Obama approves troop surge...

[Skybird]

Bush senior said he shied away from taking Iraq in 91 becasue of the costs in lives if attacking Bagdhad. which I take as not the real reason, but the real reason was that one wanted to leave Saddam in place to take care of certain other power factions in the region. That he was allowed to use helicopters in the onslaught against the Shia rise, and that one first talked the Shia into rebellion, then betrayed them and let them run into their massacring, is telltaling. also, there was very strong Arab opposition to a complete taking of Iraq or an invasion of the capital (still seen as brother nation of the Arabs) by the infidel Americans, also, most Arabs are Sunni muslims, and leaving Saddam in place promised the prospect of him taking care of the numerically strong potential opposition in Iraq, which were the Shia, plus shia Iran which always has had strained relations to the sunni Arabs. It was about maintaining the kind of stability that was lost once saddam was removed from power in 2003. As we all know, since then we have chaos in Iraq, and religious fanatism dominating.

Not before some time later, Wolfowitz and two or three others sat down and authored a paper that called for a second war on Iraq to remove Saddam and bring the flow of oil in that region under strategic control of the US, especially by economically controlling the keypoints in the economic network in the region, and Iraq. the massive engagements of Halliburton and associated subcontractors needs to be seen in this light, too. It was also to retake ground from French business actors who in the past years had taken over the once dominant role of anglosaxon oil companies in Iraq. This war was planned roughly ten years before the actual war in 2003 brake lose. It was willed the day Bush got elected. The plan dissapeared in a drawer during the Clinto years, and reappeared again immediately when Bush was elected, together with the gang that had written it. the war on Iraq was wanted since long BEFORE 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened, which was a happy thing, becasue it boosted Bush'S approval ratings that before were on a record low, he was openly mocked about and we still remember when on the way to his inauguration, I think, his limousine had stood several minutes in the rain because there was so much protest and laughter in the streets. At that time Bush was more seen as the king's jester than the president. 9/11 had two consequences.

First, the plan to attack Iraq had to be delayed, because Afghanistan puashed itself into the focus of attention violently.

Second, 9/11 gave the opportunity to produce a lot of pathetic and patriotic phrases that helped Bush to boost his public recognition and "correct" the broken image of his person. He used the attack not only to justify the reactive war against Afghanistan, but to create a mood in the public that saw the war on Iraq as justified as well and (wrongly) assumed that the Iraq war and Saddam were in any way linked to 9/11 and al Quaeda.

Afghanistan was a war of need. Iraq was the war of choice and desire. Afghnaistan served both as an unwelcomed and welcomed delay to the original plan to attack Iraq anyway. It delayed the war, but it also assisted in creating the public support for it.

All this is no consoiraton theory, but historic truth open to verifcation. It is jnicely summarised in thos docu I repeatedly pointed at in the past years, but do once again. not becasue the findings in it are unique, they are not, but because the docu excels in presenting the obvious truths that already were known long before the film was published (and became a big success). That way it is not so much brilliant in being investigative, but in presenting and summarising the back then already known background information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_end_in_sight