> Q: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
>
> Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a
> very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which
> prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine,
> to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have
> so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and
> pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central
> Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy
> theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain
> knows that that's not true -- as all Iraqis do, for example. The United
> States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the
> United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over
> its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to
> the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq,
> not anything else.
=================
But not critical leverage over Malaysia, Canada, Algeria and Chile? Why are they not mentioned? Or India and Mexico?
Clearly, invading Iraq has helped deepen Japan's stagnation like a charm just like the first invasion of Iraq helped turn their real estate bubble into a 19 year nightmare. The plan is working brilliantly, just look at the US car market and the consumer electronics market and...
Unintended consequences, incompetence, underdetermination and methodological nationalism will make sorting out the mess very difficult and if historians have the opportunity in 2213AD to write down what they think happened there will still be the problems of post hoc ergo propter hoc casting a shadow.