Was It Really All About The Oil?
Well was it? Probably not, but Patrick Seale of “The Guardian” makes a good case for it being reason #1. Other motivations include US control of the Gulf region, face-to-face confrontation with Iran and Syria, and protection of Israel. Sowing the seeds of democracy in Iraq is probably a cats-paw for public consumption.
Over the past week, US officials have made several disturbing comments indicating that there will be no end to the war, despite Congressional and public opposition, and that the effects of President Bush’s “surge,” for good or ill, matter little in long-term administration planning.
…the United States (is) looking for a “long and enduring presence”, under an arrangement with the Iraqi government.
This is according to defense secretary Robert Gates. Also according to Gates:
The Korea model is one, the security arrangement we have with Japan is another.
The US has had troops in both countries for more than 50 years.
Last week the White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed that President Bush wanted a lengthy troop presence in Iraq. “The situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time,” he said.
The building of US military bases, at a cost of more than $1 billion per year, and the ongoing construction of the largest American embassy in the world in Baghdad indicate that the administration has no intention of ever leaving.
General Anthony Zinni stated that the building of permanent military bases was “a stupid idea and clearly politically unacceptable.”
Last year, Jimmy Carter remarked:
There are people in Washington…who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq…the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region.
It’s all very chilling, but not unexpected. Does anybody want to bet that when September comes Bush once again gets everything he wants? That we will still be in the same position this time next year?
