Iraq (Continued)

With approximately 4,000 dead American soldiers and approximately one trillion dollars spent, we now may be facing a revitalized, democratic Iraq aligned to Iran.

The administration's reaction to 9/11 was initially "an emotion seeking a policy." They had been caught off guard by a relatively simplistic plot that had worked with unbelievable effectiveness and one that undermined many of the assumptions of globalization. The natural response to the attack, locking down the country, cancelling the tax cuts, mobilizing the country, ran contrary to many of these assumptions. The answer to the response problem was to, rather than retreat behind our own borders, strike outwardly and the neo-conservatives were right there, in DoD and CHeney's office, to assist them in this thinking.

The foreign policy element of this thinking had a long history within the Republican Party going back to John Foster Dulles and the concept of "roll-back" following WWII (many would trace it back further to Teddy Roosevelt or even the concept of manifest destiny in the 1840s, interrupted by the Civil War and continued in the late 1880s, calling for an expansion of American power).
Basically, roll-back following WWII called for a more aggressive American posture versus communism and the Soviet Union. Roll-back advocates called for things like the invasion of Cuba, direct military support for the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, support of revolutions from the right and, where necessary the pragmatic support of anti-communist dictatorships. One of their favorite witchhunts during this period was: Who Lost China? Although roll-back never achieved its goals and the official U.S. foreign policy of the Cold War became, in face of Soviet nuclear weapons, "containment," the wishful thinking of its supporters never completely went away.

This was also the hey day of the newly formed CIA and one of its great "successes" lay in the Iranian coup that ousted a communist leaning, but more or less democratically elected government and placed the Shah in power. This was a major cause of the subsequent Iranian Revolution which deposed the Shah and led to the seizing of our Tehran embassy, for which in turn, we've never forgiven the Iranians. [Note: if one is looking for a new start in U.S.-Iranian relations, we might start by "calling ourselves even" and each acknowledging our own errors].

So, following a relatively easy victory in Afghanistan, the administration having taken the first bite of the apple of regime change and nation building turned toward the "axis of evil." As part of the axis, North Korea was sort of a "no-brainer." An oppressive state, run by a deranged person, North Korea was on every body's list of rogue states. Another, on our list, if not the rest of the world's, was Iraq.

Iraq was from the Administration's viewpoint a "win-win" situation. Hussein wasn't exactly a poster boy for good deeds and had defied us in the first Gulf War and whenever thereafter he had an opportunity. Although an on-going nuisance of the first rank few other than ourselves (and subsequently Tony Blair in Britain and the others who joined the "Coalition of the Willing") considered Hussein an imminent threat to anyone other than the Iranian Kurds in northern Iraq and southern Iranian Shias.

There are only two strategic interests of the United States in the mid-east: Israel and Oil. It would be nice if the entire region was dominated by freely elected governments, respecting minority rights, women's rights, etc. It would also be nice if the same goals were achieved throughout Africa and elsewhere...but achievement of these goals (until the Bush Doctrine) is not essential to the national security of the United States. The security of Israel is essential if for no other reason than the Israel Lobby in the United States, a legitimate and important part of our own political system. The security of the Persian Gulf region is essential to the free flow of oil and its impact on the world economy. Other than that and despite a long history of missionary work and limited trade, its pretty much a large sand box inhabited by curious and quarrelsome people, who in the annuals of human civilization have seen better days (and hopefully will see better days again, although not at our expense).

For a long time following our invasion of Iraq I assumed that the "win-win" scenario within American politics consisted of pro-Israeli liberal Democrats and oil focused right wing Republicans. However, following a read of a controversial new book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," I have revised my opinion.

I now believe that Israel did not initially want a U.S. invasion of Iraq and considered it likely to de-stabilize a region in which stability was a major component of their own national security, barring a real threat of nuclear proliferation in the region. Indeed, Sharon's initial advice seems to have been, "oh no, don't go there." I also believe that the Mossad (Israeli intelligence) to be among the most informed services on earth and that they did not buy into Hussein's possession of WMD. Rather, I now think that prominent American Jewish neo-cons more or less hijacked the U.S. Israel Lobby, along with key policy makers within the Administration. Right wing pressures in Israel, plus the shift of the U.S. lobby drove Sharon to ultimately agree with and support the invasion.

There is no evidence that anyone at the time was seriously worried about relating 9/11, Saddam Hussein and the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf to a need for a quick invasion. Without imminent threat, the Administration had to build a case for invasion based on weak linkages of Hussein to 9/11, old WMD activities (which Hussein actually encouraged) and the general proposition that he was a very bad guy who killed his own people by the thousands. Indeed, thanks to the sanctions and the corrupt U.N. oil for food program, more Iraqi oil was folowing through the Gulf than we wanted.

In fact, other than the neo-con loony Weltanschauung, I see only one authentic national interest in the invasion (discounting for the moment the personal and political reasons of the President and assuming he hadn't been hoodwinked by the neo-cons around him), namely something called "Hubbert's Peak."

[one more to come]