Published on February 27, 2007
BaltimoreChronicle
The following are "partial extracts" from Mr. Tyldesley's analysis:
The troops may not know what victory will look like, but I have an idea the administration knows what they are after and what it will look like.
It will be an Iraq controlled by American corporations and American oil companies -- this was planned long before the invasion, as has been widely reported.
The “new Iraq” will be run by a nominal government of mostly exiles, largely unknown to the average citizen.
This government will always have to be acceptable to the U.S. occupation and will be kept out of the orbit of Russia and China and other would-be competitors for oil resources...
When the Republicans say “we dare not lose,” it is losing control of Middle East oil, and losing face, that worries them.
They dare not admit that this invasion, the principle of pre-emption, and the unraveling of our democratic way of life and Constitutional safeguards, are all bad ideas.
In short, the empire will have shown its soft underbelly.
The people have no stomach for empire and occupation, and so indicated by their vote last November.
Historically, the people have to be dragged from one tragedy to the next by governments that confuse defense with offense, and view the entire world as ripe for America’s neo-conservative dream of manifest destiny.
Reading the document “Project for a New American Century,” authored by Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other war hawks, leaves one with no doubt that Iraq is but another domino in an imperialistic venture--hatched long ago and recently updated and modernized to recognize the dominance of multi-national corporations.
The tragedy of a theory of military dominance is that it will never be employed for good ends.
The definition of "good" would be the waging of peace, and understanding other peoples and cultures that could lead to the dismantling of all the militaries of the world.
There will still be a need for policing the peace.
Pursuing Al Queda should be a policing activity, but understanding the fundamental reasons that lead to radical solutions by terrorist groups must be a part of any policing strategy.
The world still insists on killing the radicals before examining their motivations and personal and group histories. In the early part of the 20th Century, it was Sacco and Vanzetti who were executed because of their opinions and sympathies for communism and anarchism.
We must gradually, but quickly, leave Iraq to Iraqis... The “democracy” project was invented to justify the occupation after the WMD fantasy no longer could be employed.
Instead of the abstraction of “democracy,” if we had spent a half trillion in reparations to Iraqis, instead of pouring the funds into bombs and bullets, we would have, perhaps, earned the respect and confidence of the people, and political accommodations could have emerged.
The radical Islamic jihadists are the new demons to replace the communist menace of the Cold War years.
The Republicans argue that if we don’t stop them in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will come to our shores and attack us here...
Why they would do this is mythology of the highest order -- it is not based on rational thinking or an understanding of Islam or the politics of the Middle East.
It is simply fear-mongering.
No comments:
Post a Comment