[Vision2020] Correction: Re: George W Told the Nation

[Ted Moffett]

All-

Yikes!

The sentence below that reads:

"The secularization and westernization of Iraq was also one reason Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda were at odds."

is of course absurd.  It should read "...was also one reason Bin Laden and
Saddam were at odds."


On 7/17/07, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> All-
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
> As Sunil and I pondered years ago (it's hard to believe that the invasion
> was in 2003?), as was laid out explicitly in the neo-con think tank the "The
> Project For A New American Century," the invasion of Iraq involved pursuing
> long term strategic interests in the whole region, confining Iran or
> achieving regime change there being one of the main goals of this
> imperialist endeavor. Iran is viewed by many as the greatest long term
> Islamic Fundamentalist regime threat.  Iraq was just a stepping stone in
> this effort, and Iraq's oil reserves, though huge, are much smaller than the
> rest of the Middle East's combined.  Our military in Iraq offers a
> presence to secure oil resources all over the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia
> still listed as the most oil rich nation on Earth.  And our intention was to
> build permanent military bases in Iraq.  I believe we will still have
> military bases in Iraq in 50 years.
>
> What is amazing, is that I think some of the neo-cons really believed
> their own idealistic ideology about spreading democracy in the Middle
> East via the invasion of Iraq.  With all the effort to point out the terror
> and oppression of the Saddam regime, some forget that Iraq was more secular
> and westernized than many other nations in the Middle East, certainly more
> than US ally Saudi Arabia and US enemy Iran. This might have led to a
> mistaken assumption Iraq was ready for a western style democracy, if only
> Saddam was gone, a democracy that would seed the Middle East with democratic
> movements.
>

The secularization and westernization of Iraq was also one reason Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda [Saddam, not "Al Qaeda"] were at odds.


> Bin Laden regarded Saddam as a corrupt leader betraying the Islamic
> religion.
>
>
 This is one reason Al Qaeda was not given haven in Iraq under Saddam!  How
> ironic that the link between Bin Laden, 9/11 and Saddam was made repeatedly.
>
>
> Part of the problem with the invasion of Iraq was that there were numerous
> goals promoted by numerous interests, but there was not a coherent long term
> plan that coordinated all these goals in a realistic manner.
>
> Some wanted a dictator over thrown to promote human rights, most probably
> believed the propaganda about Iraq WMD and their immanent threat to the USA
> (Bush and Condi's ominous "mushroom cloud over America" repeated over and
> over before the invasion), others wanted to focus on encircling or
> invading Iran (we already took Afghanistan on Iran's other side) and
> protecting Israel in the process, others wanted to protect Middle East oil,
> others wanted lucrative contracts apart from oil (Halliburton), others were
> hoping Armageddon was closer, and the book of Revelations would be fulfilled
> with a huge war in the Middle East involving Israel, heralding the second
> coming (don't laugh at this motivation given the huge Christian Right
> support for Bush.  Many actually believe these prophecies).  Some
> probably pursued all these goals at once.  And then we had Defense Secretary
> Rumsfeld and his insistence that we could tame Iraq with a limited troop
> presence, when some of the best military minds were claiming we'd need
> 400,000 troops to secure the country.
>
> So now we have a troop surge that is still limited given the number of
> troops some military minds have insisted is needed to fully stop the
> insurgency.  It seems we either go all the way or get out.  Start the draft
> and put 400,000 troops in Iraq, if we are serious about fighting this war.
> Otherwise...
>
> In saying this I am not expressing support for the initial invasion.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>  On 7/15/07, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Given the construction of the biggest US embassy anywhere and long-term
> > military bases, I think the mission is to remain in Iraq for the long
> > haul,
> > with more control over their oil reserves than would be possible under
> > Hussein.  That's not a mission I support or think that we should see
> > through.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> >
> > >From: Paul Rumelhart < godshatter at yahoo.com>
> > >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> > >CC: Moscow Vision 2020 < vision2020 at moscow.com >,        Mark Solomon
> > >< msolomon at moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] George W Told the Nation
> > >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:50:21 -0700
> > >
> > >What was "the mission", anyway?  I've never been very clear on that.  I
> >
> > >don't know how to judge whether we have accomplished "the mission",
> > without
> > >knowing what it is.  What were the goals that needed achieving?  Where
> > is
> > >the list so I can mark them off and see how we are doing?
> > >
> > >We do have to be very careful how we leave, given that we've created a
> > >situation that is untenable.  I, for one, don't feel we need to be
> > there
> > >just to avoid being perceived as not following through.  Do we want yet
> >
> > >more to die just to save face?  My opinion on that would be different
> > if I
> > >didn't think that this was a ploy to get back at Saddam and get Iraqi
> > oil
> > >all under the guise of "preventing terrorism".
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070717/67ee38af/attachment.html