[THS] Paul Craig Roberts: Why Does Bush Want to Rule Iraq?

[Peter Webster]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19789.htm

Why Does the Bush Regime Want to Rule Iraq?

By Paul Craig Roberts

23/04/08 "ICH"  -- -- 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 U.S. combat
casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 U.S. troops have been
wounded in Iraq.

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.com reported that an internal e-mail 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 U.S. 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 U.S. dollar was worth
45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The U.S. cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month,
U.S. Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated
unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government total $53 trillion. The U.S.
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 U.S. and its victims are due entirely to lies told by
the president and vice president of the U.S., by the secretary of
defense, the national security adviser, 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 U.S. invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush
regime has given, why would the U.S. 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 Maliki is not a
government. Maliki is the well paid front man for U.S. 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 U.S. would not be going out of
its way to force 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 U.S. 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 U.S. decided to seize Iraq to ensure its
own oil supply.

This explanation is problematic. Most U.S. oil comes from Canada,
Mexico, and Venezuela. The best way for the U.S. to ensure 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 U.S. invasions, the U.S. oil import bill was running less
than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006 total U.S. imports from OPEC
countries was $145 billion, and the U.S. trade deficit with OPEC totaled
$106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for U.S. oil imports for
30 years; $5 trillion could pay the U.S. oil bill for a half century had the
Bush regime preserved a sound dollar.

The more likely explanation for the U.S. 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 not to support 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 U.S. intervention in the Middle East on
behalf of "greater Israel."

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is
coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions