Invasion of Iraq: a secret surrender?
The occasion of the 2000th US military fatality in Iraq is as good a time as any to review what we know about the real, rather than stated, reasons for the invasion. Karen Kwiatkowski does a remarkably good job of doing so in the text of a talk she’s been giving at sundry locations for a while now: Our Inscrutable Iraq Policy: Why We Did It, What To Do Now, and What Happens Next
I’d like to discuss one thing that occurred to me while reading her text. I freely admit this is only speculation. I make no apologies for that, since a White House policy of lying through it’s teeth reduces us all to mere speculation on the motives of the war criminals in DC.
Consider the following. In the wake of 9/11, those who were paying attention learned that Al Qaeda’s stated reasons for the attacks were the following:
- US government aid to Israel
- US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia
- US embargo of Iraq (and resulting civilian deaths there)
As distasteful as it may be, try to mentally put yourself in the role of the murderous but cowardly politicians in the Bush admin for just a moment. Would it be so out of character for them to decide they were going to respond to 9/11 by giving Al Qaeda what it wants, as best they politically could?
Ending military aid to Israel would simply not be negotiable in their eyes. They would consider that politically untenable.
As Kwiatkowski points out, though, US policymakers were already unhappy with Saudi Arabia as a host country for US military bases in the region — and not having bases in the region would similarly be non-negotiable from their perspective. So, finding a place to put US military bases in the region, but outside of Saudi Arabia, acquired a new urgency after 9/11.
Now consider the embargo of Iraq. Ending it was non-negotiable as long as Saddam was in power, from the perspective of the Bush admin. It was non-negotiable for some of the same reasons almost no failed government policy ends after shown to be a bad idea — the pride and vanity of the politicians involved.
The only politically acceptable way, in the eyes of the Bush admin, for Al Qaeda’s third demand (end of the Iraq embargo) to be met would be the ouster of Saddam — which would conveniently allow Al Qaeda’s second demand (US troops out of Saudi Arabia) to be met as well, while satisfying the desire of US policymakers to continue to strategically dominate the oil fields.
We knew that although Al Qaeda objected to the embargo of Iraq, they also hated the secular Ba’ath government of Iraq. Getting rid of the Ba’ath might have even been viewed within the top levels of the Bush administration as a nice little gift wrapped peace offering to Osama; a consolation prize to make up for continuing US aid to Israel.
It almost works out to be “the perfect crime”. Saddam was already unpopular among the US public. A few lies told by the right officials and — presto! — everybody wins, or so the Bushies would see it. Al Qaeda gets most of what they were perceived to want, Bush gets to give it to them while not looking like he’s giving it to them and simultaneously not losing anything the political class cares about. And, last but not least, the bloodlust of the gullible among the American public would be sated — after a dissatisfying period in which US forces invaded Afghanistan to supposedly “go after AL Qaeda”, but suspiciously dilly-dallied around in the lowlands and let the top Al Qaeda leadership slip away from their mountain hideouts. The only people whose wants and needs weren’t addressed were the Iraqis. Their job was to do the dying — which they have, although they’ve taken 2,000 US troops with them so far.
This view of events makes sense because that’s how politicians like Bush operate. It’s the same sort of good ole Texas legislative horse-trading where you try to find a win-win situation for everybody who has politicial power — and not give a rat’s ass about who among the powerless you hurt or what lies you have to tell to pull the deal off.
Please note that I am not suggesting a literal deal was struck. Rather, the situation shows all the marks of a failed, ham-fisted attempt by Bush to try to make an unstated deal. No quid pro quo would be necessary. That’s not how the smiling men in suits operate. They depend on mutual back-scratching and second-guessing of what each other wants. In their good ole boy chauvinism, ignorance and hubris; they wouldn’t be able to imagine that’s not the way Al Qaeda leaders think.
So, there you have it: a theory, just a theory, that the invasion of Iraq was a failed attempt at a secret surrender in the War on Terrorism.
Share This
