Now that combat in Iraq is over, the voices of Iraqis from all different segments of Iraqi society are being heard. Shiites, Sunnis, Baathists, and others are generally speaking with one voice. “America must leave”, is what that collective voice now seems to be saying.
Many Iraqis are happy and relieved to no longer live under Saddam Hussein’s despotic rule. Yet, in the alternative press we see photos of Iraqis holding signs such as “Bush = Saddam” or “America Go Home” or even “We Want Saddam Back”.
Clearly, the Iraqi public wants self-rule and does not want a colonizing occupying military or political force determining the affairs and controlling the resources and wealth of the Iraqi people.
Yet, we hear American leaders, including Congressmen such as Richard Lugar of Indiana saying America must not pull out too soon. We hear the phrase being used, “Let’s not win the war only to lose the peace.”
That phrase is very revealing of American intentions from the very beginning of this contrived conquest. This war was not about Iraq, its threats to the U.S. or the world, its government, its people or its welfare. We know that the American government and the general public of the U.S. were willing to impose devastating sanctions on the Iraqi people for well over a decade, resulting in crippling of the Iraqi economy and untold suffering of the Iraqi people. We know that the American government did not complain when Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iraqis, and the U.S. government was willing, even anxious to do business with Iraq even when Hussein gassed Kurds in Iraq. So, any rhetoric that claimed the war was for “liberation” of Iraq or for the good of the Iraqi people was just that, empty rhetoric.
Instead, as we are increasingly aware, this war was about America — its strategic goals, its economic welfare, and its desire to impose American values and institutions upon the entire world. The Project for the New American Century spelled out the policy of war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations of the world, even before George W. Bush took office. And George W. Bush is implementing this strategy methodically and with total disdain for world opinion.
How could American win the war on Iraq and lose the peace? One way this could happen would be if America failed to dominate the installation of a new Iraqi government. If democracy only was the goal of America, then what would America do if the Iraqis democratically selected a government that was anti-America and anti-Israel? What if Iraqis democratically elected a government that chose not to pay American corporations to rebuild Iraq, but instead used Iraqi skills and labor, or even labor from European talent pools? What would America do if Iraq chose to sue the U.S. for reparations and to force the U.S. to pay for all war damage to the Iraqi nation? What would America do if Iraqis elected a democratically selected government that chose to sell petroleum based on Euros as the medium of exchange, and not dollars? What would America do if Iraq chose in a democratic election to sell its oil to France or Russia or Japan or China or any of a number of other nations, and not to the U.S.? And how would America like it if Iraq, based on democratic government selection, not only refused to base American troops in its sovereign territory, but used its influence to persuade other Arab and Muslim states to no longer allow U.S. troops to be based on their territories as well?
As these thought-provoking questions reveal, America could easily lose the peace after winning a war on Iraq. And America has no intention of allowing this to happen. America wants and intends to install a puppet government under American control. America wants to control Iraq’s economy and use Iraqi oil to pay American corporations to repair damage done by America’s military to Iraqi infrastructure. America wants to win the peace and win big. America wants to extend its influence for decades, even basing American troops on Iraqi sovereign territory, preferably as close to Syria as possible.
An interesting book, published in 2002, is called “War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11″, by Michael Chossudovsky, a Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization”. This book is advertised on the author’s website, http://www.globalresearch.ca/ In his book, Chossudovsky details America’s goals to impose the Pax Americana on the entire world, including eventually bringing even China and Russia under domination by America. Dynamics of America’s relationships with France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China are explored. The strategic use of military assets and warfare are discussed, as well as the role of Israel in American foreign policy.
The revealing of these long-term strategic plans for American domination, even subjugation of the entire world, must be of great concern, not only to other nations, but to American citizens as well. To accomplish this domination, America must spend a hugely disproportionate amount of its national wealth on the military. American military spending is larger than the entire Federal budget of Russia. Certainly, America’s leadership is not spending this massive wealth for nothing — this military is clearly to be increasingly used to dominate other nations, winning wars and then winning the “peace” or aftermath of future wars of conquest and strategic advantage.
American citizens rightly must be concerned with the priorities of this neo-conservative world view. With millions of American unable to afford healthcare, and hundreds of species of wildlife in danger of extinction and not recovering, with the threat of global warming and possible catastrophic impacts on America’s economy and ecology, thinking Americans wonder if this strategic plan is desirable, even if it could be sustained. But what would be the result if America’s economy falters in time, and we have alienated and antagonized and angered a significant portion of world nations, including some who were formerly allies or who formerly viewed America in friendly terms?
Winning the War, then Winning the Peace may not be a win-win situation after all, when one looks at all the future possibilities.
The writer is a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations. He contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from California, USA.