April 22, 2008
What the Iraq War is about
By Paul Craig Roberts
The Bush Regime has quagmired America into a sixth
year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in
sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is
horrendous. Official US combat casualties stand at
4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 US troops have been
wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers
are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only
the tip of the iceberg.
On April 17, 2008, AP News
reported that a new study released by the RAND
Corporation concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops
are suffering from major depression or post traumatic
stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and 320,000 received brain injuries.”
On April 21, 2008, OpEdNews
reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J.
Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans
Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at
the VA, confirms a
McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per
week commit
suicide. To the extent that the suicides are
attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be
added to the reported combat fatalities each month.
Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as
many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely
civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their
country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within
Iraq.
Afghan casualties are unknown.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered
unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing,
infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with
depleted uranium and open sewers.
Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel
economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the
invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between
$3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil
and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value
against other currencies, declining dramatically even
against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his
wars of aggression, one US dollar was worth 45 baht.
Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.
The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his
resignation last month, US Comptroller General David
Walker
reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities
of the US government total $53 trillion dollars. The US
government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush
Regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to
pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no
more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone
the dollar as world reserve currency.
The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the
deaths, injuries, and economic costs to the US and its
victims are due entirely to lies told by the President
and Vice President of the US, by the Secretary of
Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of
State, and, of course, by the media, including the
“liberal” New York Times. All of these lies
were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. “Our”
government has still not told “we the people” the
real reasons “our” government invaded Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a
succession of transparent lies: weapons of mass
destruction, al Qaeda connections and complicity in the
9/11 attack, overthrowing a dictator and “bringing
democracy” to Iraqis.
The great moral American people would rather believe
government lies than to acknowledge the government’s
crimes and to hold the government accountable.
There are many effective ways in which a moral people
could protest. Consider investors, for example. Clearly
Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning up.
Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in
the rise in value from booming profits. But what would
a moral people do? Wouldn’t they boycott the stocks of
the companies that are profiting from the Bush Regime’s
war crimes?
If the US invaded Iraq for any of the succession of
reasons the Bush Regime has given, why would the US have
spent $750 million on a fortress “embassy” with
anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water
systems spread over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or
heard of such an embassy before. Clearly, this
“embassy” is constructed as the headquarters of an
occupying colonial ruler.
The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of
turning Iraq into an American colony. The so-called
government of al-Maliki is not a government. Maliki is
the well paid front man for US colonial rule. Maliki’s
government does not exist outside the protected Green
Zone, the headquarters of the American occupation.
If colonial rule were not the intent, the US would
not be going out of its way to force al Sadr’s 60,000
man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi’ite who is a
real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end
the sectarian conflict and restore some unity to Iraq.
As such he is regarded by the Bush Regime as a danger to
the American puppet Maliki. Unless the US is able to
purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is
likely to emerge as the dominant figure. This would be
a highly unfavorable development for the Bush Regime’s
hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the
facade of a Maliki fake democracy. Rather than work with
Sadr in order to extract themselves from a quagmire, the
Americans will be doing everything possible to
assassinate Sadr.
Why does the Bush Regime want to rule Iraq? Some
speculate that it is a matter of “peak oil.” Oil
supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil
multiplies from developing countries such as China.
According to this argument, the US decided to seize Iraq
to insure its own oil supply.
This explanation is problematic. Most US oil comes
from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The best way for the
US to insure its oil supplies would be to protect the
dollar’s role as world reserve currency. Moreover, $3-5
trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of
oil. Prior to the US invasions, the US oil import bill
was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in
2006 total US imports from OPEC countries was $145
billion, and the US trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106
billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for US
oil imports for 30 years; five trillion dollars could
pay the US oil bill for a half century had the Bush
Regime preserved a sound dollar.
The more likely explanation for the US invasion of
Iraq is the
neoconservative Bush Regime’s commitment to the
defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no
such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with
Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and
southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An
American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses
Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran
from giving support to the Palestinians and Lebanese.
The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial
expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death
financially for Israel. Bush’s “war on terror”
is a hoax that serves to cover US intervention in the
Middle East in behalf of “greater Israel.”
Paul Craig Roberts [email
him] was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s
first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall
Street Journal. He has held numerous academic
appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair,
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded
the Legion of Honor by French President Francois
Mitterrand. He is the author of
Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of
Policymaking in Washington;
Alienation
and the Soviet Economy and
Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy,
and is the co-author
with Lawrence M. Stratton of
The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice. Click
here for Peter
Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts
about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.