US Financial Collapse Will End Bush/Cheney Iraq War
"According to a survey in the British Medical Journal "Lancet" more than a million Iraqis have been killed in the war. Another four million have been either internally-displaced or have fled the country. But the figures tell us nothing about the magnitude of the disaster that Bush has caused by attacking Iraq. The invasion is the greatest human catastrophe in the Middle East since the Nakba in 1948. Living standards have declined precipitously in every area---infant mortality, clean water, food-security, medical supplies, education, electrical power, employment etc. Even oil production is still below pre-war levels. The invasion is the most comprehensive policy failure since Vietnam; everything has gone wrong. The heart of the Arab world has descended into chaos. The suffering is incalculable.
(...)
How Will It End?
The Bush administration has decided to pursue a strategy that is unprecedented in US history. It has decided to continue to prosecute a war that has already been lost morally, strategically, and militarily. But fighting a losing war has its costs. America is much weaker now than it was when Bush first took office in 2000; politically, economically and militarily. US power and prestige around the world will continue to deteriorate until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq. But that's unlikely to happen until all other options have been exhausted. Deteriorating economic conditions in the financial markets are putting enormous downward pressure on the dollar. The corporate bond and equities markets are in disarray; the banking system is collapsing, consumer spending is down, tax revenues are falling, and the country is headed into a painful and protracted recession. The US will leave Iraq sooner than many pundits believe, but it will not be at a time of our choosing. Rather, the conflict will end when the United States no longer has the capacity to wage war. That time is not far off."
And that's the good news, that no matter what machinations the warmongering scum have planned for Iraq and it's oil, Whitney seems to think they'll be forced by circumstances to leave.
But I think the statement " invasion is the most comprehensive policy failure since Vietnam" is misleading. The catastrophic reality of Iraqi suffering is that it was planned to be this way; it's no mistake. The monsters wanted to break the country up and set the people at each others' throats so a massive covert operation was undertaken to do exactly that. Fixing the infrastructure that they destroyed with great deliberation was always a joke. Slaughtering the ragheads as policy is openly celebrated, and poisoning the environment with "depleted" uranium to create thousands of generations of disease and mutation is met with a yawn. The effort was to completely destroy a once viable threat to Israel's hegemony in the region while planting bases in the country to use in doing the same thing, and worse, to Iran. Iraqi oil is probably being kept off the market to drive the prices up for corporate bottom line. What we see in terms of human condition as a disastrous failure, for them it's mission you know what.
And this isn't a war, it's a a genocidal occupation.
3 Comments:
Send your analysis to Rense. It's much more accurate than Whitney's. His term "headed into a recession" is also misleading. We're already in a recession and never got out of the last one (unless you're one of the upper middle class and above). More accurately, we're headed towards a depression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks noiin, I don't know why the usually spot on Mike Whitney softened his approach somewhat. He also left something out of the equation. His contention that economic pressures will force the troops home seems viable but at the same time it also means something very sinister - that if Iran and/or Pakistan is attacked it will quickly go nuclear.
Post a Comment
<< Home