What the Iraq War is about (by Paul Craig Roberts)



The Bush Regime has quagmired America into a sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official US combat casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 US troops have been wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg.

On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND Corporation concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries.”

On April 21, 2008, OpEdNews reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported combat fatalities each month.

Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.

Afghan casualties are unknown.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing, infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with depleted uranium and open sewers.

Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one US dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, US Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities of the US government total $53 trillion dollars. The US government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush Regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as world reserve currency.

The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the deaths, injuries, and economic costs to the US and its victims are due entirely to lies told by the President and Vice President of the US, by the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, and, of course, by the media, including the “liberal” New York Times. All of these lies were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. “Our” government has still not told “we the people” the real reasons “our” government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a succession of transparent lies: weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections and complicity in the 9/11 attack, overthrowing a dictator and “bringing democracy” to Iraqis.

The great moral American people would rather believe government lies than to acknowledge the government’s crimes and to hold the government accountable.

There are many effective ways in which a moral people could protest. Consider investors, for example. Clearly Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning up. Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in the rise in value from booming profits. But what would a moral people do? Wouldn’t they boycott the stocks of the companies that are profiting from the Bush Regime’s war crimes?

If the US invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush Regime has given, why would the US have spent $750 million on a fortress “embassy” with anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water systems spread over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or heard of such an embassy before. Clearly, this “embassy” is constructed as the headquarters of an occupying colonial ruler.

The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of turning Iraq into an American colony. The so-called government of al-Maliki is not a government. Maliki is the well paid front man for US colonial rule. Maliki’s government does not exist outside the protected Green Zone, the headquarters of the American occupation.

If colonial rule were not the intent, the US would not be going out of its way to force al Sadr’s 60,000 man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi’ite who is a real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end the sectarian conflict and restore some unity to Iraq. As such he is regarded by the Bush Regime as a danger to the American puppet Maliki. Unless the US is able to purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is likely to emerge as the dominant figure. This would be a highly unfavorable development for the Bush Regime’s hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the facade of a Maliki fake democracy. Rather than work with Sadr in order to extract themselves from a quagmire, the Americans will be doing everything possible to assassinate Sadr.

Why does the Bush Regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter of “peak oil.” Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this argument, the US decided to seize Iraq to insure its own oil supply.

This explanation is problematic. Most US oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The best way for the US to insure its oil supplies would be to protect the dollar’s role as world reserve currency. Moreover, $3-5 trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the US invasions, the US oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006 total US imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the US trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for US oil imports for 30 years; five trillion dollars could pay the US oil bill for a half century had the Bush Regime preserved a sound dollar.

The more likely explanation for the US invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush Regime’s commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran from giving support to the Palestinians and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush’s “war on terror” is a hoax that serves to cover US intervention in the Middle East in behalf of “greater Israel.” “”” [ Paul Craig Roberts ]


[RO – traducere adaptata]

“”” Regimul Bush a blocat America intr-un al saselea an de razboi in Afganistan si Irak, fara a se vedea o finalitate in viitorul apropiat. Costul acestor razboaie de agresiune este urias. Pierderile umane americane datorate bataliilor se ridica la 4538 de morti. Oficial, 29780 de trupe americane ar fost ranite in Irak. Expertii sustin ca aceste numere sunt subestimari. Si asa, cifrele sunt doar varful aisbergului.

In 17 aprilie, 2008, AP News raporta ca un studiu nou facut de RAND Corporation concluziona ca “in jur de 300 000 de soldati americani sufera de depresie majora sau stres post-traumatic datorita serviciului militar din Irak si Afganistan, iar 320 000 sufera de rani la nivel cerebral”.

In 21 aprilie, 2008, OpEdNews raporta ca un email intern de la Gen. Michael J. Kussman, vicesecretar pentru sanatate la Administratia Veteranilor, adresat lui Ira Katz, seful sectiei de sanatate mintala de la AV, confirma un raport facut de McClatchy Newspaper si care spunea ca 126 de veterani se sinucid in fiecare saptamana. Daca consideram ca sinuciderile sunt atribuibile razboiului, mai mult de 500 de morti ar trebui sa fie adaugati in fiecare luna la listele de pierderi umane datorate conflictului.

Revenind la mortii din Irak, studiile expertilor sustin ca exista pana la 1,2 milioane de irakieni morti, aproape in intregime civili. Inca 2 milioane de irakieni au fugit din tara lor, iar 2 milioane de irakieni sunt stramutati chiar in Irak.

Pierderile omenesti afgane nu sunt cunoscute.

Irakul si Afganistanul au suferit pierderi civile si distrugeri ale spatiilor de locuit, infrastructurii si mediului inconjurator. Irakul este afectat de uraniul saracit si de canale deschise.

Si apoi vin costurile economice pentru SUA. Economistul si laureatul Nobel Joseph Stiglitz estima ca intregul cost al invaziei si tentativei de ocupare a Irakului se situeaza undeva intre 3 si 5 mii de miliarde de dolari. Pretul in dolari al petrolului si benzinei s-a triplat, iar dolarul a pierdut din cotatie, scazand dramatic chiar si fata de slab cotatul baht tailandez. Inainte ca Bush sa-si fi lansat razboaiele sale de agresiune, un dolar american valora 45 de baht. Azi dolarul valoreaza abia 30 de baht.

SUA nu-si permite aceste costuri. Inainte de renuntarea sa luna trecuta, Inspectorul General American David Walker declara ca obligatiile acumulate si neacoperite ale guvernului american totalizeaza 53 de mii de miliarde de dolari. Guvernul american nu poate acoperi aceste obligatii. Regimul Bush trebuie chiar sa imprumute bani de la straini pentru razboaiele sale din Irak si Afganistan. Nu exista o cale mai sigura pentru a falimenta tara si a detrona dolarul din statul sau de moneda mondiala de rezerva.

Costurile morale sunt probabil cele mai mari. Toti mortii, ranitii si toate costurile economice pentru SUA si victimele sale sunt datorate direct minciunilor spuse de Presedintele si Vicepresedintele SUA, de Secretarul pentru Aparare, de Consilierul de Securitate Nationala, de Secretarul de Stat si, bineinteles, mass-mediei, inclusiv “liberalul” New York Times. Toate aceste minciuni au fost rostite pentru o agenda nedeclarata. Guvernul “nostru” nu ne-a spus inca “noua oamenilor” adevaratele motive pentru invazia guvernului “nostru” in Afganistan si Irak.

In schimb, poporul-turma a acceptat o succesiune de minciuni transparente: arme de distrugere in masa, conexiuni si complicitate Al Qaeda la atacul 9/11, aruncarea de la putere a unui dictator si “aducerea democratiei” in Irak.

Foarte moralul popor american ar crede mai bine minciunile guvernului decat sa recunoasca crimele guvernului si sa ceara socoteala guvernului.

Exista multe moduri eficiente prin care un popor moral ar putea protesta. Sa consideram investitorii, de exemplu. Este clar ca Halliburton si furnizorii militari se umplu de bani. Investitorii se aduna la actiunile firmelor pentru a participa la cresterea in valoare datorita profiturilor in crestere rapida. Dar ce ar face un popor moral in acest caz? Nu ar boicota actiunile companiilor care profita de pe urma crimelor de razboi ale regimului lui Bush?

Daca SUA invada Irakul pentru succesiunea de motive pe care a dat-o regimul Bush, de ce ar fi cheltuit SUA 750 de milioane de dolari pe o “ambasada”-fortareata intinsa pe 260 de hectare si dotata cu sisteme anti-racheta si electricitate proprie? Nimeni nu a vazut sau auzit de o astfel de ambasada inainte. Evident, aceasta “ambasada” a fost construita ca si comandament pentru un conducator colonial.

Adevarul este ca Bush a invadat Irakul cu scopul de a-l transforma intr-o colonie americana. Asa numita guvernare a lui al-Maliki nu este o guvernare. Maliki este bine platitul om din fata a conducerii coloniale americane. Guvernul lui Maliki nu exista in afara zonei protejate Green Zone, sediul ocupatiei americane.

Daca nu conducerea coloniala era intentia, atunci SUA nu ar fi depus atat efort pentru a forta o lupta cu armata de 60 000 de oameni a lui al Sadr. Sadr este un shi’it care este si un lider irakian adevarat, poate singurul irakian care ar putea intrerupe conflictul sectarian si sa readuca o oarecare unitate in Irak. Astfel el este privit de regimul Bush ca un pericol pentru marioneta americana Maliki. In afara de cazul in care SUA poate sa cumpere sau sa falsifice urmatoarele alegeri irakiene, este probabil ca Sadr sa apara ca figura dominanta. Asta ar fi un caz foarte nefavorabil pentru sperantele regimului Bush de a stabili conducerea coloniala in spatele fatadei unei false democratii cu Maliki. In loc sa functioneze cu Sadr pentru a iesi din blocaj, americanii vor face tot posibilul sa-l asasineze pe Sadr.

De ce vrea regimul Bush sa conduca Irakul? Unii speculeaza ca este o problema de “peak oil”. Resursele de petrol sunt in scadere in timp ce cererea pentru petrol creste mult datorita unor tari in dezvoltare precum China. Tinand cont de acest argument, SUA au decis sa puna mana pe Irak pentru a-si asigura propria sursa de petrol.

Aceasta explicatie este problematica. Majoritatea petrolului american vine din Canada, Mexic si Venezuela. Cel mai bun mod pentru ca SUA sa-si asigure resursele de petrol ar fi sa protejeze rolul de moneda mondiala de rezerva a dolarului. Si mai mult, cu 3-5 mii de miliarde de dolari ar fi cumparat o cantitate uriasa de petrol. Inainte de invaziile americane, costul importurilor de petrol era la mai putin de 100 de miliarde anual. Chiar si in 2006 totalul de importuri americane din tarile OPEC era 145 de miliarde de dolari, iar deficitul comercial cu OPEC s-a ridicat la 106 miliarde de dolari. Trei mii de miliarde de dolari ar fi platit pentru importurile de petrol pentru 30 de ani; cinci mii de miliarde de dolari ar fi platit factura de petrol pentru jumatate de secol, asta daca regimul Bush ar fi mentinut un dolar sanatos.

Explicatia cea mai probabila pentru ivazia Irakului este angajamentul regimului neoconservator al lui Bush pentru apararea expansiunii teritoriale israliene. Nu exista neoconservatori care sa nu fie aliati cu Israelul. Israelul spera sa fure toata Cisiordania si intrega parte sudica a Libanului in expansiunea sa teritoriala. Un regim colonial in Irak nu numai ca protejeaza israelul de atacuri, dar poate chiar sa faca presiuni asupra Siriei si Iranului pentru a nu-i mai sustine pe palestinieni si libanezi. Razboiul irakian este un razboi pentru expansiunea teritoriala a Israelului. Americanii mor si sangereaza pana la moartea financiara pentru Israel. “Razboiul contra terorii” al lui Bush este o farsa care are ca scop sa acopere interventia americana in Orientul Mijlociu de partea “Israelului Mare”. “””


2 Responses to “What the Iraq War is about (by Paul Craig Roberts)”

  1. cititor zilnic al blogului….foarte incantat de ceea ce ai scris … tine-o tot asa multumesc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: