|
WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS
by Terrence E. Paupp
By May 23, 2007 it became clear that the
Democrats were little better than the Republicans when given
the task of ending the Iraq War. Like their Republican counterparts,
the Democrats took on the mantle of Bush-enablers by granting
him another $95 billion dollars supplemental authorization to
keep the war going. Not until September 2007 would the matter
of funding the Iraq War come home to roost in the Congress.
Why did this happen? The dirty truth is
that both political parties are hooked on an addiction to Iraqi
oil. So, both parties are now filled with imperialists. That
is right---oil-addicted imperialists. The great majority in
Congress have signed on to the Bush administration's agenda of
stealing Iraq's oil resources and placing permanent US military
bases in that country to guarantee uninterrupted access regardless
of the cost in blood or treasure. It all started in 2003 when
Bush assigned Paul Bremer to be the head of the Coalitional Provisional
Authority (CPA).
In violation of international law, Bremer
started issuing orders on how the Iraqi economy would be run
and who would get what. Bremer began to organize what the Bush
administration wanted for the whole region---privatization.
Never mind the fact that Bremer's illegal orders also created
the basis for the current civil war in Iraq. Insofar as different
ethnic groups would stand to benefit more than others from the
new arrangements it was clear that some groups would be cut out
all together. Hence, the Bush supported Maleki government is
a propped up hoax that is unrepresentative of the interests of
millions of Iraqi citizens who have been disenfranchised within
their new "democratic" state.
Foreign owned business and enterprise would
be empowered to ignore the limitations imposed by a now defunct
Iraqi Constitution that prohibited the sale of the nation's resources
to foreigners. In short, profits were to be had as the Bush administration
pushed for a Free Trade Area (FTA) that would extend throughout
the Middle East. It was not really designed to bring democracy,
in the sense of a political opening for the unrepresented and
excluded of the region. Rather, it was a democratization of
Iraq's oil resources so that privatized firms, such as Dick Cheney's
Halliburton could capitalize on new economic arrangements that
leave the Iraqi people with growing unemployment and deprive
them of the oil revenues of their own nation. Iraq may have
as much as 300 billion barrels of oil untapped. With oil headed
toward $70 dollars a barrel, the oil wealth of Iraq could be
worth as much as $21 trillion. Hence, here we have the real
rationale of an endless occupation.
Never mind the fact that over 60 percent
of the American public wants the war to end now. That is what
the November 2006 elections were supposed to be about. Those
elections gave the Democrats a mandate to develop a spine and
stand up to the Liar-in-Chief about the Iraq War. What happened?
They started to play politics with the Republican rope-a-dope
strategy of "support our troops." Never mind the fact
that real support for the troops would be to bring them home
after 4 tours of duty and keep them alive from the bullets and
RPG launchers that have come to symbolize the nature of the civil
war. Never mind the fact that over 500-million Iraqi citizens
have been killed since the war began. In fact, when one examines
the death toll of civilian dead you come to realize that some
citizens were needless by our own troops in the village of Hidatha
and in the prison at Abu Ghraib.
So, what was the plan to begin with? Was
it to remove WMDs? Was it to spread democracy in the Middle
East? Or was it really another chance for the West to play the
"Great Game"---try to control Eurasia and all of the
oil down to the Persian Gulf. Some historians and commentators
track the strategy back to the late 1970s when President Jimmy
Carter announced the Carter-Doctrine in a State of the Union
Message. It was a declaration in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.
If any nation or power should seek to cut off American access
to the oil supplies of the Middle East, military action would
be taken in order to forestall or eliminate such a threat. Bush
has merely fulfilled what the Carter Doctrine promised.
Yet, the Bush strategy really has not succeeded
because the course it took in Iraq amounts to what the policy
wonks call a "failed strategy." Well, that analysis
merely gets us to military strategy and tactics. It simply critiques
the failure of an imperial policy. It conveniently ignores the
dirty truth that the grand strategy of the Great Game is one
of imperialism and establishing American hegemony over both the
Middle East and from there the rest of the globe. For if the
US can deny the Russians and Chinese access to new energy sources,
then the US can put a stop to the threat of two potential rivals
or Hegemons that might be capable of moving in on America's control
of both the Middle East and the world.
The political elites of the US political
and financial establishment want control of Iraq, the Persian
Gulf, the Caspian Sea, and the rest of Eurasia. These US elites
will do anything to block off Russian and Chinese efforts to
profit from the energy reserves of the Middle East. In geopolitical
terms the American strategy is one of seeking to maintain hegemony---unchallenged
control over the region and the international economy. In that
sense, both parties have suffered withdrawal symptoms when it
comes to leaving Iraq. Both parties are too addicted to oil
and to a strategy of imperialism that sustains the addiction.
In the meantime, democratic representation in the United States
and in Iraq is virtually dead.
Terrence Paupp is a Senior Fellow at the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs and author of the recent book,
Exodus From Empire: The Fall of America's Empire and the Rise
of the Global Community (Pluto Press, 2007) and Board Member
of the Association of World Citizens.
|