Reply #24: like Vietnam, there was no "right" way to invade Iraq

[yurbud]

In Vietnam, the smart thing to do would have been to back the anti-colonial forces so we could influence them in directions in line with our interests. Even if the Communists gained a foothold short-term, letting people go their own way would eventually work out long term, including for our selfish economic interests as happened after Vietnam anyway (I think I'm wearing some sneakers made there).

On Iraq, a subtler hand and someone smart enough not to drag along stooges like Chalabi might have muted some of the resistance, but not if the ultimate goal was the same: to give Iraq's oil concessions to our oil companies on terms those companies dictate and to establish permanent bases to invade, influence, and intimidate other oil producing countries in the region. As Gen. Jay Garner said in a BBC interview, Iraq was meant to be a "coaling station," a military hub, the way the Philippines was through most of the 20th century. If you are screwing people, they eventually notice.

The sad thing is, even if the Bushies succeeded in their imperial plan, the likelihood of that trickling down to the rest of us is less than zero. Before World War II, the United States was the Saudi Arabia of oil. That didn't seem to translate into any benefit to the average American during the Depression. Even if we controlled the majority of the world's oil, that would only benefit those oil companies.

If we were just worried about access to oil, we would simply do what China did with Iran and the tar sands of Canada--buy them.