Posted by Lilly from ? (188.8.131.52) on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 7:23PM :
In Reply to: The Pentagon's Path From Osama to Saddam posted by Lilly from ? (184.108.40.206) on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 6:37PM :
:"... we covet Iraq's oil reserves? That's just a vague cliché."
xxx Perhaps it seems like a vague cliché to the author, but that does not *disprove* the notion that the US gov't is in it for oil, among other things. I think that there are many reasons for the US gov't to desire "regime change" in Iraq & that these reasons converge to result in one main action - "war."
xxx If anything, that "Beyond Containment" article paints the US gov't as a truly Machiavellian entity seeking global domination (beginning in the Middle East, b/c oil = industrial power right now). It speaks of reducing (not removing completely, either) US military presence, not merely because the US gov't would have succeeded in attaining its supposed goal ("regime change") & the task is complete, but because a continued, strong US military presence after the "regime change" would affect how the rest of the world perceives the US gov't - as a potential threat to *any* sovereign nation that does not conform to US gov't/corporate desires. So, the implication is that if there was no chance that the US gov't *would not* be viewed as a threat to the rest of the world, the US gov't would in fact act as an occupier of Iraq until it did not see the need to be (until the oil runs out).
xxx I do not like that the author of this article attempts to link Saddam (who unfortunately has become the national symbol for Iraq) & Osama, the quintessential terrorist & wet-dream of all those Pentagon schemers.
xxx Osama may try to appropriate Iraq's plight as one of his causes, but that does not mean that there is *any* actual connection between Iraq (or Saddam) & Osama. I hate it when journalists try to make these vague associations. It's a psychological manipulation... the audience then starts to associate Iraq w/ Osama... without asking for proof. So, anyway, I disagree with the author that there is "reason" for deposing Saddam based on a statement made by Osama.
xxx Honestly, I also disagree w/ the author's contention that the US gov't was frustrated w/ the sanctions policy. The sanctions were imposed to weaken the people of Iraq - even DoD documents comment on this. Perhaps to drive people off the land? Perhaps to keep them from rebelling against another ruler, to be installed after Saddam? Anyway, if the sanctions policy was frustrating the US gov't, even during the Clinton administration, they would have changed the policy. True, the sanctions may have been imposed to "contain" Saddam, but I don't think the sanctions needed to be so harsh in order to do so, esp. w/ the massive damage to the country's infrastructure during the Gulf "War."
-- signature .
Post a Followup