Iran and Iraq are about to sign an agreement of military co-operation, as well as sharing an oil pipeline between Iran and Basra.
What Saddam Hussein was unable to accomplish George the Lesser has.
On the other hand, former President Bill Clinton, speaking at the 2005 Aspen Ideas Festival on Friday night, said "I wouldn't set a deadline" for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
Very likely that's the position Clinton has to take because, like all the presidents since Nixon he's aware that the goal all along was to find a permanent home for American military assets in the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean region to counteract the inevitable surge of China to a position of influence and power.
All that trade with China has just been an effort to buy them off or buy ourselves time until our position as THE world power is secure. Iraq, like Vietnam, was both an effort to establish an enduring foothold in the region and to demonstrate our military might by destroying everything in sight. If Vietnam proved anything, it's that if the first goal isn't achieved, the second still makes the effort worth while.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems increasingly obvious that our big mistake was in failing to recognize and expose the Bush Conspiracy that took shape in the 1970s and 1980s when the hegemony of the United States, the "New World Order," became the lynch-pin of our foreign policy.
The strategy for keeping what was really intended hidden was rather simple. In the interest of national security, American foreign policy was never subjected to a full airing during national political campaigns.
Then, when that strategy proved so successful in keeping American incursions around the globe out of our political discussions, it was adapted increasingly to domestic issues as well. The result was what we have come to refer to as the politics of personal destruction, where the personal characteristics of candidates, including their families and business associates came under the most intense scrutiny and their policy positions were, for the most part, ignored.
Keeping American foreign policy secret from the public had an ancillary and perhaps unanticipated consequence in that it may those who shared in the secrets co-conspirators and effectively negated their ability to voice any kind of criticism. So, Kerry, for example, was precluded of making an issue of the illegal war in Iraq, not because he had voted to pay for it a couple of times, but because he had participated in the planning stages, as well.
And, of course, attacking a surrogate to demonstrate America's prowess to potential competitors is a strategy of long standing. It's apparent failure in Vietnam, which is being replayed in Iraq, is only real, if the ostensible intent (to prevent the spread of the communist ideology and promote democracy) were real. Since the true intent is merely to flex the American military muscle and demonstrate how much damage it can inflict, the possibility of failure doesn't enter into policy considerations. Neither, obviously, does the total absence of morality.
How can one possibly justify subjecting a foreign population to death and destruction in order to impress others with our ruthlessness? How does that differ from the mentality of the terrorist?
Posted by Hannah at July 9, 2005 09:03 AM