jump to navigation

SIGNS OF OCCUPATION September 21, 2007

Posted by wmmbb in Iraq Policy.

Occupation, especially with the planned reificiation in the form the occupiers intended permanent bases as the occupier’s footprint as in Iraq, is the antithesis of liberation. As far as Iraq was concerned, there was the foolish suggestion that the continued occupation of Iraq could be compared to the permanent American presence in South Korea, a comparison that gained piquancy following the disconnect between G W Bush and the South Korean President at the most recent APEC Meeting in Sydney.

The prognosis, in Iraq and in all likelihood Afghanistan, is that the resistant will continue, since the recipe for successful imperialism, as practiced by Israel, before and including the Wall, is ethnic cleansing, or in its absence heavy-handed violence, as in Gaza.

The signs of occupation to the subjected people are perhaps everywhere to be seen. They might even be seen through the fog of the infotainment media in the recent not unprecedented story of what appears to have random and callous murder by Blackwater security guards. Unsurprisingly, doubts are expressed about hiring mercenaries in the first place, let alone the relationship of dependency that seems to have developed. To everybody’s surprise, we learn that this was not the first incident. The dictate of the Iraqi Government falls on deaf ears, illustrating who holds political and legal power in that country. The claim to establish democracy in Iraq was but one of the many fictions with which Imperialism must wrap itself. It can hardly wash its hands, even in the ocean.

The same careless regarding human life seems to apply in Afghanistan. This ABC News Online report does not identify the planes that carried out the bombing of civilians, but the message to the people of Afghanistan will be clear, as it is now again repeated.

The costs of Empire are likely to increase with resistance to it, which in turn sets a rather neat question. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, in Counterpunch has seen the writing on the wall of Empire:

It is certainly the case that Iraq was not invaded because of WMD, which the Bush administration knew did not exist. But the oil pretext is also phony. The US could have purchased a lot of oil for the trillion dollars that the Iraq invasion has already cost in out-of-pocket expenses and already incurred future expenses.

Moreover, Bush’s invasion of Iraq, by worsening the US deficit and causing additional US reliance on foreign loans, has undermined the US dollar’s role as reserve currency, thus threatening America’s ability to pay for its imports. Greenspan himself said that the US dollar “doesn’t have all that much of an advantage” and could be replaced by the Euro as the reserve currency. By the end of last year, Greenspan said, foreign central banks already held 25 percent of their reserves in Euros and 9 percent in other foreign currencies. The dollar’s role has shrunk to 66 percent.

If the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US would magically have to move from an $800 billion trade deficit to a trade surplus so that the US could earn enough Euros to pay for its imports of oil and manufactured goods.

Bush’s wars are about American hegemony, not oil.

It is reasonable to surmise that economic realities and decisions will cast a decisive influence over the continued occupation of Iraq and other countries. There are from memory over a hundred overseas bases to be maintained.



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: