[lbo-talk] Garry Wills does nice short summary of RS article

Dennis Claxton ddclaxton at earthlink.net
Fri Jun 25 12:54:33 PDT 2010


At 12:01 PM 6/25/2010, Carrol Cox wrote:


>Think of the threat to that business
> > >climate by serious chaos in the Middle East & South Asia, and of how
> > >vital Middle-East oil is for the whole global economy.
> >
> > So how does creating serious chaos meet that goal?
>
>You will have to ask Obama & his advisors.

That's a neat trick. I think Tariq Ali is more convincing on this. If it was about "business climate" then why did they change business as usual?:

http://www.asiasociety.org/policy-politics/international-relations/us-asia/tariq-ali-says-the-american-government-lied-through-

I am not sure I agree with the argument that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq had to do with oil. This is commonly argued amongst sections of the Left. I think it is an economic-determinist argument and it does not work for the following reason: if gaining access to oil was the principal aim of the United States, they could have easily done a deal with the regime as they have done before. The Iraqi government was interested in providing the oil, and the US could have had the sanctions lifted and simply reverted to what existed previously.

No, I think there are two fundamental explanations for the invasion of Iraq. First, it was a demonstration of imperial power. It was essentially designed to show - not just the Arab world but the Europeans and the states of the Far East as well (currently just economic rivals, but viewed as potential political rivals of the US) - that no one can tangle with the United States of America. The invasion served to demonstrate that this is what America can do: it can occupy countries and crush regimes whenever it chooses.

Second, the invasion of Iraq was a classic case, in that part of the world, of appeasing the Israeli leadership. The Likudist faction inside the Bush Administration - represented by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest of the Neocon-gang - was desperate to remove the Saddam Hussein regime because there was a big Israeli demand to do so. The Israelis saw the Iraqis, together with the Syrians, as potentially still holding out and not accepting Israeli hegemony in the region. Also, the Israelis thought the Iraqi regime was supplying a lot of money and probably weapons to the Palestinian resistance, which it was doing (something of which Saddam Hussein's government was very proud and admitted quite openly). So the Israelis wanted them out of the way.

I think asserting an American imperial presence in the region and in the world was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq, and helping out the Israelis was the second reason. Obviously the fact that the Iraqis had oil made it easier because the US thought they could then control and re-colonize an oil-producing country and reduce their dependence on the Saudi regime, and possibly also use Iraq as a base to police Syria and Iran.

This was, I think, the impulse behind the neoconservative pressure to invade Iraq.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list