Books like No War

Essays on the Iraq War5 May 2012 I should open by suggesting that this book was not actually written by Naomi Klein, and I am glad that I checked up on this before I wrote this review. The main reason is because it originally was supposed to be an essay that Klein wrote on the Iraq War, however the problem was that the essay that she wrote was free, and also she was writing the Shock Doctrine at the time which included everything that the essay contained, but in a much more expanded format. I can understand this namely because the Iraq War is really only one element in Klein's criticism of US foreign policy, and it is probably easier to understand the nature of the war in this larger context. As such the publishers included other essays in the work, however it appears that they decided to keep the name, and Klein's authorship on the book, most likely for sales purposes. Now with this out of the way I will discuss the war further, though I would suggest looking at my commentary on The Shock Doctrine because, as I have mentioned above, this is only a small part of US foreign policy. However the war was probably one of the pivotal events that raised the awareness of US policy not just within groups in the United States, but throughout the world. In fact there was quite a lot of opposition to the war to the point that NATO would not even become involved (namely because France and Germany were blatantly opposed to the war). As such a new alliance, the Coalition of the Willing, was formed to fight the war. This coalition, though, was really only formed from the United States and England, with a group of small, almost insignificant, nations involved (and yes, I will include Australia among them). As I look back at the events leading up to the war it really angers me at the almost blasé attitude that the leaders of the United States and England took towards the conduct of this war. Their main argument for war was to disarm Sadam Hussein, but as it turned out there was no need to disarm him because he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, though one can argue that a baseball bat is a weapon of mass destruction. Then there was the argument that he was connected with Al Qaeda, which, once again, was absolute rubbish. However, after the fact, when it was discovered that neither of these presumptions turned out to be true, they fell back on the argument that he was a tyrant that needed to be removed. Hey, there are a lot of tyrants out there, and quite a few of them are in the pocket of the United States. I have spoken elsewhere on the stubborn and disrespectful attitudes of members of the far right, and while they still try to bambozzle us by saying that Bush will be looked upon in history as a great president, I suspect that when we do look back on it we will remember him for two disastrous wars and an economic collapse. It is interesting that the anti-Bush books that I read indicated his complete inability to manage a financial system, and once again this proved to be true when Lehman Brothers collapsed and Bush proceeded to bankrupt America by shifting $700 billion dollars over to the banks. It has been termed as the biggest bank heist in recorded history, and it is something that I will continue to uphold, and surprise, surprise, it didn't actually solve anything, except bankrupting America, and socialising the debts. It is interesting that people who promoted the wonders of a free market economy threw out the rule book at this time and bailed out failed institutions. There is the argument that by allowing them to fail would have set off a much worse financial crisis, but as far as I am concerned it has likely only delayed the inevitable. This, however, is still to be seen. One of the things that came out of this book was the purpose behind the invasion of Iraq. It is clear that it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, or with removing a tyrant, but rather a resource grab. America needs oil to survive, and you will be surprised at how reliant our economy is on oil. When the Middle East turned off the taps in the 1970s the economy of the United State ground to a halt. However, they attempted to tell us that what they wanted to do was to turn Iraq into a modern capitalist society. However this would have all been a lie because the only people that would have benefited from this new Iraq would have been US corporations. It was supposed to be the shock doctrine in operation, with people going to sleep with one government and waking up with another, and then walking out to find a brand spanking new capitalist utopia filled with McDonalds, Apple Stores, and Foot Lockers (with probably a few Westfields thrown in). However that never happened. It just goes to show how blind and foolish the planners of the war were. As it happened, when Sadam fled and the army disbanded, law and order broke down and a period of sustained looting broke out while the US army looked on, helpless. Once the dust settled, they once again thought they were in control, until a truck filled with explosives was parked outside the UN headquarters and detonated. That one attack signalled the beginning of a six year long insurgency that is still going on in parts. After about a year Iraq was on the verge of a civil war, with the Sunnis and the Shiites battling it out for sovereignty over their regions. Elections were held, but a Sunni boycott left parliament in control of the Shiites, so suddenly lots of boxes were lost. They want democracies, but only democracies that elect governments that they like. If the people elect a government that they don't like then democracy has failed. That is not a democracy, or if it is a democracy, it is only one in name only. It is more like an imperial state in which the leaders are hand picked by the Imperial overlords, but the way Napoleon set up his Republics in Western Europe. Then there are the no bid contracts, handed out to select corporations that happened to have a connection to the government. That is more than just war profiteering, that is corruption. One of the companies that benefited big time from the war was Halliburton, a company in which Vice President Dick Cheney was president, whose wife still sat on the board, and between them they owned a substantial interest. The Iraq War was also one of the first modern wars fought using private contractors. Not only were many of the duties of the army contracted out to private corporations (with Halliburton picking up the most juicy contracts) but the US army was supplemented by mercenaries. These mercenaries, surprise, surprise, were not subject to the laws of the United States, and were also paid substantially more than the US soldiers. The US, during this time, faced desertions from its army, conscientious objectors, and much like during the Vietnam era, many were fleeing over the border to Canada. Recruitment dropped and thus the national guard, normally set aside for defense of the homeland, was sent over to Iraq to supplement dwindling forces. Further, the soldiers on the ground found that their leave time was cut back, as was their pay, and their deployment time extended. No wonder troop morale was very low, and Donald Rumsfeld simply did not acknowledge or appreciate the situation that they were facing. It is all well and good to sit in your high castle, but if you abuse the people that you are ruling, sooner or later there is going to be a revolt. Oh, and for those brain dead morons who are trying to claim that the Iraq War brought about the Arab Spring, think again. Iraq did not become a peaceful and wealthy land that was a beacon to the rest of the Middle East. No, instead it because a war zone where revenge killings were rife, minorities persecuted, with the population dwindling, and a shift to extremism. No, the Arab Spring was completely the opposite, and it probably had a lot more to do with Western ideas slowly filtering into the region than a failed war led by an incompetent and corrupt president (who, surprise, surprise, actually has warrants out for his arrest in some countries).