Q. Why are we still there?
A. We have no intention of leaving. We wanted control of the region and its resources, we now have that control.
A phenomenon known as imperialism is some circles. Unfortunately, it is a term that has undergone an Orwellian transformation in large segments of our society.
It is a concept that -
- cannot be spoken of
- cannot be associated in thought or word with U.S. actions
- cannot be acknowledged in conversation without being treated as a semantic bomb
- it is a word and concept that has been associated with "radicals" and to say the word is to somehow align oneself with their ideologies
- it does not even have a synonym in the English language
- it has disappeared, it has been erased from our language and more importantly from our society's encyclopedia of concepts that pertain to modern day America
We live in a nation that will not admit it is the greatest empire in history. A nation that disguises its international activities with empty rhetoric that is an embarrassment to speaker and audience alike.
And who can answer the following question in a way to disprove the obvious -
What would an Imperialist nation have done differently regarding the step by step activities of the Iraq War?
Use of the word and it's concept would help facilitate discussion of the long term de facto control we are now developing of the Middle East. This would be a point the repugs could not easily refute, since their actions speak much louder than their words. We have to begin
speaking to their actions, not their empty BS rhetoric.
It is difficult to criticize a war that we continue to give legitimacy to. We need to distinguish our positions from the policies of this administration. Otherwise, the electorate will continue to be confused on this paramount issue of importance. If we don't begin the process of differentation we will not be able to build momentum for a clear choice by November.
If we first distinguish our differences we can then develop clearly delineated steps for progress for extricating ourselves from Iraq.
It seems that we need to either start using the word more in common conversation or find another word to replace it. Is the de facto destruction of the word and concept permanent? Any ideas or suggestions?
I am including some excerpts of two recent interviews with Greg Palast -
Greg Palast: ... We have a government that had dreams of empire, and just found out empire is a bloody business. And smart people have other people die for them, and that's what the UN is for, and it ain't going to work...they kill the UN guys too.
...Bush won't do the one thing that will make the difference: give Iraq to the Iraqis. Why are we still there? No one is asking that fucking question...
...there's a damn plan, which I have in my hands, written out by the State Department, to chop up Iraq's assets, sell off its oil, and that can't be done if Iraqis are in control of Iraq.
No democratic government of Iraq is going to take apart their welfare state, is going to turn it into a corporate Disneyland -- which is part of the plan, the secret plan -- and give up their oil assets.
And I don't care if it's that criminal Chalabi, the con man, or if it's going to be Mr. Mullah Mullah. They're not going to go along with the scheme that was cooked up by the imperial dreamers in Bush's basement.
And therefore we can't have elections, we can't have these people have any say in their state...
...There is no reason for us to be there except to prevent elections. Certainly it's not to prevent a civil war because we're creating a civil war.
LO: Elaborate on the plan, the document that you have obtained, that's a key revelation in the new edition of your book.
GP: It's part of a longer document called The Iraq Strategy.
It is the 100 page section on reformulating the...as they call it, the post-conflict economy of Iraq, which was developed long before we were told there was going to be a conflict.
And it has everything from a flat tax for Iraq, elimination of trade barriers, which has devastated local industry, sell-off of 100 percent of Iraq industries, except for oil...
...it's a lobbyist's wet dream and that's because it was written by the lobbyists.
I have confessions, boasting from the lobbyists who drew up plans for Iraq that they can only dream of doing to the United States, and their template is Chile.
And that's why they say, economics first, elections after. To quote one of the corporate lobbyists, some things are too important to leave to a democratic vote.
LO: The document was prepared when?
GP: The document itself began in preparation, according to General Jay Garner [Viceroy Paul Bremer's predecessor] and others, the document began its development after September 11, but the basic concept of the plan and the earliest work began within a couple of weeks of Bush taking office...
Greg Palast ... First is the `Why Are We Still In Iraq' question. Turns out I have a little document that danced its way out of the file cabinets at the State Department showing that long before the invasion we had a plan to sell off the assets of Iraq. To divide up--and the words are `especially in the oil and supporting industries.'
So, you know, exactly eight minutes into his speech announcing we were going to war...our president turned and said `I want to speak to the Iraqi people... and said `Do not burn oil wells.' Now we know why--they were going to be his.
Unfortunately this is what people suspected, and now you see it in black and white. Now I'm not going to say that we went in for the oil, but it's clear from the documents that we sure as hell were not going to leave without it.
{SoonerThought} Interesting you bring that up right away. Gore Vidal has been one of the most outspoken people about this...saying this is all about Unocal's interests, though he differs from you--he says straight out we went into Iraq to gain access to the vast pools of oil off the Caspian Sea. But you're saying that our main intention was not oil, but that we won't leave without it?
{GP} Well the plan was there. I literally talked to oil people who are on George Bush's committees within weeks of his inauguration who say it wasn't Sept. 11 at all--they were just waiting for their moment (to invade Iraq). There's another agenda here--there is a split in the administration. The Neocons want to break up OPEC and have huge production out of Iraq.
Now, the one thing you'll find in the book is that George Bush is the biggest puppet and is the wooden knucklehead in the puppet government which was not elected. And now the puppet masters are coming out from behind the screen.
James Baker now has an actual physical office in the White House. And he represents the government of Saudi Arabia against the victims of the September 11 attack. He also represents Exxon Oil and he's got an office right there in the White House. And to make sure that Iraq's oil stays within the OPEC production quota assigned by Saudi Arabia. That is why by the way we don't have elections (in Iraq). No elected government of Iraq would ever agree to give up control of assets and its oil.