Many people find this hard to believe nowadays, but way back in March 2003, this whole "Attack Iraq" thing was supposed to be a cakewalk, with this vaunted military analyst stating that the war and the aftermath could be described thusly:
Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism.
Now, with reports that April 2004 is the deadliest month of the year long war and further reports that terrorism is on the rise worldwide (see the comments on Syria and Thailand in this post from the US Department of State - State Department Noon Briefing, 28 April 2004) that pre-war assessment can hardly seem more foolhardy.
Contemporaneously to that assessment offered by a long-tenured military and government employee, was my own, humble assessment on the necessity of the war and the likelihood of it's success:
Herr Goering has a famous quote, in which he discusses how easy it is for leaders to incite the people of their own country to desire a war. Prior to this "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War" by George W. Bush, the most direct comparison between Goering's post WWII quote and our present day could be learned in a discussion with President George Bush the First, Colin Powell or Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf in the period shortly before Gulf War I.
Prior to that war, you had a relatively minor military action taken by one country (Iraq) against another country (Kuwait); somewhere on the other side of the world. In most cases, this sort of thing concerns US citizens not a bit (please open your textbooks to Rwanda, Chechnya or East Timor to see how even greater loss of life was resoundingly ignored). However, when this sort of activity takes place near the world's largest known oil reserves, i.e., Saudi Arabia, oilmen (Bush) and Presidents (Bush) are forced into action.
At this point of your hypothetical conversation with the oligarchy of the first Bush reign, you would find yourself listening to speeches about the "Butcher of Baghdad", terrible stories of how poorly Kurds have been treated (you will rarely hear how Turkey was treating its Kurdish population at the very same time) and hearing many horrible stories about what Iraqi soldiers were doing to babies in incubators (This last part a total PR fabrication that has been well documented as a fraud) in Kuwait - the basic dehumanization process that Goering alludes to in his quote (Here is the quote and the foundation for it as well), necessary to get the populace to beat the drums of war - and it would all sound eerily reminiscent of that old WWII villain. You might even raise your head from this fictional conversation with the oligarchy to ask yourself, "Am I being manipulated with a 'big lie' just to obtain my support for aims that do not reflect my values?"
Why did we go to war to restore democracy to Kuwait, when it had never been a democracy before and is not a democracy now? Did we have a treaty with them? Quaint, a treaty with Kuwait obligating us to protect them from invasion would have been a novel idea. Let me sum up the late '80s for you: No, there was no treaty. Not only that, no one even conceived the necessity for such a treaty. Who are Kuwait's neighbors? Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has been our kind of people since it was established in the early 20th century; Iran was still reeling from a bloody war with Iraq (remember them? They were the first country that Saddam attacked. Iran only survived this war by the old WWI technique of throwing bodies Â mostly children Â at the vastly better armed military forces of Iraq). So that just left Iraq as Kuwait's final neighbor Â and they happened to be our ally. Read that again. Our ally. We provided the military assistance and cold hard cash that enabled Saddam to launch his pre-emptive attack on a nation with no territorial desires on his country. Why, old Rumsfeld was so chummy with Saddam that he took photos with him when he traveled to Iraq at the behest of his buddy, Ronald Reagan (another item Ronnie forgot as soon as he was asked Â plausible deniability for the old war criminal)
So, resetting the picture: Kuwait was surrounded either friends, nations to weak to be hostile or other US allies; therefore, no treaty.
As an aside: Iraq is now our colony (being led by a military governor is a very 20th century definition of a colony and I am sure that our British friends will be very helpful in providing their expertise with the whole system.) Pre-emptively attacking a nation will further deepen resemblanceence between the US and all of the old colonial powers. Britain saw countries like India, Afghanistan, Ghana and Zimbabwe as a threat when none of them attacked the British and so they ended up a part of the empire. Japan was not attacked by either China or Korea, but they somehow ended up part of Greater Japan. And, of course, the Germans used fig leaves to cover their tracks (tank?) on the Checks and the Poles. Makes you wonder: if my history teacher said pre-emptive attacks were bad then Â why are they so good now?
The "relatively minor military action" from above referred to the few hours it took for Iraq to overwhelm the non-existent military forces of Kuwait. This is just another point for why there was no treaty - Kuwait had practically no forces to commit to a treaty.
An easy comparison can be made between the quote from Goering and the actions of the Bush family. And although this nation will be easily led to war, how long will it tolerate the deaths of it's sons and for what will soon be revealed as a lie? Sphere: Related Content