Philip Giraldi observes a sad truth about the US partial withdrawal from Iraq. Excerpt:
Iraq is headed by a strongman who intends to stay in power come what may, not unlike Saddam though representing a different constituency. The country continues to be one of the most corrupt in the world and electricity and water are in short supply, worse even then during Saddam's latter days.US interests have hardly been served by the six year occupation. Apart from defense contractors and a few oil companies it is hard to imagine that anyone sees any benefits. 4319 Americans and at least 90,000 Iraqis killed violently since 2003. At a cost of maybe as much as $5 trillion when all the bills are paid by our grandchildren. Saddam's secularism has been replaced by a Shi'ite dominated power structure and Iraq's role as an Arab bulwark against Iranian hegemony is just a memory. The Christian minority, protected under Saddam, has more-or-less fled the country. Iran has benefited most from America's takedown of Saddam.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
RJohnson, you're spot on re: CIA mucking around in the Middle East in the 1950s, 60s (and beyond!) Have you ever seen the movie "The Good Shepherd," a fictionalized story about the founding of the CIA after WW II? It's a portrait of arrogance writ large.
At one point Robert de Niro's character (the CIA head) says to an Italian man at one point suspected of Mafia connections, "We are the owners of this country. The rest of you are just renting."
That's in a way how our State Dept (regardless of which administration it is) sees the world.
And now Obama is saber-rattling re: Honduras. Doesn't anyone *ever* learn???
As per Congressman Ron Paul(derided as Doctor No), the latest "supplemental appropriations" bill foreign aide-
The emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends:
"$660 million to Gaza
$555 million to Israel
$310 million to Egypt
$300 million to Jordan
$420 million to Mexico
$889 million to the United Nations for so-called “peace-keeping” missions
$1 billion overseas to address the global financial crisis outside U.S. borders
$8 billion to address a potential pandemic flu, which he said could result in mandatory vaccinations “for no discernable reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies.”
Perhaps most outrageous, Paul said, is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the IMF."
Why? Do we ever learn? Aren't we broke?
Call me a tad more optimistic
Rod You have not commented on the situation in Iraq in some time. If I recall your last substantial post you were calling the Iraqi troops buffons when they were going on their surge. It appears those inital reports were very wrong and you never did a post to correct the record.
Call me a trad cynical but for some time there has been a good bit of postive news from Iraq that you have failed to comment on.
I have no reason to believe that we have now a new dicator for life in Iraq. In fact the person you post is the first to even mention that I am aware
We shall see if all these fearless predictions that are contained here will come to frutition. A couple of years I might have said yes. Now I am not so sure. Time to perhaps step back and look through a more balnced viewpoint and leave the past poltical hurts and controversies behind
Who benefits?
Obviously the Shite majority in Iraq is the primary long term beneficiary of the war. Time will tell if it was wise to bring another Shite government to power.
However, if this were the 19th century Balance of Power British diplomacy at work, they would certainly have done the same thing. Sunni Islam was far to strong compared to its relative numbers and position. The potential is there to use the Shites in Iran and Iraq (and eastern Saudia Arabia) against the Sunnis, and the Kurds of Iraq and Iran against the Sunni Arabs and Turks.
Another major beneficiary of both Iraq wars was the American military-industrial complex, which got to test out its latest weapons and tactics and logistics programs in two large scale campaigns. These campaigns also conveniently allowed an opportunity to expend older munitions and equipment and get newer ones to replace them. The performance of the weapons and equipment is undoubtedly a great sales campaign for the manufacturers as they attempt to sell these products home and abroad.
The harm to the American taxpayer seems questionable. Actual payment for the war has been made by foreign US bond buyers, enriched on paper by American consumer purchaes, and these buyers have been accepting essentially a pittance of 2-4% for their money being loaned, even as the US has quickly inflated the actual value of the principal away (the dollar has lost 75% of its value vs. major commodities in the past 6-10 years). In other words, Americans got foreign goods plus a war and a neo-colonial empire for the pittance price of 3% per annum on loan. Not a bad deal financially.
From the point of view of actual American interests, the Iraqi adventures, like all of the wars of the 20th century, did nothing to further the actual interests or defensive position of America as a country.
Rod, you are very wrong about this.
I wish you weren't so determined all the time to be wrong about so many things, when truth is so easy to find. You would rather climb a tree to be wrong about Iraq, Palin, and many other things, than stand on the ground and be correct.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.