THE AMERICAN people have become wary of their country’s military adventurism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Yet, successive American administrations invaded and continue to invade other countries like Iraq, Grenada, etc., to satisfy their own selfish and greedy ends and not the ends of their people.
How does exclusion of the people’s input in this infamous American democracy configure in this scenario? Is it really democracy when exclusion of the people’s voice becomes the norm? Clearly, the people are not variables in their government’s equation to invade or not to invade. And it is this same U.S. that preaches to the world about democracy, and portrays and projects itself as the bulwark of democracy, as a model of democracy; some model.
Last Wednesday, the last U.S. combat troops of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division left Iraq two weeks before their scheduled departure on August 31, 2010; and seven years and five months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. But let me remind you that in May 2003, President Bush announced the end of major combat; that was a lie then, as combat is now coming to an end, or is it really?

Quote: ‘…it is this same U.S. that preaches to the world about democracy, and portrays and projects itself as the bulwark of democracy, as a model of democracy; some model’
Pull Quote: ‘Make no mistake… the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not for altruistic reasons. The invasion fulfills all the requirements of satisfying self-interest concomitant with the views of the Monroe Doctrine, the Woodrow Wilson formula, and the Eisenhower Doctrine, all concluding that the U.S. needs to dominate the world’

The Huffington Post reported that President Barack Obama, through an e-mail, indicated that 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq on an advise-and-assist role until the end of 2011. Well, this ‘advise-and-assist’ activity resonates with the vernacular of the Cold War era. Make no mistake about the intent of this latest withdrawal of American troops. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not for altruistic reasons. The invasion fulfills all the requirements of satisfying self-interest concomitant with the views of the Monroe Doctrine, the Woodrow Wilson formula, and the Eisenhower Doctrine, all concluding that the U.S. needs to dominate the world.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a colonial war then, and at 2010, the invasion remains true to the essence of its original thinkers, a colonial war. The people of this planet better understand that the U.S. never gets involved with something, unless there is a greater advantage to itself; the U.S., if not plainly, certainly in a camouflaged way, wants to introduce American law, American order, American civilization, and the American flag in distant lands; this is how Senator Albert Beveridge in 1898 saw American adventurism to imperialize the world.
For this reason, let us cut out all the political charades in humanizing American aid, American invasion, and American advise-and-assist paraphernalia. They are just not true. Look at the way the U.S treats Pakistan, one of its strongest allies in the fight against terrorism; as Pakistan weeps, the U.S. provides crumbs to the flood victims in one-fifth of the country’s flooded regions.

And people should note that one of Obama’s Presidential pledges was to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, and the President continues to fulfill this promise. The U.S. invasion began with about 150,000 troops, and increased in 2007 to 171,000 during President Bush’s surge, then under Obama’s watch reduced to 98,000 in February 2010, and now to 50,000 in August 2010. 50,000 will remain! Why so many? Are Americans indispensable to Iraq’s development?
John Pilger in the New Statesman on August 4, 2010 reported that the American war on Iraq brought forth numerous unsavory outcomes: one million deaths, four million Iraqis fled their homes; most of the children continue to experience malnutrition and trauma.; cancer prevalence rates at Fallujah, Najaf, and Basrah are greater than those at Hiroshima; Defence Secretary Liam Fox reported that British forces utilized 1.3 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in 2003; and both American and British forces employed toxic cluster bombs. These are serious acts of international criminality. But who would dare touch the mighty in the western world?
And even today, some people still ask why the American war on Iraq? Today, we know there is no evidence of Iraq’s connection with the ‘9/11’ terror attack on the U.S. and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Some people say that oil is not the reason. Let’s scrutinize that claim.
At present, only 14 countries globally produce oil supplies in excess of 10 billion barrels.  Saudi Arabia is number one with 265.3 billion barrels, then Iraq with 115.0 billion barrels. In 2008, Iraq was the 13th world’s largest oil supplier, and has the third largest petroleum reserves just following Saudi Arabia and Canada (U.S.EIA).  It may be useful to know that 90% of Iraq is unexplored for oil, since there are deep oil-bearing formations principally in the Western Desert region. This area may have the possibilities of producing an additional 100 billion barrels.  Iraq also can boast of having the lowest oil production costs globally.  Iraq also contains about 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Are these not significant incentives to lure the mighty from the western metropolis?
Some time ago, I wrote: “The U.S. war on Iraq is not a new phenomenon; similar imperialist designs were previously advanced. After World War I, Winston Churchill had envisioned a new Middle East empire involving the control of western Asia which includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Palestine; do these countries produce familiar ringing echoes?”
John Pilger noted way back in 2003 that there is a continuing pre-existing strategy to ensure that America dominates global oil supplies. And the withdrawal of the last combat troops last Wednesday now paves the way for a new era of the U.S. colonial war – the scramble of America and other international oil companies for Iraq’s oil. The U.S. colonial war has designs, a design to give America dominance over Iraq’s oil supplies and eventually Middle East oil supplies, and a design to control a Middle East Empire.
(Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com themisirpost.wordpress.com)