Our Real Aim in Iraq
A report from Stratfor a private intelligence firm (about which I know nothing) says that the US’s real aim is to occupy Iraq because:
1. It takes out of the picture a potential ally for al Qaeda, one with sufficient resources to multiply the militant group’s threat. Whether Iraq has been an ally in the past is immaterial — it is the future that counts. 2. It places U.S. forces in the strategic heart of the Middle East, capable of striking al Qaeda forces whenever U.S. intelligence identifies them. 3. Most important, it allows the United States to bring its strength –conventional forces — to bear on nation-states that are enablers or potential enablers of al Qaeda. This would undermine strategically one of the pillars of al Qaeda’s
capabilities: the willingness of established regimes to ignore al Qaeda operations within their borders.
Most interesting to me is that Stratfor felt the need to come up with a theory to explain the lameness of the Bush administration’s attempts at justifying the war: Bush is left stating ridiculous, unconvincing reasons for going to war with Iraq because no one would support us if W gave the real reasons.
[Thanks to Daniel Berninger for forwarding the email.]
W yesterday, in complaining that the Europeans are too stupid to see what Hussein is up to, said: “This looks like a rerun of a bad movie and I’m not interested in watching it.”
I don’t mean to get all psychological on his ass – well, yes I do – but this is a striking image. W sees a narrative unfolding in which he does not want to participate. It’s a rerun so it’s a memory. What’s the movie he doesn’t want to see? It’s “Poppy the Wuss,” a story in which his dad is publicly humiliated. In getting revenge, W also proves (to himself and to Babs) that he doesn’t suffer from his Dad’s weakness, and that he’s not the second-best son.
Will someone please give Bush a new movie before he gets us all killed?
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Thanks for clarifying. I thought he was doing this stuff because he got hold of Frodo’s ring! (I’ve seen the photo, so I know its a fact)
Um, is there any credable evidence that any of the fundamentalist groups could sit in the same room as Hussain, and not try to kill him? Looking at history, I see no reason for fundamentalist groups to like the guy.
1. untill recently he was a pawn of the US. Including starting a war on Iran (where he first used chemical warfare)
2. he’s a seculair ruler
3. his oppression of fundamentalists in Iraq during the 80’s was notable for both its brutality and throughness.
If anything, I’d imagen that the fundamentalists would love to see his head on a stick.
That way they could highjack another revolution and take over Iraq. Which they might just get no matter what, if someone doesn’t smack some sense into Bush. Guess he didn’t see the movie about the last time the US goverment removed a sitting ruler and replaced him with a puppet regime in the middle east. Interesting little flick called The Shah and the Iranian Revolution.
I think nobody of us do like Saddam Hussein very much.
But is this enough to start a war without verified reasons?!
I have been a subscriber to Stratfor for over a year, and I am very familiar with its theory as to why we invaded Iraq.
I get a good portion of my geopolitical news from Stratfor because 1) it doesn’t spin: their client base includes corporations and private investors who need to guage foriegn markets: corps would not pay premiums for biased information, 2) unlike mainstream media, it’s not reactive, meaning Stratfor provides history, context, strategy of all the players, and gives you a read of all the possibilities and likelyhoods on the horizon. Their batting average is unbelievably high, which I suppose it has to be if your tagline is “predictive, insightful global intelligence.” It costs $100 for the basic package of daily situation reports and analysis.
For the record, their analysis of US strategy behind Iraq invasion was: 1) to invade the heartland of the ME and project our force on the autocratic regimes that incubate terrorism, and by doing so 2) transform US perception of being hated and weak, to hated and feared. Saddam, the moral highground stuff, WMD were not lies, they were used for political cover and public consumption. Everyone thought there was WMD, especially the Germans. So yes, there was a hidden agenda, it just so happens to be a good one. The plan is working, so far anyway.
Also for the record, Stratfor’s theory, which they repeat often, was posted before the war.