Monday, June 27, 2011

Hey, but didn't the United States install a democracy in Iraq?


Every so often, I come across the refrain that the United States' behavior in Iraq demonstrates a commitment on the part of Americans to democracy. It's wrong, it's easy to deal with but I might as well respond to it somewhere in some detail.

The United States has one over-arching objective in the Middle East, to sustain Israel's strategic position for as long a term as possible. This is what Americans and westerners describe as "stability". The United States opposes local control over foreign policy for all people in the greater Middle East other than Jewish people in Palestine.

The United States, as late as July 2008, believed the US occupation of Iraq would improve Israel's security position.
Livni: We agreed to prepare a list including the needs of your security apparatuses to be able to enforce internal security, but you added a third party on the borders.

Rice: Let us not leave the issues and talk about potential threat. At this time there is no threat from the east because our forces are in Iraq and will stay there for a long time.

Saeb: For a very, very long time.
Israel's then prime minister Olmert in November 2006 believed the occupation of Iraq brought "stability" to the region.
Thank you very much. President -- this is nothing to take an edge to the very accurate analysis that you made with regard to these big issues. We in the Middle East have followed the American policy in Iraq for a long time, and we are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability which the great operation of America in Iraq brought to the Middle East. We pray and hope that this policy will be fully successful so that this stability which was created for all the moderate countries in the Middle East will continue.
For Americans and Israelis, "moderate countries" means members of the US/Zionist colonial structure. It means Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others that are accountable to the US rather than to their own people. Iraq was invaded so that Chalabi could join the other pro-US dictators of the US/Zionist colonial structure as unaccountable dictator. At tremendous expense to themselves, the people of Iraq thwarted this US objective and instead have created a government that is increasingly independent of the United States and that has potential to be fully independent relatively soon.

If and when Iraq becomes independent, it will not be considered a "moderate" country by people like Olmert or Barack Obama. Its policies will reflect the belief of the vast majority of its citizens that Israel is an historic injustice that should be corrected just as the injustice of Apartheid was corrected in Southern Africa.

The United States never intended, and if its efforts are successful still does not intend for Iraq to be an popularly accountable democracy. The George Bush in 2003 intended and Barack Obama today intends for Iraq, by one mechanism or another, to be unable to enact policies that threaten the viability of Israel. Their intention is that Iraq be a moderate country. Moderate like the other dictatorships of the US/Zionist colonial structure that the US was supporting at that time and is supporting now.

2 comments:

George Carty said...

Many of Israel's supporters make the argument that "if Middle Eastern countries became democracies they'd make peace with Israel, because democracies don't fight wars against other democracies" or that "the Arabs only hate Israel because the dictators brainwash them to, in order to distract attention from their own failings".

In fact I'd suggest that the Arab-Israeli conflict is probably one of the best examples against this "democratic peace" theory.

Anonymous said...

Great post!

I just found your blog. I am going to spend sometime reading back all the older posts.