At the dawn of the twentieth of March 2003 the former US President “George W. Bush” administration began a military aggression against Iraq, it has been able in the ninth of April of occupation of it completely. On the occasion of the thirteenth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq, we aim in this first anniversary to address the motives cited by the US administration to occupy Iraq and demonstrate its fragility, and secondly the analysis of the real motives behind this occupation.
On the twentieth of January 2001, “George W. Bush” came to the presidency of the White House to shape his administration of neo cons and ultra-nationalists who sought to implement the “Defence Planning Guide” which its policies are set in February 1992, and which is serving to prevent the emergence of a new international competitor. This requires the occupation of Iraq. To achieve this aim, the US administration pushed several justifications for the occupation, the first justification : a relationship of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and its association with the events of the eleventh of September 2001 AD, this justification is not logical and difficult to rely on it since the former Iraqi regime is secular regime and does not meet completely from the intellectual and realistic aspect with al-Qaeda. The relationship between them is hostile relationship. To view again, said, “Ron Sescand” in his book “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush White House, and the experience of Paul O’Neill,” issued in 2004, citing by the former Secretary of the Treasury, “Paul O’Neill,” saying that he saw a secret dossier titled Plan for post-Saddam Iraq after two weeks of receipt of the office at the beginning of 2001 also found the aggression on Iraq has always been a theme in all the meetings of the national Security Council – specifically the meetings he attended.
The second justification is the possession of the former Iraqi regime’s chemical and biological weapons, this justification is not enough for the occupation of Iraq, because most Middle Eastern countries possess this type of weapon such as Iran , Syria and Libya, and to accept this justification requires to impose on the administration, “George W. Bush’s” to wage war on All Middle Eastern countries that possess it , not only the aggression on Iraq the third justification for the occupation of Iraq was that the administration of the “George W. Bush” believes that the former Iraqi regime poses a real military threat to its neighbors. This justification, in fact, is very weak, Iraq is , a result of its occupation of Kuwait in the second of August 1990, was under the imposition of international sanctions and economic blockade and continued until the occupation .The issue that Iraq is a threat to, how is that? The sanctions and blockade weakened the Iraqi regime significantly, let alone militarily weakened and does not possess weapons of mass destruction to threaten its neighbors by it .
While the fourth justification was not made by the former US President “George W. Bush” administration, but his opponents, who insist that the oil is the real motive for the occupation of Iraq. This motivation is also logically unacceptable to launch a war of aggression leading to the occupation of Iraq. If it is intended that the previous US administration was seeking to secure oil supplies or reduce the price of oil. Oil is secured , and specifically from Iraq, under the oil-for-food memorandum , Iraq was selling half of its oil exports to the United States until one month before the aggression.
Common sense of things says there are justification other than those referred to above are pushed the USA for the occupation of Iraq, and the reasons are as follows:
First Draft for a New American Century:
The neoconservatives who are happy with the political and military transformations the world has seen that occurred between 1989 m -1991 m, the first year will symbolize for the fall of the Berlin wall and German reunification, while the second year symbolizes the end of the alliance , “Warsaw” and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. From the viewpoint of the neo – conservatives to overthrow the communist system in Europe it was the result of a combination of the “military strength and moral clarity” and can repeat this act in other parts of the world, especially with political systems that defy from their point of view also -the United States of America. That is why they were interested in the same degree to strengthen American hegemony over the world with the feeling that they were being affected to a large degree by the reluctance of US policy through the states of Bill Clinton.
They feel that it is necessary to re-launch the era of US stability, and that it is the right of the United States and the duty to impose order and “refines” bad guys around the world, because it is the only country in the international community, which has the power and “ethical authority to do this role, and Iraq under former regime had seemed the ideal candidate to achieve these catastrophic vision. From the viewpoint of the neo-conservatives such as “Paul Wolfowitz” and “Richard Armitage” and “Douglas Feith” to overthrow the regime of the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is moral project of worthy achievement. And which facilitated to the neo cons this fall that Saddam Hussein’s regime was very weak from the military point of view and is not acceptable on the Arab, regional and international level, and it is the viewpoint of the neo-conservatives, too, if a fast military victory has been achieved by USA and followed by re-economic and political construction process at the same pace of speed the , it will produce a new Iraqi political system that its democracy and prosperity will silence all the criticism of American unilateralism and disregard of international law and work outside the United Nations framework. And the world will conclude that the US offer to take over the world’s policeman task was real and credible and useful enough to renounce those little nagging doubts about the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq.
Second: the neo-conservatives and the Israeli Likud:
Another reason of the fact that Iraq is an ideal target for neo-conservatives, which it was considered the greatest danger for Israel, which was bombed by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein by missiles during the second Gulf War in 1991; Many of the neo-conservative are Zionists and have strong ties with the Likud Party in Israel.
And a book America Alone for its authors Stefan Hapler and Jonathan Clarke , experts in foreign policy, introduces an interpretation and how the new group kidnapped policy in the United States under the pretext of combating terrorism outwardly, while the aim is to reshape the Middle East in order to remain a circle in the orbit of American politics and responsive to its hints and directions, and receptive to the idea of American intervention in the internal affairs of their countries and receptive to the idea of preventive America’s wars.
We note in this regard, to the “Defence Planning Guide”, “prepared by Dick Cheney and his colleagues in 1992, before the eight years of his arrival to his former post as deputy to US President, and he and his fellow neo-conservatives chose Iraq as a goal to apply that philosophy to the service of the security of Israel, and to turn Iraq a permanent military base for the United States in the region.
But most importantly of all, it is to achieve the dream of the biblical victory to the king of Babylon, and the destruction of his throne, and then kill him and shed the blood of his people, and then realize the old Zionist project which provides for the fragmentation of Babylon, and its neighboring countries to be in the form of rival mini-states and entities to achieve the great wish of Israel . Thus, Israel is able to achieve most of the biblical and religious, political and strategic dreams, without shedding a drop of one Jewish blood .
this fact was confirmed by the Gen. (Anthony Zinni), former president of US Central Command, which carried out the occupation of Iraq when he said: “The Jewish intellectuals known as the neoconservatives are those who ignited the war in Iraq to serve Israel,” and identified three prominent names , and they are (Paul Wolfowitz) US Deputy Secretary of Defense for planning during the occupation of Iraq, he has already participated in the drafting of the document known as the “Bush doctrine,” which summarizes the pre-emptive war adopted by the US president. The second Jewish character , (Douglas Feith) , he is in charge of the defense policy during the occupation of Iraq, the third jewish personality of the neo-conservatives who was mentioned by General Zinni, is (Richard Perle) who has served as chairman of the Defense Policy Board of the US Department of Defense from July 2001 to 2003.
He has written (Ari Shavit) in the newspaper “Haaretz” in the 15 April 2004: “The Iraq war was the brainchild of twenty-five people from the neo-conservatives, most of them Jews” and in an article by the Israeli writer Uri Avnery titled “After the expiry of the night.” specifying the group that initiated the war and the invasion of Iraq as “a mixture of religious Christian extremists and neo-conservatives of the Jews.” those calls for the war on Iraq since long time before the September 2001 attacks, until a matter of Iraq has become from fixed ideas they have. William Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan who are intellectuals of the solid power that draws the Bush administration plans wrote a book before the start of operations against Iraq, entitled “The way begins in Baghdad,” it said: “The Iraq war is a challenge testing beyond the Cold War.”
He wrote «Kenneth Adelman» an activist of the new -conservatives and an employee in the Pentagon , worked with the Defense Policy Board until 2005, a famous editorial in the newspaper “Washington Post” in February 2002, in which he said: “I believe that the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a very ease. They saw in the changing Baghdad’s regime as appropriate circumstance to demonstrate the validity of their logic, they declare their notice that it says: From now and on America is the supreme power on the planet, and it has the power and the duty to redraw the map of the world after the Cold War.
In the context of Iraq, they were convinced that the fall of former president Saddam Hussein’s regime will change the image and the status of the Arab region, and enable the US influence in absolute terms. They are then taken from the lie of “weapons of mass destruction” as a inspiring pretext , even though they know that Saddam Hussein does not have these weapons, and what they had to convince the American public with the entitlement of this lie, a noisy media campaign was driven and concentrated for it networks, institutions and centers.
Third: the emergence of China as a future economic force :
It can say that the last decade of the twentieth century was an American decade at all levels, and with the beginning of the third millennium, it began to rise the features of a multi polar system as a result of the rise of developing economies, most notably China’s economy. It is true that competitors in this system were not strong enough to challenge the American hegemony, but at the end of the nineties of the elapsed century, anyone who owns a small calculator in his pocket was able to know, and with alarge confidence, when will reach that point.
The continuation of the annual economic growth of China of 10 percent until 2025, will become the world’s second largest economy, in addition to being a major military power. It also will be the largest importer of natural resources, and the world’s largest producer of environmental pollution. ” If the growth rate continues that way until the year 2040, that would give China the a GDP growth equivalent to the GDP of the United States of America. This is because developed economies such as the US economy is difficult to achieve annual growth of more than 4 percent. This means that the USA to stand alone in the site’s sole superpower will end after about a long one generation, unless it can find ways to maintain the advanced position. To meet this challenge, the neoconservatives had carefully studied the weaknesses in the Chinese economy and concluded that the dependence on foreign oil; and that comes mostly from the Arabian Gulf states and this is the most prominent landmarks of its weaknesses . So they decided to occupy Iraq.
The presence of permanent US military bases in the Arabian Gulf so the US can, if necessary, cut China’s imports of oil and strangle its economy, despite the Gulf welcoming for the US troops to force the former Iraqi dictator to withdraw from Kuwait, the Arab Gulf states were not wishing for the survival of those forces on their land for fear the presence of US forces undermining the foundations of their rule. In order to ensure the stability of the Arab Gulf, ally of the United States of America, and here also the idea of the occupation of Iraq has come and the toppling of former President Saddam Hussein’s regime and put in its place an obedient and pro-Government of the United States and transfer the US military bases to the Iraq. Then the new conservatives can to proceed with their project by planting American democratic values in the Arab world (which will make the feelings of Iraqis, according to their imaginations, friendlier toward Israel) and to bring American values to the Iraqis, even by force of arms, and they will adopt it eagerly and would turn to the Democrats , lovers of Israel and believers of a free market economy. At the same time , the ultranationalists can to own permanent military bases in the Gulf to prevent oil from reaching China at any crisis.
Thus, the neo-conservatives and ultra-nationalists, who gathered together to be a project organization for a New American Century, that Iraq is the suitable country of the occupation , and according for the conservative, the American occupation to Iraq comes in the context of their loyalty to Israel, while the nationalists were rushed to the occupation of Iraq, fearing of the growing strength of China . And here is Iraq and its people in the thirteenth anniversary of the occupation is paying the price for the radical vision of the right of the US Republican Party. It was spread on the Iraqi map since the occupation, and to this day wounds that do not heal and may be not healed. And nothing has been achieved from the vision of the neoconservatives for Iraq after Saddam Hussein, there is no democracy , nor economic prosperity and no harmony of a community, but a divided country , sharp horizontal and vertical division.
Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies