Obama Declares End to Iraq Invasion

 Posted by on December 15, 2011  Add comments
Dec 152011
 

Words are so dangerous.

If you fought the German invasion of France back in the 1940s, people would say you were a member of the Resistance, but if you fought the American invasion of Iraq, you’d be an insurgent.  A terrorist.

In the lead-up to the invasion eight years ago, the world was bombarded with statements by Bush and Cheney about weapons of mass destruction, the danger of death to millions of Americans, religious fanatics and 9-11.

Facts.  Iraq was a secular, non-religious state.  It had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attacks.  Iraq never attacked the United States in any shape or form.  Despite the vile nature of its leader, there was complete religious freedom there and women were accorded the same rights as men, unlike in Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9-11 attackers originated.

Oddly, even though Saudi Arabia had a close involvement with the 9-11 assault and Iraq did not, the US chose not to invade Saudi Arabia in order to depose the brutal dictators who run it, to bring democracy to the country or to grant human rights to its people.

If we’re going to talk about weapons of mass destruction, let’s mention North Korea, which has real nukes and real rockets.  They were threatening to nuke Japan in 2003.  Did the United States immediately send in an army to bring them democracy and put an end to weapons of mass destruction?  Of course not.  Instead, they invaded Iraq which had never shown the slightest aggression.  Saddam must have been wondering what the hell he did.  After all, he had even invaded Iran under orders from Washington. (Iran, by the way, is a country which hasn’t invaded anyone in hundreds of years.  Watch this space.)

Barack Obama,  a man who once denounced the invasion, gave a speech in which he made no mention of Iraqi deaths or injuries.  It was all very reminiscent of the Vietnam debacle and subsequent spin, with much talk of sacrifice, and serving overseas, but no mention of the local people who bore the brunt of the violence.  In the US case, service meant murder, humiliation and torture of peaceful people who posed no threat to the United States.  It also meant that a formerly secular country became a breeding ground for demented religious fundamentalists.

The US has become the home of Christian fundamentalism, an ideology almost indistinguishable from Islamic extremism, yet the United States seems unaware of the irony that it quite literally drove a tank through the Garden of Eden, smashing all before it, destroying the culture that gave birth to modern Western civilisation.

The culture that gave us mathematics was destroyed by the culture that gave us Wal-Mart.

Who’s the barbarian?

 

  13 Responses to “Obama Declares End to Iraq Invasion”

Comments (13)
  1.  

    Rather then announce the end of the Iraqi invasion he would have been more accurate announcing the start of the next. We might see a few token homecoming shots of the troops on US TV, but looks like many are staying in the region camped on the borders of the next step forward for democracy!

    China has the financial muscle to acquire oil agreements, the US is taking the other approach. One wrong step and the clash of the titans?

  2.  

    I wonder did the Kurds who were bombed and gassed and Shias who were rounded up, machinegunned and put in mass graves say to themselves ..” well, at least we were murdered by a secularist. ” ?

  3.  

    Probably not, but what happened after the invasion was a complete screw-up. The US could probably have pulled it off if Bremer hadn’t decided to sack every member of the Ba’ath party from the civil service, police force and army, thereby creating a very effective resistance and a chaotic society. Likewise, if the US military had respected the dignity of Iraqi traditions, they could have avoided the backlash and the bloodshed.

    Despite Bush’s and Cheney’s selective attitude to vile dictators, they could have held the moral high ground, but they failed dismally.

  4.  

    The consequences of a badly organised overthrow of Saddam are as much down to Tony Blairs typical failure to stamp his authority on anything as to typical American overbearance. However the fact is that the Saddams of this world are a rapidly disappearing feature. Saddam- gone. Ghadafi – gone. Ben-Ali-gone. Mubarrak-gone. Assad-going.

  5.  

    When is Obama going to go? When is the american Empire going to go? As Martin Luther King said ” America is the greatest purveyor of violence in history” America supported Saddam, armed him with weapons of mass destruction and sent Rumsfeld to Iraq shortly after the Kurds were gassed.
    No condemnation or bullshit talk about human rights. Rumsfeld was sent by the Empire to reassure Saddam that it was business as usual. The Empire had no problem with Saddam and his crimes,

  6.  

    There are now an estimated million orphans in Iraq, nobody knows how many civilians died & there are an estimated 3 million who have left as refugees & their country is now owned by American corporations. The profits from oil & just about everything else is siphoned off, mainly to the US. There are still 16,000 US private contractors in Iraq. They must be so fucking grateful.

  7.  

    Spot on. Bush and pals did well out of it. It’s just business . Go in where there’s a decent return. Refer to civilian casualties as “collateral damage”? – Our current president spoke in Dublin on this issue at the outset and stated there was no justification for the invasion. “Bush’s and Cheney’s selective attitude to vile dictators?” you said it Bock! If there’s any basis to the Karma thing there’s a bitter harvest down the line – hopefully in the emerging new world, our kids wont have to be off abroad spilling their guts to create new opportunities for U.S. and E.U corporations.

  8.  

    Tommy, I shouldn’t place much faith in ” our current Presidents” perspicacity in matters military or humanitarian. During the Bosnian War – or the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia if you prefer – the actions of the Labour Party under Dick Spring have been aptly characterised as ” A squalid Performance ” by the historian and political writer Proff.Brendan Simms. Being against war is all very fine as long as you can keep pretending to yourself that the people dying under fascists are either lesser in numbers or of lesser value in the greater scheme of things. I find attitudes in Ireland particularily puzzling, given that for centuries they begged others to come to their rescue – militarily that is.

  9.  

    LM do you believe the motivation for the US invasion of Eye-Rack was to free the Eye-Rackies from a brutal dictator?

  10.  

    Yes Tommy..I do. I don’t think it was about oil, or imperialism or any of the cop out nonsense that passed/passes for political analysis on the subject. If it hadn’t been thought by all concerned that Saddam was so universally feared and loathed and that getting rid of hm would be universally viewed as ” a-good-thing ” then it’s quite logical to suppose that greater planning would have been put into the aftermath, isn’t it ? And let’s not forget that the anti-war faction had previous as the anti-sanctions faction.

    There’s a good Hitchens piece describing the look of utter fear that came across the face of a man who accidentally spilled some coffee on his newspaper in a Bagdad café and stained the photograph of Saddam ; how the cafe went silent and how everyone knew what he was thinking.
    Saddam epitomised the regime that doesn’t know when to stop; whose brutality is way above and beyond what is required to take and hold power. Taking it down might well have caused fewer deaths than allowing it to implode.
    To summarise Tommy; Bagdad wasn’t Galway on a rainy day.

  11.  

    Fair enough – I wouldn’t have been inviting Saddam round for dinner either. Why were all the fabrications about WMD necessary? Was the U.K coming along without these lies? Were these not the reasons given to legitimise the invasion? Would public support have held in the U.S. without stories of the “links to Al-Quaeda” and WMD when the body-bags were coming home?” I don’t recollect this war being presented as a humanitarian mission at the outset. Would you like to take a bullet for a lie?

  12.  

    If the world lacks a viable means of putting forward the case for de-despoting a country like Iraq – and in 2003 I think I’d be correct in thinking that the R2P proposals hadn’t been accepted into the UN’s Charter – then politicians felt it neccessary to come up with excuses or be blindsided by huge protests demanding and ” end to imperialism” etc etc. In other words it’s our own fault that politicians lie to us; even in a good cause.

  13.  

    There’s no answer to that I think..

Leave a Reply