[Peace-discuss] Re: why we invaded Iraq

[John W.]

Thank you, Carl.  I've never seen it expressed quite this way before, but 
it makes sense; it correlates well with what I know of history.  Very 
informative.  Good ol' Chomsky comes through again.  :-)   I appreciate 
your going to the trouble of answering.

John



At 08:51 PM 3/10/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>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