Let's just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let's say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?
Well there's going to be a Shiite majority, so they'll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don't particularly like Iran, but they don't want to go to war with them so they'll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.
That's the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare-a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that's something that goes back to biblical times.
What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They're going to have to rearm to confront Israel-which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here's the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington-and probably 10 Downing street in London-that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That's kind of next to inconceivable.
What I've just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: "Uh well, okay, we'll let them have a government, but we're not going to pay any attention to what they say." In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we're keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: We just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn't understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that's very common because look, after all, the U.S. has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don't understand. They follow the wrong course. So therefore, following the mission of establishing democracy, we've got to overthrow their governments.
I think that [conscription] is going to be a last resort. The reason is the Vietnam experience. The Vietnam experience, I think, is the first time in the history of European imperialism that an imperial power tried to fight a colonial war with a citizen's army. I mean the British didn't do it, and the French had the Foreign Legion... In colonial wars, civilians are just no good at. [Colonial wars are] too brutal and vicious and murderous. You just can't take kids off the street and have them fight that kind of war. You need trained killers, like the French Foreign Legion.
In fact you could see it happening in Vietnam. To its credit, the U.S. army fell apart. It took too long, but finally the army essentially fell apart. Soldiers were on drugs, they were fragging officers, not following orders, and so on and the top brass wanted them out. If you look back at the military journals in the late Sixties, they were writing about how we gotta get this army out of here or the army's going to collapse-much like the head of the Army reserves said two or three days ago. He said this is becoming a broken force.
Chomsky is a prolific author whose principal linguistic works after Syntactic Structures include Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (1964), The Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle, 1968), Language and Mind (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972), and Knowledge of Language (1986). In addition, he has wide-ranging political interests. He was an early and outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and has written extensively on many political issues from a generally left-wing point of view. Among his political writings are American Power and the New Mandarins (1969), Peace in the Middle East? (1974), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (1982), Manufacturing Consent (with E. S. Herman, 1988), Profit over People (1998), and Rogue States (2000). Chomsky's controversial bestseller 9-11 (2002) is an analysis of the World Trade Center attack that, while denouncing the atrocity of the event, traces its origins to the actions and power of the United States, which he calls "a leading terrorist state."
Taking in today's remarks by the polity of Iran doesn't paint a good picture. My next bet is that the US will do black ops in Syria (they'll fold, watch) and then face off with Iran. If the Iranians don't back down, the US will wait for the right moment (when world opinion has cooled off regarding Iraq) and then stomp the Iranians.
Personally, I hope this never happens. The loss in human life and cost in suffering will be vast and unnecessary. I hope you will all join in dua with me and pray to Allah Almighty to prevent more suffering to the people. Inshallah.
FACT: the second largest deployment of troops in Iraq are not citizens, are not nationals. They are hired hands, e.g. mercenaries. That's right, hired killers (just like Chomsky said was lacking in Vietnam, well, we got them now. God help us) that work for money. Coalition my ass.
Surely you must know that your country is far too busy murdering Muslims in Chechnya to lend a helping hand to the Iraqis....
In case you didn't notice, the Cold War is over. And for what its worth you guys (the Russians) lost and we won.
What's more, unless you think that murdering 20 million people and enslaving Eastern Europe and Central Asia were good things, I'd say the good guys won and the bad guys lost. I'm sure the Ukrainians, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Byelorussians, Tajiks, Khazakis, Armenians, Georgians, Turkmen, Azerbaijanis, Bulgars, Romanians, Eastern Germans, Latvians etc. would all agree.
I agree that Iraq's rearming is indeed a priority. Please note however that the enemy in Iraq's case might actually be anyone who attacks it or supports violence against its people. In other words, there might appear to be more pressing threats to Iraq's security than Israel, at least for the moment. While we are on the subject, Palestinian statehood might potentially suggest that there would be even less reason to consider Israel a threat to the region.
As for the future of Iraq, America's latest contenders for the "red party" label appear to be warming to the idea of supporting revolutionary Islamic initiatives (and perhaps even revolutionary Islamic governance). And personally I would imagine that America's foreign policy might begin to make America seem more like a franchise operation than yet another failed empire. Perhaps even supporters of Iraqi insurgents might be planning to implement policy which could in some ways seem somewhat similar. Who knows?
But than again. elections were the never the reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is all about OIL and MILITARY BASES.
On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands.
It turns out that Abdel Mahdi is on the ticket as candidate from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party in the United Iraqi Alliance - "the Shia House" or the Iranian born Grand Ayatollah Sistani godfather list. UIA includes the Iraqi National Council, which is led by Ahmed Chalabi - the infamous crook who provided the faulty information to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Thus, one might argue that the Bush administration has made a deal with the UIA: Iraq's oil for guaranteed political power.
And there is so much more they are not telling you. Just like the Iraqis who voted, believing they did so to bring an end to the occupation of their country.
Sources: Antonia Juhasz, a /Foreign Policy in Focus/ scholar, authored a piece just before the election. "What They're Not Telling You About the "Election" by Dahr Jamail; February 01, 2005
The US has wanted a base in that region for decades. They now have one in the new "democratic" Iraq (CIA STYLIE!... give it up for Allwai)
The last thing they want is for the insurgence to stop. Their behaviour is similar to that of Israel. Keep the tribulations up, break the people down and make them realise that they have no choice in the matter. If peace does arise then start something new to cause anger and resentment. The cycle must continue, to make the Iraqi people look like savages to the outside world, or to be more exact to the Americans. They (Iraq) are not going to govern themselves (freely). The US (Neo-Nazi) army is staying! The ARAB Leaders are good for nothing. When they start to behave like Muslim leaders then we can count on them.
BTW: I am an ARAB!