We in the West still want to believe that we went to Iraq as "liberators" to improve the average Iraqi's standard of living, to bring freedom and democracy, and give them a better "more western" oriented life-style. This is bull-shit! We went there to secure access to the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction were just convenient excuses to mask what was an out-right invasion, in violation of international protocols and agreements to which the U.S. is a prominent signatory. Also, we didn't invade Iraq to "get" Osama Bin Laden. He was in Afghanistan at the time, and we had a chance to kill or capture him at Tora Bora on the border with Pakistan, but George W. Bush chickened-out. In spite of what we were told and led to believe, Saddam was never a threat to America,and Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.
After the 2003 invasion, western oil companies -- led by the U.S. majors -- came back into Iraq to exploit the production of Iraqi oil, and spent huge sums to repair the country's crumbling oil infrastructure. Policy makers in the West consider Middle East oil to be strategic vital commodity to Western industrial economies. They tell us that any disruption to the world supply of oil could cause grave problems for the Western economies. The argument is that we have to keep a residual force there to protect Iraqi oil from falling into the hands of ISIS. This translates to the U.S. keeping a force in Iraq to protect the U.S. corporate investments of the large oil companies into perpetuity.
This is a totally fallacious argument. ISIS or the Mad Hatter could take over Iraq tomorrow and not a drop of Iraqi oil would be lost to the market. The oil companies might lose their investments, but the oil would keep flowing. How else do you suppose ISIS would fund their terror war, procure the necessary weapons and fund their troops -- selling and exporting pomegranates and dates to drug dealers on the French Riviera? When Saddam was in power there were U.S. and United Nation sanctions against Iraq prohibiting the sale of oil. But that didn't prevent Iraqi oil from being traded on the Black Market. It made sales more difficult; but it didn't stop them, and the oil was still available to countries willing to go around the sanctions.
I don't know why any young man in his right mind would willingly want to go to Iraq (or Syria) and risk his life to protect the economic interests of Exxon shareholders. If Exxon (or any other oil company) feels a need to protect their investments in Iraq, let them hire their own mercenary army. That's what the Dutch East India company did. It's not the job of any American citizen (or the responsibility of the American taxpayers) to protect the commercial interests of Exxon. And in spite of what your stupid congressman or senator might tell you, we're not going to "win" the war, prevail in Iraq no matter how long we're there.
I know what some of you might be thinking. What's wrong with this guy? He's a coward and an unpatriotic asshole. No, I'm a patriotic American just like you think you are. But I'm not so stupid to think that we can ultimately prevail in Iraq (or Syria) if we just keep fifty thousand troops there forever. We've already had a similar disastrous experience in Vietnam, and we still have fifty thousand troops in South Korea, fifty years after we essentially drew a line in the sand at the celebrated 38th parallel. We don't need another repeat of that.
So no matter what you might hear on Fox news, or what your uncle Charlie might tell you, we're not going to win the war in Iraq. And the Hollywood bio-pic "American Sniper" notwithstanding, killing people in Iraq today is not going to make you any safer in Poughkeepsie tomorrow. Kicking in the doors of private homes, killing civilians (even those suspected of collaborating with the enemy terrorists) and shooting women and children is not the way to showcase our "American values" to the broader world. The terrorist you really need to fear is not going to come from Syria or Iraq, he's going to come from right down the street because he's already ready living here. Maybe fifteen years ago he was the young boy delivering your morning paper. So you can turn off the nightly news and hide under your bed, you can support your congressman who wants to send troops (boots on the ground) to Syria; but that's not going to change anything. There will be domestic terror attacks. And don't kid yourself, continuing a stupid, ill-advised war in Iraq, or upping the ante in Syria against ISIS will not make you any safer in your bed at night here at home.
Patriotism is a fine thing. I'm an American, and I consider myself to be patriotic. I'm also an old man. But if Canada was to launch an invasion over our Northern border, or if Mexico was to invade us from the South, or if ISIS landed a flotilla of ten thousand terrorists in Seattle or on Long Island tomorrow, I'd readily take up a gun and march off to war (providing they'd even accept me in the army) just like the early colonists did against the British at Lexington and Concord.
We in America think sometimes (because we're the United States) that the broader rules in the international community don't apply to us. We also forget the inconvenient little fact that when a foreign nation (America) sends its military uninvited into another sovereign nation (Iraq) that is generally, by most definitions, considered an invasion. Most countries, and most people (whether Christian, Muslim or Jew) resent being invaded. They also resent having a principle national resource (like their oil) co-opted by an invading foreign nation -- no matter how honorable and well-intended the foreign invaders profess themselves to be. Maybe we need to be a better "citizen" of the world.
The Money Trader