Even though our troops were allowed to remain in Saudi Arabia, if you look at a map you will see that there are much better geographic locations in the area better suited for access to almost every country in Southern Asia and the Middle East – like Northeast Iraq. Is it any wonder that the new Bush Administration, populated by PNAC members would want to occupy that territory? What we didn’t know is how far they would go to have access to that coveted piece of property.
On 9/11 the United States was attacked by seventeen Saudis and two Egyptians who were part of an organization headed by another Saudi of Yemini descent who was living in Afghanistan. Our first military action did make some sense, the invasion of Afghanistan in order to topple the regime that had supported and was hiding the head of the terrorist organization, Al Qaeda. But almost immediately there was almost a palatable attempt to link Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Now, anyone who knows anything about the sociology of the Middle East would tell you that it would be almost impossible. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim and the majority of Iraqi citizens were Shiite, while OBL and Al Qaeda were Wahabists. In addition, Saddam tried to run a secular country and had no use for religious nuts like Bin Laden, while Bin Laden had no use for a secularist like Hussein. However, the efforts to link the two were coming from some of the highest government officials in the US (it is said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a PNAC signatory.
According to Richard Clarke, in his book ‘Against All Enemies’, Rumsfeld and Bush practically demanded that a link be found between the Iraq and Al Qaeda, even though there were told repeatedly that no real connections existed. Then, failing in that effort, they began a propaganda campaign to link the two in the minds of the American public and bet on their gullibility to buy into the theory.
They began with Saddam’s history of harboring accused terrorist fugitives like Abu Nidal and moved from there to releasing intelligence that one of the supposed head figures in Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zakarwi, had been injured in Afghanistan and was given medical treatment in Iraq. They then showed the hull of an aircraft in the Iraqi desert and made it out to be a prop for training Al Qaeda operatives for operations like those on 9/11.
They began making up stories about Saddam trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger, when he already had some 600 tons of the stuff he didn’t have the capacity to refine to weapons grade, and spreading unfounded scenarios where he might (at some time in the future) provide chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to terrorists wanting to strike in the US. Then, if anyone had the courage to try to debunk any of their claims they went after them and their families like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. By the time the UN was briefed by Colin Powell in February 2003, I don’t believe that there was any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Bush Administration was going to invade Iraq, regardless of what anyone said.
It was this realization which prompted all of the speculations and arguments concerning the invasion and reasons for it. WMDs? Freedom and democracy in the Middle East? Oil profits? Defense industry profits? Revenge?
In my mind all of these motivation theories can and are debunked rather quickly, all for various reasons including just not passing the common sense sniff test. However, just one theory hasn’t hardly even been addressed, none the less debunked – it was for strategic global military positioning.
With the number and position of PNAC signatories in the Bush Administration and with the fact that during our nearly decade long occupation of the country we were building. You see, while Americans were distracted by all of the speculation of why we invaded, the use of torture, and the war of insurgency being fought against us, we were quietly building permanent military installations and a fortress embassy larger than the Vatican.
The invasion also allowed us to remove an irritant in the sides of both the Saudi royal family and their Wahabi subjects by moving the ‘infidels’ off of the ‘sacred peninsula’ where both of the holy cities, Mecca and Medina, reside – giving in to one of the demands in OBL’s fatwa and making the area just that much more secure. Oh, and access to Iraqi oil reserves was just another bonus on the side, making the whole invasion thing a win-win; except for the American military members who lost their health or their lives over the mess.
Another casualty of the invasion was the loss of American moral standing in the eyes of the world, not to mention the some $3 trillion taxpayer dollars it cost. I would like to think that it was something not considered by those in the Bush Administration so determined to invade, but cynicism causes me to think that they probably just didn’t care and would consider it just collateral damage as long as they achieved what they set out to do.
Although the troops were pulled out by the end of 2011, I would not be surprised to find out that we left behind a great deal of equipment and weapons systems being secured, maintained and upgraded by a group of DoD civilians and defense contractors and just waiting a time when soldiers will return and use it in a regional confrontation. Not only would I not be surprised to find this out, I honestly would be shocked to find out this was not the case.
So, there you have it. My opinion on why we invaded Iraq is for strategic global positioning. Your comments?
Related articles
- Rumsfeld’s War And Its Consequences Now (fortunascorner.wordpress.com)
- Al-Qaeda’s power in Iraq continues to grow… (marketsanity.com)
- FLASHBACK – Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda (prisonplanet.com)
- US Invasion 101: Why Should We Question Iraq (hirziiman.wordpress.com)
ThomPayne.net 