Home
Obama still thinks Iraq is good investment for his future
By Fateh Abdulsalam
Azzaman, December 15, 2011
U.S. occupation of Iraq has always been a profitable commodity for U.S. President Barack Obama.
Obama, who came to power in January 2009, snatched his position by raising “withdrawal from Iraq” as a slogan in his presidential campaign.
Today he is back to the same slogan, by turning his withdrawal from Iraq into an electoral issue.
Obama’s invitation for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to visit the White House was part of his effort to remind U.S. electorate that he is a man who honors his promises – again he is using Iraq as an electoral chip.
But Obama’s opponents from the Republican Party have other cards to play, namely courting Israel, which many believe is a better card to play in the U.S.
But let us turn to the situation on the ground, the Iraqi battlefield. Does the U.S. think that the wars it has waged – among the one in Iraq – are futile and achieved nothing?
Has the U.S. learned the lesson not to repeat such wars and do its best to avoid them, deploying diplomacy to settle political crises, particularly in the Middle East?
These are legitimate questions if we want to know whether the U.S. has peace or war as part of its agenda.
The wars the U.S. waged in the aftermath of 9/11 were surprising in the sense of their immediacy, lack of right reparation and the use of false justifications.
The long time it has taken U.S. troops fighting both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars shows the target of waging such devastating wars was not to reinstate peace and justice and then return home.
These wars were part of a strategic agenda to deploy U.S. troops in new areas and acquire more influence and advantages which Washington did not have before.
Reports of casualties were censored and their influence on public opinion got lost amid the power media and politics exercise in the U.S.
As for material losses, these were only taken into consideration when new taxes were imposed and little attention was paid to crooked methods reconstruction companies in Iraq, like Halliburton pursued.
By the way Halliburton’s chief executive was reported to be Dick Cheney, former U.S. vice-president and Iraq War godfather.
A decade, the approximate time the U.S. has spent in each of Iraq and Afghanistan, is enough to build countries from scratch and not engage in laughable reconstruction projects.
How come that a superpower like the U.S. could not even solve an issue like electricity in Iraq and now leaves a country plunged into darkness.
The U.S. leaves and Obama sort of celebrates end of mission while Iraq bleeds from the deep wounds it inflicted on a nation of 30 million people.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been either killed or wounded, millions uprooted and the county is torn by sectarian and ethnic strife, and still Obama thinks he has more to invest in it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
By Fateh Abdulsalam
Azzaman, December 15, 2011
U.S. occupation of Iraq has always been a profitable commodity for U.S. President Barack Obama.
Obama, who came to power in January 2009, snatched his position by raising “withdrawal from Iraq” as a slogan in his presidential campaign.
Today he is back to the same slogan, by turning his withdrawal from Iraq into an electoral issue.
Obama’s invitation for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to visit the White House was part of his effort to remind U.S. electorate that he is a man who honors his promises – again he is using Iraq as an electoral chip.
But Obama’s opponents from the Republican Party have other cards to play, namely courting Israel, which many believe is a better card to play in the U.S.
But let us turn to the situation on the ground, the Iraqi battlefield. Does the U.S. think that the wars it has waged – among the one in Iraq – are futile and achieved nothing?
Has the U.S. learned the lesson not to repeat such wars and do its best to avoid them, deploying diplomacy to settle political crises, particularly in the Middle East?
These are legitimate questions if we want to know whether the U.S. has peace or war as part of its agenda.
The wars the U.S. waged in the aftermath of 9/11 were surprising in the sense of their immediacy, lack of right reparation and the use of false justifications.
The long time it has taken U.S. troops fighting both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars shows the target of waging such devastating wars was not to reinstate peace and justice and then return home.
These wars were part of a strategic agenda to deploy U.S. troops in new areas and acquire more influence and advantages which Washington did not have before.
Reports of casualties were censored and their influence on public opinion got lost amid the power media and politics exercise in the U.S.
As for material losses, these were only taken into consideration when new taxes were imposed and little attention was paid to crooked methods reconstruction companies in Iraq, like Halliburton pursued.
By the way Halliburton’s chief executive was reported to be Dick Cheney, former U.S. vice-president and Iraq War godfather.
A decade, the approximate time the U.S. has spent in each of Iraq and Afghanistan, is enough to build countries from scratch and not engage in laughable reconstruction projects.
How come that a superpower like the U.S. could not even solve an issue like electricity in Iraq and now leaves a country plunged into darkness.
The U.S. leaves and Obama sort of celebrates end of mission while Iraq bleeds from the deep wounds it inflicted on a nation of 30 million people.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been either killed or wounded, millions uprooted and the county is torn by sectarian and ethnic strife, and still Obama thinks he has more to invest in it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
