With all the attention on events in Afghanistan, the media has tended to ignore the continuing devastation that the 2003 illegal US-led attack on Iraq has caused.
Today, 95 people lost their lives in bomb blasts in Baghdad- and more than 500 people were injured. It's no good supporters of the war trying to evade responsibility for the carnage- the fact is that attacks like the ones we saw today are a direct consequence of the decision to invade and topple Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. Al-Qa'eda and other such groups may be operating in Iraq today- but they certainly weren't operating in Iraq prior to March 2003. And for that we have the neocons to thank.
Apologists for the war urge those of us who opposed it to 'move on'. But I for one will not be 'moving on' until those who planned the invasion- one which has cost the lives of up to 1m people- are properly held to account for their crimes.
2 comments:
The Obama administrations proconsuls are still referring to Iraq in the run up to the elections as having undergone a Purple Revolution'.
Though 'democracy promoters'tend to emphasise that Colour Revolutions are essentially 'non-violent' there's little evidence of that from Iraq to Kosovo, now ruled by KLA gangsters, and to Georgia which under Scheverdnadze was turning away from the US in the wake of the 2003 invasion.
Indeed Iraq was only retrospectively dubbed a Purple Revolution by Bush during the Bratislava Summit in 2005, presumably in order to convince Putin that 'freedom is on the march'
As Bush put it in Hviezdoslavovo Square,
"In recent times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty, a Rose Revolution in Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now, a Purple Revolution in Iraq. With their votes cast and counted, the Iraqi people now begin a great and historic journey. They will from a new government, draft a democratic constitution, and govern themselves as free people. They're putting the days of tyranny and terror behind them and building a free and peaceful society in the heart of the Middle East, and the world's free nations will support them in their struggle".
The sheer level of violence makes a farce of those who continue to see the invasion of Iraq as a noble cause that went wrong just because of the way the post-war rebuilding was mishandled.
As with Colour Revolutions elsewhere the prime geostrategic aim of controlling the oil and protecting areas either scheduled or already containing pipelines is the foremost one.
Which is one reason The Rose Revolution's Saakashvili had been an erstwhile supporter of the US in Iraq until he idiotically launched the attack on South Ossetia and had to get the US to airlift all 2000 of his troops back home.
Before that Georgia had in 2007 more than doubled the number of troops in Iraq from 850 to show what a reliable ally and loyal aspirant to NATO it could be. Making it have the third highest contingent there.
All of which fitted in with the geostrategy of blocking off Russian and Chinese influence, particulary as Iraq as a US client would open its as yet untapped oilfields in the Sunni south.
Though Obama has said he was against invading Iraq, it was only from the tactical point of view.
As with Brzezinski, his foreign policy advisor, the better longer term aim would be to engineer regime change in former Soviet space,Central Asia and, of course, Iran.
Which recently saw attempts to engineer a Green Revolution,including the backing of some 40% of the Guardian Council who, as most should know, are usually copted to serve the Islamist regime through oil concessions.
'Which recently saw attempts to engineer a Green Revolution,including the backing of some 40% of the Guardian Council who, as most should know, are usually copted to serve the Islamist regime through oil concessions'.
That's a bit misleading.
I meant through the Revolutionary Guard which has a major stake in Iranian oil. One reason why moderates would have to tread lightly and the Green Revolution was really confined to youthful twitterers.
In any case, getting regime change in Iran is regarded by both Republicans and Democrats as necessary. Not that this would be a bad thing necessarily but the idea Iran will ever allow control over its oil is an illusion.
Which is why Centcom has drawn up plans for a 'shock and awe' attack on Iran. Centcom was set up to control Eurasia and primarily to defend the USA's vital oil interests in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980.
Post a Comment