12-15-2009, 01:50 AM
Quote:There is only one sufficiently compelling reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to establish a client state (or, if you prefer, an ally) of the US, strategically located in the heart of the middle-east.I concur with this theory. If you look at a map of the region, and then consider global strategic posturing of Europe, China, Russia, and the US. Baghdad is dead center.
I believe the US "knows" the real heart(s) of Islamic extremism lie in every nation surrounding Iraq. It was a convenient pariah state, once toppled and occupied, that from which the US might strategically project its hegemony to the entire surrounding region. Again, also in Afghanistan, if we maintain the concept of "special forces led" backing of tribes (Northern Alliance) friendly to our mutual interests, we can use our proxies (Karzai) to influence the neighborhood. I fear the ramp up of 30,000 troops is signaling either a failure of that strategy, or an intentional retreat from the Rumsfeld doctrine. I see the problem with the strategy change being that our only alternative US strategy was the same one that kicked the Soviets butt (with our subtle help from behind the scenes using the Rumsfeld doctrine).
But, in my opinion, the bottom line is not to own the oil, but the power to control the region, and thereby police the streets keeping the radicals on the run or chasing us around the deserts of Iraq, or the mountains of Afghanistan and Waziristan. The ultimate result being a stability in the price of oil, which is controlled by those who are friendly to the US and Europe. The same argument can be made for kicking Chavez in the butt as well, but we would be over extended and lose all three wars. We might be losing two as it is.
I object the the means, but not the ends. It is the means that inspire and give creed to wacko's like Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and their ilk. Which, in fact, make the ends harder to accomplish. I'm reminded of the monkey trying to get the orange out of the bottle by using direct force.