>Maybe a better way to ask this `why' question, is to speculate on the
>beginning idea, what if we had a reliable puppet in Iraq?
>
>Here are some answers.
>1.) The US could insure US big oil, big energy (particular Texas based
>firms) access to Iraqi oil fields, development contracts, in
>pipelines, refineries, and port facilities. These are big league
>economic investments and profits.
>
>2.) The US could have a stratgic partner beyond Israel to coordinate
>US middle eastern policy on all fronts.
The above raises a few questions in my mind. Minor points first. Are the terms "reliable puppet" and "strategic partner" interchangeable? or do they mean different things? Objectively it seems to me that Israel is more a reliable puppet regime than a partner, since a partner indicates a relationship between autonomous, if not equal, bodies. But of course Israel isn't an autonomous state, it is a state that utterly depends on the US for its continued existence, politically, economically and militarily. Iraq could never be made so utterly dependant and thus "reliable" as Israel.
Yet you didn't use the term "reliable puppet" for Israel, but the term "strategic partner". Very weird.
Anyhow, where was I? Ah yes, the other question I have is why are you wracking your minds trying to comprehend the deeper strategic objectives of the Bush administration?
Its almost as if you are unaware that this was a motley bunch of retards, psychopaths and deranged fanatics who couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel, let alone plan and execute a complex political and military bit of empire-building in a complex geo-political region.
No doubt they had some motives for what they did. By it seems extremely unlikely that what they intended would ever bear much resemblance to the actual outcomes. It is extremely unlikely that the various factions and persons shared the same motivations, so it couldn't even really rise to the level a conspiracy. More like the sort of thing that might happen if the lunatics took control of a lunatic asylum.
Bedlam. A bunch of different people, all having kangaroos loose in their top paddock, suddenly and unexpectantly come to control a massive military and economic powerhouse. Naturally, they are thrilled and want to play with the new toy.
Some start flicking switches randomly, watching the coloured lights flashing and the sirens playing. Others start taking it apart clumsily, trying to figure out how it works. Then there's the mean one, the cruel one, who loves to inflict pain on others...
I'd draw a parallel with the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania a decade or so ago. The killer, Martin Bryant, was a person with a tiny IQ and related personality disorders. He would probably have lived out his life unremarkably, except that a few years before he set out with the AK47, some dreamy spinster left him a small fortune in her will. Suddenly this simpleton could command all kinds of resources.
It seems he spent some time just buying international airfares. He'd jump on a flight to Europe or somewhere and as soon as he got to the destination, he'd immediately catch the next flight back. Just so he could trap someone into talking to him. But no-one wanted to, and he turned mean.
You might as well speculate about the larger strategic objectives of Martin Bryant as do the same for the Bush Administration. Both are perverse simpletons. Its no use looking for deep motivations, these are not deep people. You don't have to look far below the surface, because there isn't any far below the surface.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas