that civil war is inevitable, or that Iraq is necessarily a “failed state,” a term no Bush appointee should have the presumption to utter. But one notes that, with all the horror of steadily increasing violence in Iraq, the administration still has not taken either of two necessary steps: 1) pulling U.S. oil companies out of Iraq, to rescue American credibility; and 2) supporting peaceful federalization of the country under three authorities (Kurds, Sunni, Shia) to reduce sectarian bloodshed.
Instead, the administration is quietly pursuing business arrangements with the Saudis – Vice President Cheney himself is the envoy; no leaving this to the Secretary of State – and the U.S. petroleum industry is being quietly protected by public and private resources in Iraq even while essential facilities in Baghdad are besieged. Not all members of Team Bush are equally complicit, or even equally aware, of the moral horrors of what they are doing, of course. But varying degrees of plausible deniability cannot hide the genuine destruction being achieved, and after a pattern has been observable long enough, at some point it has to be regarded as intentional.
The simple point here is that the Bush White House did not target Saddam; it expressed determination to invade Iraq EVEN IF SADDAM LEFT OFFICE. The administration did not target Saddam; it targeted Iraq. Only when we have adequate investigation of the Bush team’s dealings with the Saudi and Kuwaiti ruling families, including their financial ties, can we expose the underpinnings of the administration’s war of aggression.
Main Page - Tuesday, 12/05/06
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES