Let me first do some groundwork.
I reckon readers will be familiar with
PNAC and its ambitions. If so, they should also be familiar with PNAC's long-range Iraq and Middle East strategy, which serves a two-fold purpose:
- To secure the state of Israel.
- Ensure that vital petroleum resources in the region remain available to the West.
For the purpose of this diary, we'll not be looking into the Global Hegemony aspects of PNAC's ambitions, beyond stating that achieving and maintaining permanent military dominion in the Middle East is part of that greater strategy.
Before we begin evaluating whether the Neo-Cons have engineered chaos, it's also worth keeping in the back of our minds that oil is key - not democracy, freedom or liberty, but oil.
Wolfowitz, as Assistant Defence Secretary, asked for alternative attack plans to be drawn up where only the southern oil fields were occupied, only to have his suggestion discounted as diplomatically unpalatable. (Kurdistan was already an ally of the U.S., meaning that the oil rich region around Kirkuk was already online, in Wolfowitz' mind).
This article, from January 2003, should be interesting reading. It shows how the U.S. was busy buying Iraqi oil, in case the assault that followed would interrupt the regular flow from the area. This passage in particular is revealing:
Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.
To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies.
But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, as a member of its board.
Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'
Let's therefore try to agree that the reason why the U.S. is inside Iraq should only be in contention among Wingnuts who still cleave to the belief that evidence of WMD will be found. The Coalition went inside Iraq to get its hands on the oil resources of that country, while also securing a springboard for impelling other nations in the region, by hook or by crook, to fall in line.
Among the national leaders behind the coalition, it was only Polish Foreign Minister Cimoszewicz who was willing to openly state his country's ambitions in joining the Coalition:
Poland has 116 suppliers and subcontracting firms registered with Bechtel Corp., the U.S. contractor charged with rebuilding much of Iraq. France, with a far larger economy, has just 24. Direct access to crude oil is Poland's ''final goal,'' said Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz. (according to
Globalsecurity.org)
With that in place, what's at stake? Iraq very likely has the world's second largest oil and gas reserves.
As Saddam's failed regime was replaced with a new order, Iraq would be in a period of interregnum as a polity, and its resources would be up for grabs as they passed from the "tainted" hands of the Sunnis to the "clean" hands of the Coalition and its Iraqi partners. (We've seen that game playing out in the past two years, and it will continue for a long time).
If you will, you can reread that last paragraph, because it is key to understanding why the Neo-Cons are interested in spreading chaos inside Iraq. It is also key to understanding why the last thing they wanted, was a flower-strewn cakewalk into Iraq, as that would make "legitimately" getting their hands on Iraq's resources substantially more difficult. (Granted, a whole series of IFs might have sufficed. IF the Iraqis had accepted a U.S. occupation; and IF they had accepted Chalabi; and IF they hadn't minded when Iraqi exiles ran off with their major national resource, together with foreign oil companies; and IF they hadn't minded the U.S. military turning Iraq into its major military base, etc. - then we could have had one of the world's most valuable nations giving itself away for a pittance to Cheney and Wolfowitz).
In yesterday's diary, some posters were adamant that the Neo-Cons had been grossly negligent and incompetent, and that their grand plan had failed miserably, casting them into disrepute.
Maybe it's time to lay to rest the myth about Neo-Con and administration incompetence.
Last I looked, they had the Iraqwar-architect in charge of The World Bank, they had the DoD committed to a war of their choosing, and were quite happy to see their presidential puppy reelected for another term. They haven't gotten their man in charge of the U.N. - yet. But with the Supreme Court of the U.S. leaning strongly pro-Bush soon, I'd say things are looking good for the Neo-Cons.
BTW - Bush is fully on board with the PNAC "reshaping the world" agenda, and has bought Cheney's assertions that though unpopular today, the long-term results of what they have embarked upon will fully vindicate Bush and his administration.
What they can be charged with, is painting a too rosy picture of what would happen, in order to be able to get going. But then Wolfowitz himself claimed that those were bureaucratic decisions (on WMD, for instance), made in order to be able to launch their campaign.
And this is where you have to consider the significant difference between Salesmanship and Realpolitik.
The latter approach, if followed honestly, would have ensured that Saddam would still be in power in Iraq. By that tack, the Neo-Cons would have nodded sagely when Shinseki said several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq for the long term. Wolfowitz would never have told Congress that reconstructing Iraq would be self-financed with Iraqi oil revenues. And Powell would never have spoken of mobile WMD-labs at the U.N.
But they chose the Salesmanship-approach, because they wanted their war. This approach even included forging documents apparently proving that Saddam sought nuclear weapons (Nigerien Uranium), and making secret plans for war, while telling the world, and the U.N., that every possible peaceful solution would be pursued. (DSM).
Those believing the Neo-Cons to be grossly incompetent have failed to realize that they are in the process of achieving their Realpolitik strategic aims, through Salesmanship-tactics.
The apparent gulf between what was stated in order to get their war and what has been achieved, only exists in the minds of their critics. They have achieved exactly what they set out to achieve, while their critics are busy comparing the sales pitch to the reality on the ground.
Do you seriously think that with trillions of dollars of oil at stake, in a long term game that also includes China's ambitions and pipelines from former Soviet republics, the lives and relatively petty treasure expended this far in Iraq matters a whit to Cheney's planning? (In pre-war planning, it was thought that 1200 KIA would be acceptable, during the assault on Saddam).
Chevron was mentioned above, yesterday it thwarted China's Unocal bid, supported by a majority in Congress. Chevron bids for Unocal
And to those who think that Iraq's oil exports have been halted, during the past two years, the truth is more complex. We've seen frequent images of burning pipelines, but Iraq had a substantial oil export in 2004. And as U.N.'s audit revealed, quite a lot of that oil was sold illicitly, to finance the cost overruns of the occupation in Iraq, without having to ask Congress for money. Which is why the GOP has been so busy smearing the U.N., in order to discredit how that would play stateside. And as pure speculation, one might also wonder how real all those claims about disrupted oil exports are, but that's speculation.
Let's therefore try looking at Iraq through Neo-Con eyes. Through minds that thought Bush 41 was a complete idiot for not deposing Saddam when he had the chance, in spite of warnings about the exact troubles the U.S. has landed itself in, inside Iraq.
Which means we should don our Realpolitik glasses, before we proceed.
How do you create chaos? In the fast growing field of shopping security, they have a variation on the 80-20 rule - they call it 10-80-10. They say that 10% will never steal, 10% will always steal, and 80% will steal, if they get a chance to do so without being discovered.
"Rumsfeld failed to plan for the immediate post-war looting" - say his critics. It should have been anticipated, they claim. Maybe it was.
Why did the Coalition bomb telephone networks, electricity works, waterlines? Yes, they have strategic importance in war, but the outcome was foretold and the absence of this infrastructure has added significantly to the factors behind the dissent and disaffection gripping Iraqis. Meanwhile, critics of the administration are griping that electricity supplies are below pre-war levels, not getting the point.
Why did the Coalition disband the Iraqi army? 400.000 men, with varying degrees of training, many non-Baathist and non-Sunni. These could have constituted the spine of the new polity, as it sought to maintain order. Garner wanted to use these forces, as he felt it would give the Iraqis a sense of being in charge of their own destiny. In a projection from that notion, he also wanted to hold elections as soon as possible, and to hand over power to Iraqis - that got him fired, of course. And Bremer disbanded the army, on orders from "the highest level".
Now, what does it take to achieve a state of chaos or anarchy? You have to foment unrest, insecurity, create a notion of lawlessness, deprive people of basic services, create doubts about the future.
What have the Neo-Cons been doing, ever since they got inside Iraq? "Stuff happens" and "Freedom can be messy" are provocations directed at us, the outside observers, just as the Iraqis daily are subjected to endless provocations, through a war that seems badly planned, while it is achieving exactly what was intended - fomenting sectarian strife, in order to reach a state where Iraq's oil resources can be placed under administration, outside the hands of the U.N. (which is why getting Bolton inside that building is so important to them), and outside the hands of a legitimate Iraqi government that rules the entire territory (which is why the federal solution is so appealing to the Neo-Cons.)
I will remind you of a few provocations of Iraqis you may have forgotten. I have lived in Saudi Arabia, where possessing a Bible is a crime, and where any religious gathering outside the teachings of Islam likewise is a criminal act (including inside the Aramco "cities" where ex-pats live, where such gatherings took place in subterfuge).
The Bush administration sent Christian missionaries to Iraq. Do you think they did that because they are ignorant? Or as provocation?
Or how is this for provocation? Saddam's statue had barely been toppled, the shooting war wasn't over, though it was played as if it was through the media. This act happened nearly two weeks before Bush landed on U.S.S. Lincoln, his Mission Accomplished, and it was an act designed to achieve the exact opposite of what Bush was signalling on that carrier, with his statement about major combat operations in Iraq being ended.
A pipeline to Israel. Yes, believe it or not. It's straight out of Ripley's. You've barely managed to get inside a hostile Muslim nation, you are accused by your enemy of being Christian Crusaders out to rob Iraq of its resources, there is still gunfire in the streets, the country finds itself without essential infrastructure and in a fragile state.
What is the last thing you should even think of proposing? A pipeline to Israel.
Ten days after the toppling of Saddam's statue, plans were discussed. Well, they could have done that on double-super-secret-background. I would have. But they went public with it. Why?
To make every Muslim in Iraq, and a majority of those outside, shake with rage.
While many, having bought the Salesman's Pitch, were looking for signs of Iraq becoming restful, the Neo-Cons were doing what they could to add TNT to the fire. They had long-range plans, and a pacified Iraq, seeking to reorder and restructure itself, under new, national leadership that arose from the people, was and remains a threat to those longer range strategies.
The list of apparent missteps in Iraq is long. And if you want to consider them missteps, then do so. But it begs a question:
(From yesterday's thread: Given the manner in which the occupation was carried out, the immediate post-conflict state of unpreparedness (in spite of abundant warnings), the wanton and numerous provocations of Iraqis through acts and dispositions of the CPA, the direct insults towards Iraqi social mores and ethics, the actions against specific factions, in order to provoke a counterreaction, etc...
One would have to draw one of two conclusions:
1. Either the invasion is directed by a confederacy of dunces.
2. Or it is part of the overall plan to foment unrest.
Now - if 1. then no amount of anti-tinfoil is going to ever let our side gain significant power, if we can't beat a bunch of gullible idiots.
If 2. - then let's get real and accept that they aren't idiots, but that they may not mind if we think they are stumbling their way through this.
This is why Fitzgerald's work is of such crucial importance. Consider it in this way: if everything under this administration happens because they are clueless dunces, then nothing is connected because accident and chance rules the day. If - however - there is a grander design behind the administration's actions, then everything is connected, with great purpose.
I tend to take the Realpolitik view here. Things are connected. Which is why the White House is in a panic these days, because a huge tear has appeared in the fabric of their design, through senior administration officials breaking the law in order to justify their war on Iraq. That's why Bush is rushing his nomination for the Supreme Court, in a hope that our attention will be sidetracked from Fitzgerald's investigation, as the Democrat's are baited to discuss this judge, instead of the illegal war. They want us to take our eyes off the true scandal, call it Wargate if you will, because once it dawns on people that this administration used huckster Salesmanship to achieve its Realpolitik aims, then the administration is not only finished, but dead and buried.
Sure, you can comfort yourself with the fact that this administration is incompetent, but then you are the one who is gullible.
Newsweek has reason to give pay-back to Rove and the others at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after the Koran-story Rove set them up to run. Last Sunday, they used this picture as illustration to their article on Rove.
Newsweek is hinting at the extent of the scandal surrounding Valerie Plame Wilson. They are naturally well aware of which senior administration officials called reporters on behalf of whom.
That's Rove on the left, followed by Counselor to the President Bartlett, and VP Cheney's Chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, together with the man from Big Oil himself.
And all paths, in this instance, lead to and from Iraq.
The administration needs chaos in Iraq to be able to apply force against Iraqis, in order to achieve its aims. An ordered, cakewalk invasion would have sabotaged those aims, as it would have made it vastly more difficult to secure a permanent presence inside Iraq. International pressure for the U.S. to pull out would have mounted to insupportable levels - again, it's worth considering why it is so important to land Bolton at the U.N.
Instead of questioning their Salesmanship, we should attack the administration's Realpolitik, then we'll get somewhere.
Comments are closed on this story.