Defeat: why America and Britain lost Iraq

Horhey · Aug 8, 2012

[video=youtube_share;23Hecu9F1fs]http://youtu.be/23Hecu9F1fs[/video]

Jonathan Steele, Chief Foreign Correspondent at the Guardian observes that:

Washington chose Iraq, not only in order to remove an independent anti-Israeli ruler but also to secure access to the country's oil reserves and to send a message of dominance across the region. The USA intended to create a new client in the northern part of the Middle East by turning Iraq into a secular, liberal, free- market, and US-friendly bastion and in so doing warning the anti-Western leaders of its neighbours, Syria and Iran, that their time was also coming to an end.
Click to expand...

In a draft of a memorandum to President Truman, the State Department emphasized that in the Middle East:

the major oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in human history.
Click to expand...

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the leading senior planners pointed out that:

America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region's vast energy supplies. Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America's security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region.
Click to expand...

In 1972, Washington was advocating for higher oil prices. According to a study by V.H. Oppenheim, based on interview with US officials:

The weight of the evidence suggests that the principal consideration behind the indulgent US government attitude toward higher oil prices was the belief that higher prices would produce economic benefits for the United States vis'a'vis its industrial competitors, Western Europe and Japan, and the key Middle Eastern states, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Click to expand...

Henry Kissinger confirmed that this was Washington's thinking:

The rise in the price of energy would affect primarily Europe and Japan and probobly improve America's competitive position.
Click to expand...

Defeat: Why America and Britain lost Iraq

By Jonathan Steele

As the dreadful reality of the coalition's defeat in Iraq begins to sink in, one question dominates Washington and London: Why? In this controversial new book, Jonathan Steele provides a stark and arresting answer: Bush and Blair were defeated from the day they decided to occupy the country. Steele describes the centuries of humiliation that have scarred the Iraqi national psyche, creating a powerful and deeply felt nationalism and spreading cultural landmines along the road to winning Baghdad. Steele shows for the first time how the invasion and occupation were perceived by ordinary Iraqis, whose feelings and experiences were completely ignored by Western policymakers. The result of such arrogance, Steele demonstrates, was a failure that will forever resonate with such dark chapters of American and British history as the Vietnam War and the Suez Canal crisis. Blending vivid reportage, informed analysis, and sweeping historical narrative, Defeat is the definitive post-mortem on this pivotal catastrophe.
Click to expand...

Horhey · Aug 8, 2012

This is no small footnote in the history of (failed) imperialism. In a signing statement, President Bush declared that he will bypass Congressional legislation that he signed into law that forbids the establishment of "any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Boston Globe: Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act

In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
Click to expand...

The New York Times: Bush Declares Exceptions to Sections of Two Bills He Signed Into Law

President Bush asserted on Tuesday that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control.

In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”
Click to expand...

These intentions were outlined in the 2007 "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship", an agreement between the Bush administration and the Maliki government. The Declaration permits US forces to occupy the country indefinetely and commits Iraq to:

facilitate and encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, in March 2005, the editors of the Financial Times observed that:

the reason [the elections] took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them.
Click to expand...

The Washington Post - How Cleric Trumped U.S. Plan for Iraq

Ayatollah's Call for Vote Forced Occupation Leader to Rewrite Transition Strategy

The unraveling of the Bush administration's script for political transition in Iraq began with a fatwa. The religious edict, handed down in June by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most influential Shiite Muslim cleric, called for general elections to select the drafters of a new constitution. He dismissed U.S. plans to appoint the authors as "fundamentally unacceptable."

People familiar with the discussions among U.S. officials about the fatwa said American political officers were too isolated to grasp the power of the edict right away, assuming that secular former exiles backed by the U.S. government would push Bremer's plan. Even when Sistani's clout became clear, they said Bremer remained reluctant to rework his transition plan right away. "He didn't want a Shiite cleric dictating the terms of Iraq's political future," one U.S. official with knowledge of the process said.

Who Would Draft Constitution?

At the end of June, when Arab satellite television networks erroneously reported that Iraq's constitution would be written by American and British experts, Sistani broke his silence. In a two-page fatwa issued on June 28, he declared that he would only support a constitution written by Iraqis chosen through a general election, not by a council selected by the Americans.

In Baghdad, Sistani's pronouncement did not raise immediate alarm among U.S. officials. The Bush administration wanted an orderly process it could control. Bremer was vague about how the authors would be selected. At the time, his aides privately said Iraqi political leaders and Americans would select the writers. By early July, Bremer had shifted focus to formation of the council, a 25-member body composed of American allies and political neophytes.

Bremer's Power Challenged

By August, after lengthy discussions, American political officers and several council members settled on the idea of a "partial election." Instead of allowing anyone to stand as a candidate and having to compile voter rolls for general elections, the occupation authority would organize caucuses in each governorate, or province, that would be limited to political, religious, tribal, academic and trade union leaders as well as other influential local figures approved by the Americans. The caucus would select the drafters of the constitution.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell sought to push the council to endorse partial elections, saying Iraqis should be given a six-month deadline to complete their constitution. Members bristled. "It was an unreasonable demand," said Dara Noureddine, the council's liaison with the commission. "We needed time to achieve consensus."

But consensus was elusive. The council had split into two factions. Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds and some moderate Shiites, such as Ahmed Chalabi, favored the partial elections. Other traditionalist Shiite groups, among them the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Dawa party, cited Sistani's fatwa as a mandate and insisted on general elections.

"We felt elections were the only legitimate way to proceed," the Supreme Council's Abdel-Mehdi said. His party and several other Shiite council members told Bremer that they would not be able reach a consensus on partial elections.

Bremer refused to give up. He chafed at the idea that a cleric would be able to dictate Iraq's democratic transition. "Is the political structure of Iraq going to be in the hands of one man?" Bremer said to a group of visitors in October.

He urged the council's five traditionalist Shiites to try to persuade Sistani to support partial elections, said Rubaie, one of the five. Rubaie said he met with Sistani in October and explained the problems with general elections and the benefits of partial elections. Sistani was unmoved, Rubaie said. "He would not have it."

Shortly thereafter, Sistani delivered his first public pronouncements on partial elections. In written comments provided to The Washington Post, he said there could be "no substitute" for a general election.

Occupation Chief Yields

Shiite political leaders insisted an election could be organized in less than six months using food-ration rolls as a voter registry. But Bremer and his aides dismissed that, insisting an election could not be pulled off in less than two years.

But as U.S. military casualties escalated, Bremer and other Bush administration officials realized their plan would have to be rewritten. "Once it became clear we couldn't get around the election, we knew we had to do something else," one American involved in the process said.

Although there was general support for Bremer's plan, members pressed him on details. Some protested his requirement that 15-person organizing committees would screen participants in the caucuses.

Several Shiite leaders expressed concern that the organizing committees might exclude candidates because they were Islamic activists. "The veto power should only apply to people who are Baathists or criminals," one Shiite member said.

Bremer did not want to delve into details, according to several members who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Instead, they said, Bremer wanted the council members to accept the plan and announce it to the news media as if they had created it themselves.

"He brushed aside the details. He just wanted an agreement," one member said. "It was 'my way or the highway.' "

Before his Nov. 10 flight to Washington, Bremer called Abdel-Mehdi in for a meeting.

"If we go for this option, do you think Sistani will accept?" Abdel-Mehdi recalled Bremer asking him.

"I'm sure," Abdel-Mehdi responded.

While Bremer was flying back from Washington, Abdel-Mehdi said he met with Sistani, who endorsed the broad contours of Bremer's new plan to hand over sovereignty to a provisional government, which would convene elections for a constitutional council.

But Abdel-Mehdi said Sistani never passed judgment on the details, particularly those that have concerned other Shiite leaders involving how members would be selected. In response to written questions about Bremer's new approach, Sistani's office said the ayatollah would not comment.

"He certainly has not blessed the plan," Abdel-Mehdi said.
Click to expand...

Horhey · Aug 11, 2012

Before the 2003 invasion, Senior DOD officials planned to replace Saddam with a puppet regime:

Knight-Ridder: Pentagon Civilians' Lack of Planning Contributed to Chaos in Iraq

The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq..believed..Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. Feith, Luti and their advisers wanted to put Ahmad Chalabi - the controversial Iraqi exile leader of a coalition of opposition groups - in power in Baghdad. The Pentagon planners were convinced that Chalabi and his supporters would replace Saddam and impose order.
Click to expand...

About a month before the invasion, however, the administration shifted to different approach:

The Washington Post: Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq

The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.

Officials emphasized that they would not expect to democratize Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a representative Iraqi government.
Click to expand...

So what was originally intended was that Iraq would be an "Arab facade" in which United States rule would be "veiled" behind such "constitutional fictions as a protectorate, a sphere of influence, a buffer State, and so on." (Lord Curzon) - essentially the British model

Panzerkampfwagen · Aug 11, 2012

by turning Iraq into a secular, liberal, free- market, and US-friendly bastion

But wasn't Iraq pretty much that during the 1980s, you know, before the US sided with Kuwait as Kuwait stole Iraq's oil?

Horhey · Aug 11, 2012

Panzerkampfwagen said: ↑

by turning Iraq into a secular, liberal, free- market, and US-friendly bastion

But wasn't Iraq pretty much that during the 1980s, you know, before the US sided with Kuwait as Kuwait stole Iraq's oil?
Click to expand...

The events leading up to first Gulf War are very interesting. I just learned some new details about it that I'll show later. Saddam was basically like Noriega in Panama. An insufficiently loyal client. Noriega was overthrown for dragging his feat on Washington's orders to support it's terrorist war against Nicaragua. Noriega would only go so far. The Godfather had to make an example out him to teach other clients that defiance will not be tolerated. This is called "credibility."

Log in or Sign up

Defeat: why America and Britain lost Iraq

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Defeat: why America and Britain lost Iraq

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches