liberal ["liberalis" L - suitable for a freeman, generous; "eleutheros" Gk - free] (adj) generous, open-minded, not subjugated to authoritarian domination; (n) one who believes in liberty, universal suffrage and the free exchange of ideas. elite ["eslire" Fr -- to choose fr.L "eligere" -- choose] (n) the choice part; best of a class; the socially superior part of society.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

why we aren't exiting iraq

Chomsky had a brief interview with David McNeill of the "Independent," on Monday, January 24, 2005. It was reported in truthout.

What would happen if the U.S. allowed the Shia majority in Iraq to consolidate their power in the region? What if we were to grant them virtual autonomy and self-determination and withdraw from Iraq after "stabilizing" it as a democracy?

"It might instigate some degree of autonomy in the largely Shia regions of Saudi Arabia which happens to be where most of the oil is. You can project not too far in the future a possible Shia-dominated region including Iran, Iraq, oil-producing regions of Saudi Arabia which really would monopolise the main sources of the world's oil. Is the U.S. going to permit that? It is out of the question. Furthermore, an independent Iraq would try to restore its position as a great, perhaps leading power in the Arab world. Which means it will try to rearm and confront the regional enemy, which is Israel. It may well develop WMD to counter Israel's. It is inconceivable that the U.S. and the UK will permit this."

Chomsky believes comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam are mistaken, primarily because Vietnam was not ultimately a defeat for American strategic aims. "Vietnamese resources were not of that much significance. Iraq is different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, U.S. and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the U.S. in a very powerful position to exert influence over the world."
Yesterday, House Democrat Marty Meehan delivered a speech at Brookings Institution on "Finding A Responsible Exit." In the speech, Meehan exhorts his colleagues and the American people to improve the realism in our national dialogue about Iraq.
We need to refocus on our original goal – a stable Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors, develop WMD, export terrorism, or terrorize its own people. Hard experience and tragedy have taught us that prolonged military occupation in Iraq will not end the insurgency, stabilize Iraq , or bring us closer to our strategic goals. It will only bring more casualties, and more hatred toward America within Iraq and beyond.

Meehan omits the possibility that our actual goals could be different than our stated goals. He omits this consideration even after complaining about the apparent "failure" of our efforts at orderly, democratic regime change:
How did our intelligence fail us so badly about Iraq’s WMD? Was intelligence deliberately manipulated by the Bush Administration in the rush to war? Why didn’t the Administration give the UN inspectors more time? How did we allow so much chaos to grow out of Saddam’s downfall? Why didn’t we have a better plan to secure the peace?

According to the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait have over 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. That's more than North, South, and Central America and all of Europe and Asia, including Russia, combined.

Duh!!! The bigger the mess, the longer we have to stick around and clean it up. We aren't going anywhere. Need a job? Better learn Arabic, Farsi, or Persian.

Allies? What about, "The Golden Rule:" He who has the gold, makes the rules. In this case, the gold is black.


Post a Comment

<< Home