FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Recommendation No. 80

While almost the entire world other than President George W. Bush now views the American invasion and occupation of Iraq as a catastrophic failure, there is one notable exception.

During a visit to Washington last month, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while affirming his categorical support for Mr. Bush’s Iraq war policy and his confrontational strategy toward Iran, said, according to Ha’aretz (Nov. 14), that “the Iraq war had a dramatic positive effect on security and stability in the Middle East as well as strategic importance from Israel’s perspective.” (Ominously for the future, Mr. Olmert added with respect to his meeting with Mr. Bush, “Iran’s role in the conversation was quite clear, very serious and very significant, and I left the meeting with an outstanding feeling.”)

No one should be surprised by “Israel’s perspective”. In their now famous “Clean Break” policy paper, written in 1996 for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israel-First neocons who were to be the principal advocates and masterminds of Mr. Bush’s Iraq war cited the destruction of Iraq as a major Israeli strategic objective. In its geostrategic position, Israel would understandably view as undesirable the existence in its region of any Arab or Muslim state which was strong and independent, rather than intimidated by and subservient to Israel/America. From an Israeli security perspective, it would clearly be highly desirable for any such state to be neutered (like Egypt) and, if possible, fragmented into mutually hostile pieces.

Even before the invasion, it was widely understood that the principal motivation for the invasion was not oil — there is no evidence of behind-the-scenes agitation or pressure from international oil companies in favor of war — but, rather, Israel. In pre-war polls, Israel was the only country in the world (other than the United States) where a majority of the population favored the war.

Iraq has now been effectively destroyed and may be fragmenting into pieces. It is therefore no wonder that Mr. Olmert should be delighted with how the war has turned out and should wish to confirm publicly how “thankful” Israel is to the United States and Mr. Bush. His wisdom and good taste in doing so on American soil when most Americans are less delighted with how the war has turned out might be questioned. However, his genuine appreciation for what the United States has accomplished for Israel’s benefit may suggest a better “way forward” than the 79 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

Imagine this Recommendation No. 80: The President should explain honestly what the principal objective in invading Iraq really was, point out that, in terms of this objective, the political, economic and social collapse and chaos which the war and occupation have achieved in Iraq already constitute an outstanding “success”, unfurl a huge “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner on the White House and bring the troops home in triumph as rapidly as the necessary transport can be arranged.

This recommendation might well appeal to Mr. Bush, since it would offer him the only realistic chance to claim “success” before he leaves office — presumably preferable in his eyes to his apparent current strategy of stalling (at enormous human cost to others) for the next two years so as to leave the recognition of (and, he must hope, blame for) “failure” or “defeat” to his successor. He could also be confident that no one in either American political party or in the American mainstream media would criticize him for having lied to the American people and the world as to his true motivation for invading Iraq if he made clear that he did so for the benefit of Israel.

The only potential drawback if this recommendation were to be implemented would be that it would free up the American military to give Mr. Olmert another “outstanding feeling” by attacking for Israel’s benefit one or more other states on Israel’s hit list, starting with Iran and Syria. Perhaps, next time, the American military, who don’t have to stand for election and can therefore afford to put America first, will “just say no”.

JOHN V. WHITBECK, an international lawyer, is author of “The World According to Whitbeck”. He can be reached at: jvwhitbeck@awalnet.net.sa

 

 

More articles by:

John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who as advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.

September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savoir
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
Farhang Jahanpour
Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Sandy Tolan
After Oslo: How Peace Became a Dirty Word in the Middle East
Nino Pagliccia
The United States’ Disregard for International Law is a Menace to Venezuela and Latin America
Peter Certo
Nobody in the White House is Part of The Resistance
Fizz Perkal
Prison Labor is Slave Labor and We Should Get Rid of It
RS Ahthion
Two Long-Standing American Traditions: Committing War Crimes & Ignoring International Law
Ralph Nader
Where is the Democrats’ Contract with America 2018?
George Wuerthner
The Threat to Montana’s Wilderness
Rev. William Alberts
The Normalizing of Immorality
Chuck Collins
The Wealth Hiding in Your Neighborhood
Russell Mokhiber
Facebook Dostoevsky Postman and the Demise of Deliberative Democracy
Arnold August
Cuba’s ‘Sonic Attacks’ vs Edinburgh University: The 40% Mystery
Luke Ruediger
Smoke, Haze and Hypocrisy at the BLM
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Worth $1 Trillion, So Why is It Robbing Taxpayers?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail