Was it all about oil and Empire? I dunno. But it was certainly a major factor and yet unless you count Ann Coulter saying, "why not go to war just for oil? We need oil," the country has never had a real debate on this. From the beginning, there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors about WMD and terrorism and spreadin' democracy, but the longstanding strategy and goals of many of those who made the decision to invade Iraq were never really aired outside the dark blogospheric alleys of online liberal commentary and few episodes of Frontline.
As most Salon readers undoubtedly already know, you can find it all in the neocon think tank Project For A New American Century's report from 2001 called "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It was based upon an earlier defense department review written by Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby when they worked for Dick Cheney during the Bush I administration (and which was soundly denounced by the wiser men of that earlier time).
Here was the passage on the Middle East from 1992:
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
That document evolved over time into the Bush Doctrine.
complete post, HERE
On Sunday, I wrote:
"Since this is not a Republican versus Democratic issue-- and it transcends the vocabulary used in the global war on terror and the threat from radical Islam-- no one wants to talk about it. WE started this war. WE are continuing this war. And ultimately the goal seems to be a redistribution of Middle East oil assets AND diminished Iranian/Shi'a power in the region."
And today, from digby at Salon:
"They made their intentions pretty clear but for some reason nobody talks about it, even today, as we are debating the possible consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq. I've never understood why."
Maybe people ARE beginning to talk about it. An honest debate about our intentions in the region- what a concept!
- glassfrequency
No comments:
Post a Comment