[Peace-discuss] Re: why we invaded Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

Vietnam was primarily a "demonstration war" -- i.e., the US
wanted to make it clear to states around the world that they
were not to set up governments without the American OK,
especially if they wanted to use their economic resources for
the purposes of their own people and not co-ordinate them with
a world economy under general American control.  The
propaganda cover was "fighting Communism" and the "domino
theory" -- the notion that if one state fell to Communism,
then others would, too.  

Thus diplomatic historian Gerald Haines (also senior historian
of the CIA) introduces his study of “the Americanization of
Brazil” by observing that "Following World War II the United
States assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the
welfare of the world capitalist system" -- which does not mean
the welfare of the people of the system, as events were to
prove, not surprisingly.  The enemy was “Communism.” The
reasons were outlined by a prestigious study group of the
Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Planning
Association in a comprehensive 1955 study on the political
economy of U.S. foreign policy: the primary threat of
Communism, the study concluded, is the economic transformation
of the Communist powers "in ways that reduce their willingness
and ability to complement the industrial economies of the
West." It makes good sense, then, that prospects of
independent development should be regarded as a serious
danger, to be pre-empted by violence if necessary.  That is
particularly true if the errant society shows signs of success
in terms that might be meaningful to others suffering from
similar oppression and injustice.  In that case it becomes a
“virus” that might “infect others,” a “rotten apple” that
might “spoil the barrel,” in the terminology of top planners,
describing the real domino theory, not the version fabricated
to frighten the domestic public into obedience.

That last paragraph is from Chomsky, and it incidentally makes
clear that the US won the Vietnam War -- not indeed in the
sense of achieving its maximum war aims, but in the sense of
forestalling what a president of Amnesty International once
called "the threat of a good example."  After dropping several
times the total ordnance used in World War II on a peasant
society and killing perhaps four million people, the US was
able to prevent any independent development in a formally
liberated Vietnam.  Today Vietnam begs for Nike factories. 

The proximate cause for the war was the temerity of the South
Vietnamese in not accepting the government that we'd picked
out for them after the French withdrawal.  The Geneva Accords
of 1954 provided for elections throughout Vietnam in 1956, but
the US prevented them -- because, as President Eisenhower
said, "Ho Chi Minh would have won."  The US set up in the
South the sort of government that it was then providing for
states around the world (e.g., Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954). 
The rebellion against this government grew to such proportions
that in 1962 Kennedy launched a full-scale invasion of the
country.  Most of that vast tonnage of American bombs was
dropped on *South* Vietnam, our ostensible ally, because the
war was always against the people of Vietnam, who wouldn't
follow our orders, even as we made and un-made governments in
Saigon.

When it became clear, after a decade, that the US couldn't
impose a quisling government, but that it had destroyed
Southeast Asia beyond hope of independent development, and the
economic and political costs of the war for the US were
growing, the US could withdraw its troops.  (The revolt of the
US expeditionary force in Vietnam was an unspoken cost that
required the Pentagon hastily to abandon the draft and
institute a "volunteer" military.)  

But note that Vietnam and Iraq are not much alike, despite the
continuity of American goals and policies: Iraq is not just a
demonstration war, although it is that, too.  Vietnam had no
oil or other resources that the US was determined to control,
as Iraq does, so the US could withdraw from Vietnam, its work
of destruction done.  That's not possible for the US in Iraq,
where control of energy resources remains paramount. 

--CGE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:54:01 -0600
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: why we invaded Iraq   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>
>Carl, you mention Viet Nam below by way of comparison.  I'm
curious what 
>you think was the REAL reason why we went to war in Viet Nam.
 Do you think 
>it was the stated ideological reason (the "domino theory"),
or do you think 
>there were other factors?
>
>Equally respectfully,
>
>John Wason
>
>
>
>At 05:28 PM 3/10/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>Karen--
>>
>>Yes, I do think it's fundamentally about oil, but not just
>>about oil.  I like the remark that if Iraq's principal export
>>were asparagus, we wouldn't have the better part of the U.S.
>>military there.
>>
>>American foreign policy since the Second World War has been
>>fundamentally about oil.  U.S. insistence that it control
>>Mideast energy resources is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign
>>policy, in Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
>>But it's control, not access, that concerns any USG.
>>
>>You're right that the U.S. economy receives very little of its
>>oil from the Mideast -- about 10%.  U.S. domestic oil
>>production supplies about 50% of total U.S. consumption.
>>Foreign sources provide the rest, primarily Canada, Venezuela,
>>Mexico, and several African countries.  The U.S. imports more
>>oil from west Africa than it does from Saudi Arabia.
>>
>>But the Mideast has about two-thirds of world oil reserves.
>>If the U.S. controls that, it controls its real economic
>>rivals in the world -- Europe and Northeast Asia (Japan,
>>Korea, China) -- because they import so much from the Middle
>>East.  The U.S. then has what President Carter's National
>>Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (it's a bipartisan
>>policy) called "critical leverage" over its competitors.
>>
>>It's been understood since the Second World War that if we
>>have our hands on that spigot -­ the main sourrce of the
>>world's energy -- we have what early planners called "veto
>>power" over others. And of course U.S. planners want the
>>profits from that to go primarily to U.S.-based
>>multinationals, and back to the U.S. Treasury -­ not to rivals.
>>
>>But there were other rreasons for invading Iraq, beyond the
>>goal of establishing permanent bases in the midst of the
>>world's largest oil-producing region.  First, Iraq was
>>defenseless (unlike, say, North Korea or Iran): contrary to
>>U.S. propaganda, Iraq was no danger to even its nearest
>>neighbors (as they recognized), much less to the U.S.  Second,
>>it was a good place for U.S. planners to demonstrate the
>>lengths to which they would go to keep lesser states in line
>>(as they did much more murderously in Vietnam -- where no oil
>>was at stake -- and even in Serbia, on the edge of U.S.
>>concerns).  And third, of course, 9/11 could be used as an
>>excuse, however irrational that was.  (Did you note that,
>>while 72% of American troops in Iraq think that the U.S.
>>should get out within the year, 85% said the U.S. mission is
>>mainly to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks
>>[sic] and 77% said they also believe the main or a major
>>reason for the war was to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda
>>in Iraq?  Amazing.)
>>
>>Best, Carl
>>
>>P.S.-- I've written about these things in several places --
>>e.g., in the Public I before the invasion of Iraq.
>>A version of that article is at
>><http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook02262003.html>.
>>
>>
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:47:26 -0600
>> >From: Karen Medina <kmedina at uiuc.edu>
>> >Subject: why we invaded Iraq
>> >To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> >Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> >
>> >Dear Carl,
>> >
>> >Recently, a member of the Peace Discuss list who is also a
critic of
>> >AWARE mentioned that she/he was given the impression that
you (Carl)
>> >were of the opinion that the occupation of Iraq is all
about Oil.
>> >
>> >I find this rather odd, because I was under the very
strong impression
>> >that you (Carl) think it is about Power and Control of the
area, and not
>> >the Oil per se. In fact, you are one person who
continually points out
>> >that the US gets very little of its oil from the area.
>> >
>> >I just thought I would invite you to set me straight in a
public forum.
>> >
>> >Respectfully,
>> >karen medina
>