May 31, 2003

We are now witnessing the collapse of the myriad Bush administration myths about why the USA had to invade Iraq. Only a very naive or uninformed person - or a close and cosy relative of George W. Bush - would still believe that the invasion was justified without UN support.

Of course Saddam was a bad man, and certainly he deserved to be expelled from power by a concerted international push. Of course the UN should have forced him from power ten years ago or more, just as they should force other despots like Robert Mugabe from power today. But what the US did was wrong - the way they did it was wrong - and this is becoming increasingly obvious to the wider public. (Note: Britain, Australia and even Poland must share the blame for pretending that the Emperor had clothes on).

So now it it time to ask: WHY DID THEY DO IT?

The answer, obvious enough once the other myths are exploded, is OIL.

So, what now? Iraq is perhaps the only nation on earth capable of seriously challenging Saudi Arabia as the World #1 oil exporter. The Americans will clearly want to maintain control of this oil for the next hundred years (or at least until it is all gone). The obvious fix would be to "sell" all the Iraqi's oil to the USA at very attractive prices. In return, the USA will give the Iraqis ... what? Hmmn... How about ongoing military and administrative support? Well, that won't be necessary once the Iraqis regain control of their country and set up a stable, model democracy, right?

Hands up anyone who thinks the instability in Iraq will be resolved anytime soon.
How about this - thirteen myths about the Iraq War available at htttp:// The most interesting to me is Myth 11: "War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around). "

This site claims that "since 1970, oil imports have been responsible for nearly 75 percent of the U.S. trade deficit and have resulted in a net outflow of $1 trillion to the OPEC nations." Hmnn... isn't Bush offering "1 trillion dollar" tax cuts to the rich? Of course that's just a coincidence, but certainly the two are tied together. The US has been getting a whole lot of that oil money back through arms sales, which almost makes you wonder whether there has been a concerted US effort to maintain political instability in the Middle East for the last 40 years. Is that too extreme an idea? Such instability has certainly maintained a steady demand for arms and intelligence. It has also served Israel well over the years, with no gang of stabilised, oil-enriched Arab neighbours ever forming a unified opposition.

Another interesting article at The Spectator explores some healthy differences between the US and Canada - vive les Canadiens! As an Aussie, I wish our government had such a healthy scepticism about the White House...§ion=current&issue=2003-05-31&id=3149
My wife and I were on our honeymoon in Hawaii when the Twin Towers were hit. I was surprised by the US government's response - for days and days they did nothing, the "President" said nothing, while the public fear and hysteria built. Having lived in London when IRA bombs were going off on Tube Station trains every other week, I couldn't help comparing this with Margaret Thatcher's response (not that I liked HER!) when the IRA exploded a toilet she had just visited in a Brighton Beach hotel. She called a press conference, went straight into makeup and came out a few minutes later telling everybody to "Carry on as usual". The Bush administration's response appears to have been very calculated, very carefully orchestrated, and incredibly selfish. I think he will go down in history as a far, far greater evil than Nixon ever was, an ignominious turning point in the hisory of the USA.

The great pity is that, with the end of the Cold War, just a few years ago, America had an incredible opportunity to build a wondrous new future for the entire planet. But the America people were asleep to what was going on in the world. In their name, political and economic interests controlled the direction of the most powerful military and economic behometh the world has ever known, and THEIR interests have taken precedence over the US public's (busy watching Jerry Springer) and the protests from the rest of the civilised world.


Blog Archive