Iraq - Did the US/UK Governments know what would happen in Iraq post invasion?

[grogwilton]

Yes. Imo.

More likely then that they intentionally wanted absolute chaos in order as some people put it 'to destroy a potentially strong arab state' so that it didnt become an opponent.

The only thing making Iraq a potentially strong arab state in 2003 was its Oil. It used to have a rich educated people, sanctions put paid to that, if al they wanted was to keep Iraq down they could have just maintianed the status quo. Oil alone which is all Iraq had in 2003 does not make it a potential strong state and a threat to US interests in the region, no more then Saudi Arabia is a threat with its 'potential' to be a 'strong state.'

At the end of the day thay wanted Iraqs oil. and an unstable state, no matter how many bases you have there, is not conducive to exporting oil, because a) you dont know whats around the historical corner, and b) to transport oil you need long exposed pipelines.

PS: if they planned this grand plan to leave Iraq in absolute chaos, why didnt they plan to have more troops? The US army is at breaking point and this is just with 2 relatively small scale wars going on.

There are broad aims and trends within US foreign policy, but the idea that there is a fundamental unity among the US security services and political institutions, to agree on a very specific policy of destroying Iraq, is lunacy. You applying godlike status to, what is, when all is said and done a pretty small group of policy makers, who make mistakes, and who's plans dont always work out, especially when most of their education (and that of their advisers) has been geared towards aquiring access to lucrative corporate posts, not understanding middle east politics.

 

[nino_savatte]

Option one because the US and UK have always had tendencies towards short-termism and quick fixes. This combined with the notion that "our way is the right way" has led to a situation that can only be described as 'avoidable'. There was a great deal of talk of 'history' on the part of Bush and Blair but it is a history that has been fashioned from lies and myths.

The real reasons for invading Iraq had little to do with 'freeing' the Iraqi people and had more to do with the desire to seize control of the oil industry that had been nationalised by Hassan al-Bakr in the late 60's.

 

[grogwilton]

Option one still doesnt seem plausible to me.

Why would they not care that they would lose and face defeat in Iraq within 20 years? All that money and influence wasted.

 

[nino_savatte]

Option one still doesnt seem plausible to me.

Why would they not care that they would lose and face defeat in Iraq within 20 years? All that money and influence wasted.

It's called "Western Arrogance". They'd find a way to describe a defeat as a victory tbh.

 

[lostexpectation]

honey trap

 

[dylanredefined]

They didn't have a clue no one had a clue .The whole bathiest regime was based on lies and corruption.So the state of infra structure was unknown they knew it was bad just not how completely fucked it was.

 

[nino_savatte]

The reason given for invading Iraq was based on lies. As far as the Ba'athist regime was concerned, it may not have been everyone's ideal of a model government but there was order and the rule of law. Neither of those things currently exist in Iraq. Regarding its "corruption", you'll have to be more specific because from where I'm sitting the "corruption" cuts both ways.

I disagree that the 'allies' were ignorant about the condition of Iraq's infrastructure because they spent weeks destroying it (water treatment works, roads and power plants were all targeted). Oddly enough, while they were bombing the fuck out of the country's infrastructure, they were rushingto save the oil production sites. Iraq wasn't some backward country that suffered from widespread illiteracy, it was a secular country that had an extraordinary number of PhDs per capita.

They got their priorities arse about face...but that's capitalism.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Option one still doesnt seem plausible to me.

Why would they not care that they would lose and face defeat in Iraq within 20 years? All that money and influence wasted.

I think the trick is to separate out the term 'they' into the constituent groups.

Many politicians, Blair is I think a perfect example of this and it may very well also apply to Bush, simply didn't understand that by far the most likely consequences of what was being proposed would be something pretty much like what has actually occurred. They'd gotten addicted to risk-free military interventions via smaller scale actions like those in Grenada, Panama, the Balkans and Sierra Leone, thought they were good PR and they didn't think there was any down-side to it because they're clueless twats who believe their own propaganda, so they got involved partly to keep the neo-cons and assorted corporate crooks/lobbyists sweet and partly because they thought it'd give them an easy 'mission accomplished' PR boost among right-wing halfwits.

Many in the military, particularly in the ground forces, knew that the US way of warfare, by destroying the infrastructure of the state, was very likely to produce precisely the sort of mess that it did indeed actually produce. Any number of retired generals were saying so quite loudly at the time I recall.

Others in the military, particularly in the USAF and allied bits of the military bureacracy and military industrial lobby, wanted to play with their shiny new toys so badly that they didn't really care about consequences (they'd be off playing golf or going to their church someplace safe rather, than dealing with those consequences face to face as the ground forces have to)

Some of the neo-cons probably had a pretty fair idea what kind of mess they were going to create in Iraq, but they didn't give a fuck if they caused a blood-bath and turned Iraq into a living hell, because they figured that overwhelming force would allow them to deal with it well enough to achieve their objectives. These objectives were primarily about establishing US regional dominance, privatising Iraq's oil reserves and removing Saddam as an independent power and potential threat to Israel. For this purpose the consequences to Iraqis and an increased risk of terrorism etc as a result of Iraq's disintegration into the world's largest terrorist training camp is neither here nor there, as long as they can retain massively fortified bases from which to project power within the region and to protect Israel.

Some of the lobby-connected types around Bush and Cheney didn't give a fuck what happened as long as there were plenty of corrupt opportunities for war profiteering and signing Iraq up at gunpoint to favourable oil/gas production sharing deals.

 

[lostexpectation]

their phrase fight em over their so we don't have to fight them over here seems to be held out for the americans atleast.

 

[grogwilton]

I disagree that the 'allies' were ignorant about the condition of Iraq's infrastructure because they spent weeks destroying it (water treatment works, roads and power plants were all targeted). Oddly enough, while they were bombing the fuck out of the country's infrastructure, they were rushingto save the oil production sites. Iraq wasn't some backward country that suffered from widespread illiteracy, it was a secular country that had an extraordinary number of PhDs per capita.

Wrong- Iraqs infrastructure was fucked before the invasion (through sanctions, not through any fault of the Iraqi government) and was made worse by looting following the invasion. Iraqis were and are very educated, but that doesnt help when sanctions and massive war debt because of the Iran/Iraq war sent inflation through the roof, and people with PHDs ended up working as taxi drivers (this is also the reason why you find so many Iraqi academics around europe) also Saddam attempted to wipe out any form of civil society which could be a threat to him, and this combined with the poverty of debt and sanctions, turned Iraqi society from a secular educated society into one which was increasingly dominated by older social affiliations, tribe and sect. This isnt to say that these definitions are all defining, even now, its just realising that Iraqi society changed between the 1970s and 2003.

Bernie: agree with all that youve written. I just think the idea that this was the DESIRED outome, or plan B if you will, which some posters are pushing, is a trifle mad.

 

[nino_savatte]

Wrong- Iraqs infrastructure was fucked before the invasion (through sanctions, not through any fault of the Iraqi government) and was made worse by looting following the invasion.

My point was that Iraq was not some backward country as one poster seemed to suggest.

 

[Tankus]

Interestingly most of the main Western political players that pushed the US/UK into Iraq are no longer on the scene, or soon to be leaving it .
All with substantially bigger bank accounts either related to various involved industries or recouping through vested interest media payback ...!

I don't think that its just the longer term consequences for Iraq that weren't considered , but all so the US's and the UK's ..... or more likley ... covered just enough to sound plausible to get the big push ...

Primarily a self interest opportunity .......

Which is what politician's do best




edit...........
anti Stanley Unwin deffragerable clarity postage correction ..!

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think anyone is saying that they intended to create a bloodbath in Iraq in terms of that being the goal of their actions, which would be a bit conspiraloony. More that it was an acceptable price to pay for getting what they did want, which was the application of overwhelming force to remove SH and prevent any third-parties getting too much access to the oil resources, plus a reason to stay there in the long term.

As for defeat in 20 years, I'm not sure what kind of situation would be regarded as a geniune defeat by all the interests that Bernie has outlined, so it's difficult to say how likely that scenario might be.

 

[London_Calling]

Fwiw, I've always held a suspicion that the key neo-con strategists in relation to Iraq - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney - honestly believed, or assumed, the mass of Iraqi people would sieze the opportunity to embrace the free market with such enthusiasm everything else would fall away.

From a neo-con pov, why wouldn't they; economic blank canvass, inject sufficient cash fluidity, create a stable business environment, let the entrepeneurs make a few bob, employ a few others, very soon the wild west becomes the mid west - everyone would be too busy filling their boots to worry about the true intentions of their USA guardians.

I do think there was some of that in the mix.

 

[nino_savatte]

Aye, the neo cons saw the "Chilean experiment" and concluded that this "hothouse experiment" in untrammelled capitalism would be a resounding success in Iraq. They were deeply ignorant of Iraq's history.

Of course, Chile's economic 'miracle' is nothing of the sort for most Chileans. There is no welfare state and if you're poor, it's tough shit.

 

[Fruitloop]

Fwiw, I've always held a suspicion that the key neo-con strategists in relation to Iraq - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney - honestly believed, or assumed, the mass of Iraqi people would sieze the opportunity to embrace the free market with such enthusiasm everything else would fall away.

From a neo-con pov, why wouldn't they; economic blank canvass, inject sufficient cash fluidity, create a stable business environment, let the entrepeneurs make a few bob, employ a few others, very soon the wild west becomes the mid west - everyone would be too busy filling their boots to worry about the true intentions of their USA guardians.

I do think there was some of that in the mix.

Do you really think they believe their own bullshit? Maybe Blair does, Bush probably doesn't care one way or the other - he's too far removed from the normal world, which he's never really inhabited - but I reckon Cheney et al. are much more cynical, and less clueless.

 

[nino_savatte]

Do we want this to be repeated in Iraq?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC11.html
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2007/04/17chile.html

 

[Fruitloop]

Aye, the neo cons saw the "Chilean experiment" and concluded that this "hothouse experiment" in untrammelled capitalism would be a resounding success in Iraq. They were deeply ignorant of Iraq's history.

Of course, Chile's economic 'miracle' is nothing of the sort for most Chileans. There is no welfare state and if you're poor, it's tough shit.

The Chilean experiment that involved tortured and bullet-riddled corpses of everyone from trade unionists to university lecturers and musicians turning up on a regular basis? Jesus wept.

 

[Spion]

Naomi Klein thinks the US 'plan' for Iraq was a neo-con socio-economic experiment http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

e2a: apols if already mentioned. Busy and just nipped by

 

[nino_savatte]

The Chilean experiment that involved tortured and bullet-riddled corpses of everyone from trade unionists to university lecturers and musicians turning up on a regular basis? Jesus wept.

Isn't it interesting how psychopathy and economic fundamentalism walks hand-in-hand with anti-intellectualism?

 

[Fruitloop]

Isn't it interesting how psychopathy and economic fundamentalism walks hand-in-hand with anti-intellectualism?

Examples abound on this very site.

 

[nino_savatte]

Examples abound on this very site.

Quite.

 

[London_Calling]

Fruitloop - You chose your user name well.

 

[London_Calling]

Naomi Klein thinks the US 'plan' for Iraq was a neo-con socio-economic experiment http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

e2a: apols if already mentioned. Busy and just nipped by

Nice article. Cheers.

 

[dylanredefined]

The corruption was rife want to be a student pay the baath party or its in the army for you .Want to get ahead join the party etc,etc,
But it also came down to not telling your bosses bad news .Spoke to some guy who was involved in reconstruction it took them ages to get the iraq engineers to give them accurate infomation as under saddam telling the truth could get you shot .
They honestly thought they would be welcomed and the country could be fixed .And didn't want to hear any other voices .

 

[nino_savatte]

What you describe isn't "corruption" per se, it is nepotism