Escalation in IraqEscalation of the war in Iraq? Why does Bush not even consider "phased redeployment," a polite word for withdrawal? That's how I began The Selfish Class , describing the Roman Senatorial class, but it certainly has a contemporary ring, doesn't it? GW insists on escalation , not withdrawal, because the people behind him fit the above description. There is no way that he, or they, but especially that faceless "they," will agree to relinquish their hold on Iraq, such as it is. Why, considering the chaos, the killing, the sectarian violence, the indiscriminate attacks, not only on American troops but even more on other Iraqis, why does anyone want to stay there so much that they advocate an escalation? Why does Bush insist? Why do the people behind him insist? They have their reasons--and so does Bush, but his have more to do with ego and political calculation. The American and British elite want the US to do everything in its power to stay in Iraq, and to force the situation to their liking, hence the attempt at escalation. Since there are only so many troops readily available, the escalation has to be pretty small potatoes compared to the escalation in Vietnam, back in 1964-69 (from 16,000 troops to 553,000). Bush is only ordering 21,500 more troops into Iraq. What are the real reasons for escalation, then? In occupied Iraq, the national parliament is putting the finishing touches on an oil law. While news sources report that there is disagreement on how the oil revenue will be distributed (Shiites and Kurds don't want to share it with the Sunnis, who don't have oil in their part of the country), only more obscure sources, such as the British Independent report on the substance of the oil law. It will throw open the largest unexploited reserves of oil, possibly the largest reserves in the world, to American oil companies at firesale prices. The law sets up Production Sharing Agreements, which are frowned upon by the other established oil nations. Those PSA's will give the private contracting company 75% of the profits, until it deems that it has repaid all costs, then a 20% share after that, double the customary 10%, and the PSA's can be for as long as 30 years. For more on this Click here for source. No wonder Bush and his backers want to stay in Iraq, and no wonder they set up a weak "sovereign" government, since only a "sovereign entity," has the legal right to virtually give away its resources. According to international law, an occupying power cannot. So, escalation is really because Bush does not want to admit failure, and because failure would let slip the holy grail of oil men--the largest reserves of oil on the planet. It is unsurprising that Bush could find a general like Petraeus, who would be willing to gamble his career even on an adventure as ill-conceived as this one. There is always someone in the wings who is ready to take the main chance.
It's like the Byzantine general who, faced with execution, accepted the challenge of teaching a horse to talk. He had one year, after which he would be condemned to die if he didn't succeed. As he explained: in one year he could die, the horse could die, the Emperor could die--or, he could teach the horse to talk. This minor escalation of forces demonstrates a number of things about the US Empire. One is that US resources are extremely limited--otherwise Bush would send in many more troops. As it is, many military experts are saying that the escalation will push US armed forces to its limits, and maybe beyond. It also demonstrates that the emperor can apparently disregard virtually everyone in the country--except the small group behind him--and apparently that the troops will follow orders. The escalation also shows the logic of empire; if you cannot continue to attack and prevail, then you are finished. At least that's how Bush sees it; failure in Iraq, he claims, would lead to world-wide disaster. His prediction echoes Johnson and Nixon on Vietnam, just substitute radical Islam for Communism. Vietnam just joined the WTO, and has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Actually, Iraq and the US would be a lot better off if the US just left. Iraq would still have major problems, but at least the US wouldn't be contributing to making them worse. The US would temporarily "lose face," but I don't see that as a bad thing, at all. The US could spend its huge wealth on eradicating poverty at home and abroad, instead of on "weapons of mass destruction," and the Iraqis would have to sort out their problems on their own. But the logic of empire doesn't make the above likely. The selfish class noted at the beginning of this essay, has tremendous vested interests in pursuing empire, be it oil or global market share, or defense industry profits. Even when the US is eventually forced to leave Iraq (it is not a question of "if"), the monied class will press for further adventures, because their wealth is at stake, never mind that the American empire is already nearly bankrupt. The US will keep on asserting its power around the world until it is so indebted to the rest of the world that its creditors finally, in frustration, will have to pull the plug. That may be our "476," the fall of Rome. |
