To judge if there has been ’success in Iraq’ one would need to understand what the underlying objective was of those who worked so hard to bring the attack into being.
It is reasonable to assume that the prime objective was not because of the threat of (so called) WMD. This tissue of lies was patently cooked-up to attempt justify an otherwise unjustifiable attack.
It is reasonable to assume it was not carried-out to serve any interest of the civilian population of Iraq. They are in a manifold worse situation now, as a result of our attacking, and we cannot even answer how many innocents have died as a result (the murder and manslaughter of between 110,000 IBC to 1,100,000 Lancet).
If the object is thought to be related to ‘the war on terrorism’ this is manifestly false. Any form or threat of terrorism has only occurred as a result of attacking Iraq.
We can assume that these solemn truths will never be fully or broadly recognised because the resulting reparations due to and deserved by the people of Iraq would bankrupt us.
If the objective was related to the interests of Private Military Contractors, the complex of industries supplying Military requirements, oil production interests, central bankers and such; all their interests have been served, and served at the expense of the taxpaying public along with the populous of Iraq since and into the future. It has been a successful enterprise.
If the objective was to strengthen the security of Israel in a Middle East hostile to their presence and actions, as argued by Mark Weber here in: ‘Iraq-A War For Israel’
http://bit.ly/ccII7m then the outcome has been to reduce the threat to Israel considerably.
If the objective was to break a middle east nation that, whilst held together by a grossly unpalatable and harsh regime, did have a high standard of education, health care, women’s rights, self-determination and enterprise, a nation that had the potential to utilise its own petrochemical (and water) resource and enter the world-stage of developed nations, the attack and subsequent CPA mandate has achieved this aim.
If the objective was to demonstrate that disobedience towards the US/CIA imperialistic interests, such as that demonstrated by Iraq under Saddam Hussain, will not pass unpunished, that aim has been succinctly dealt.
For all those involved the British and American attack of Iraq has been a failure. But for all those who have stood-by whilst these events have taken place and subsequently reaped the rewards it certainly can be painted as a success.
But; who knows what is in a man’s heart?
I fancy that, however it may have been achieved, GW Bush was steered absolutely by those who advised him, those who were also a part of the political lobby group known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
To read those named on the PNAC founding Statement of Principles is illuminating:
http://bit.ly/9gOQcJ – The names included Jeb Bush (brother of GW), Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Scooter), Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz amongst others.
PNAC’s stated aim was to make the case and rally support for: “American global leadership, [to] shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire”.
To President Clinton they wrote: ‘The only acceptable strategy is one that [removes] Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
http://bit.ly/a82Sr9
In their report ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’
http://bit.ly/bU2a0F (PDF file) they wrote: ‘Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (Report-P51 PDF-P63)
On the 11th of September 2001 Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, wrote in The Washington Post a piece titled ‘We Must Fight This War’ proclaiming “an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor”
http://bit.ly/9HvCSZ
It is against this background that we must comprehend Britain’s part is cast. It would be clear that the US was primed to react to the attack of 9/11 in the manner prescribed by those who dominated the political administration and in a manner that had too been expressed with resounding clarity.
For Blair here was a simple choice. Would we have stopped them? I doubt it. Would the world be a better place with the US operating in isolation, without seeking any backing from the UN, without the veil of credence offered by its old comrade and diplomatic good cop. Take Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, water-boarding, torture by proxy, shock and awe, black sites, depleted uranium, cluster bombs for some examples and imagine how the US would have behaved if utterly unrestrained.
If Blair had stood-back and demanded a clear UN mandate to attack, how would the situation have stood if then Britain was immediately struck by its own ‘Pearl Harbour’ and perhaps one of even more devastating effect?
So what has the lad from the Emerald Isle got to say on this matter? "Eurosceptics have been harping on for decades about how the EU is an assault on national sovereignty" damn and darn those silly indecisive sceptics, always 'harping on' about disundat they are.
