After the invasion of Iraq, President Bush pressured Syria, bordering Iraq to the north, to “comply with a U.N. resolution and withdraw its troops from Lebanon, [and] not merely redeploy them within the country.” Perhaps because of its proximity to Iraq and/or the pressure from President Bush, Syria agreed to the full withdrawal.
According to President Bush, “Libya was…a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons.” However, because of pressure from President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, Libya’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi, agreed to disclose and disarm his weapons program. President Bush has also highlighted “Saudi Arabia and Egypt for ‘small, but welcome’ steps toward democracy.”
While other small neighboring powers have played important roles in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, their roles have been more covert and are better understood when observing another member of the ‘axis of evil’ – Iran.
Western intelligence agencies believe that “Iran is at least three to five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear warheads.” This is “assuming that Iran gets no outside help.” It is difficult for these agencies to predict if or when Iran will go nuclear because they “don’t know what parts [they] are missing.”"There is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants." Machiavelli, The Prince
Some even believe that the War in Iraq has accelerated Iranian ambitions and efforts to become a nuclear power. According to Ivan Elan, former Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, “The Iranian leadership watched the invasion and harsh treatment of the non-nuclear Iraq by the U.S. and compared that to the more respectful U.S. negotiations with North Korea, which likely already has nuclear weapons.” He asks, "If you were Iran, what would you do?”
But others believe that Iran has been on the forefront of President Bush’s War on Terror all along. On November 10, 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq, the Toronto Sun reported that: “Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration’s national security policy…The real target of the coming wars is Iran…Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops into Mesopotamia.”
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
wow Justin, pretty great story-telling and analysis - very interesting perspecive, thanks!
2 - Dave Nalle
One wonders if Bush's reading of Machiavelli went on to include "The Art of War." Perhaps your next article should address how that book applies to Bush's war policies, expecially the first and last chapters which address general principles of warfare and military organization.
Dave
3 - Ricko Commie
At the risk of over simplification and I am a man of few words based on fact and not fiction lest we not forget that the goals of this war are not to stop terrorism, Bush is the biggest terrorist of all! No one carries out the death sentence more frequently than Bush and he has the military might to do it right! The war in Iraq all Machivalian machininations aside is about Oil plain and simple. On the map of Iraq you will see that the best oil sites are also the worst war zones. That is no accident! Oil profits for the Bush dynasty are needed to further the goals of world domination and Iraq is just a stepping stone to the next oil producing nation that he plans to decimate! This Anti Christ is fulfilling the prospects of WWIII with his insane oil policies of war!
4 - Dave Nalle
And a man of few thoughts as well, Ricko.
The war is not about oil. If all we wanted was oil the best plan was to leave Saddam in power and be his pal - that's what he wanted. He's have personally handed all the oil to Bush's chosen recipients and thanked us.
What the war has achieved is to shut down Iraqi oil production alltogether for 3 years, and once it's going again we have an absolute commitment to leave control of it in the hands of the Iraqi people.
OMG, we're so greedy.
Dave
5 - D.D.
Well,Dave,I don"t happen to think that "Ricko",as you called him,is as asinine as you obviously are.Answer me this- since when has an (so-called)"absolute agreement" ever kept the greedy bastards that are in power in the US from doing exactly what the fuck they want to do? Ask the American Indians about how many "absolute commitments" were honored towards them.
6 - Dave Nalle
I didn't call him 'Ricko', he called named himself and I played along.
There's a difference between how we dealt with a troublesome population within our own borders 100 plus years ago and how we'll deal with a sovereign nation today. There are many instances where we have made commitments to other nations and followed through on them as promised. It's the way we do business as a nation.
Plus, in this case there's no reason for us to seize their oil. We're not interested in controlling the oil, we're interested in the oil just being in the marketplace. Once it gets to the marketplace it benefits us, no matter who got it there, because we're going to process and consume it. So the whole idea of going to war 'for oil' is just nonsensical.
Dave
7 - eric
yours is a moral house of cards, predicated upon the moral superiority of bringing "Democracy and Freedom" to Iraq. Right now, we are are nowhere near either. Iraqis have substantially less freedom of movement, freedom to do business, or, for that matter, freedom from arbitrary death and dismemberment, than they had under Hussein.
Now Machiavelli had little to say about the moral issues underlying his philosophy. But most contemporary humans do. Granted, most decent humans also conceed that liberty is worth paying for in a certain amount of blood. But until it looks like that liberty might actually be an outcome of the current warmongering - and it certainly does not look at all that way from my vantage point - I, for one, will remain utterly loathe to support the bloodshed.
One last thing. Vocal support for war means a lot more when it comes from the mouth of one who has had their 5 year old daughter, or their wife or sister blown up. In other words, when Iraqis are the ones supporting this war, I'll give their words my serious consideration.
I consider you, on the other hand, to be nothing more than a sniveling, authoritarian apologist. And your words sound like mindless slavering to me.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This analysis is interesting because it attempts to bring to bear the works of Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian patriot who wanted to unite the Italian peninsula and free it from foreign rule, to bear on a war that is a war of conquest, if not annexation.
Justin Cole accurately points out that the point of this war was to position American troops in Mespotamia so that they could attack the "other bank" of the Tigris River - Iran.
But he misses a few facts along the way. Iraq was working on developing "weapons of mass destruction" and about six weeks before the Americans began their assault on Iraqi territory, these weapons were moved to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, where even today, they are guarded by Syrian troops. But these weapons were never intended against America or even against the Saudi thugdom in Arabia. They were developed to destroy Israel.
Cole also misses a some inportant questions. Saddam Hussein was an ally of George HW Bush. He asked permission of the Americans to invade Kuwait in 1990. Why did the American ambassador give such a deceptive answer to Saddam Hussein? Why did the Americans turn on their ally in Mesopotamia in 1990? And having turned on him, why did they not get rid of him then, as Machiavelli's logic would have dictated? The big question of these is the second one. Why did the Americans turn on their ally, Saddam Hussein?
That is the real question that needs to be probed to understand what is going on.
9 - Blue Meanie
Very well done post! My sole caveat is that I do not think it woudl be Bush whom Niccolo woudl congratulate, but Rove.
One thing in the comments I am forced to say something about. Dave states: "What the war has achieved is to shut down Iraqi oil production alltogether for 3 years,"
This is correct, but many see it as a failure of the administration's scheme. With oil over $70 a barrell and gas at about $3 a gallon in the U.S. I might say that the objective has been achieved.
Follow the money, the ideology is a mere smokescreen.
As for Sun Tzu, I highly doubt these folks in Washington are familiar with the book. Why do I say this? Because the highest ideal according to Sun Tzu is to win the war without fighting, the exact opposite of this administration's policy so far.
10 - Dave Nalle
Blue, the relatively small level of oil production in Iraq isn't enough to push oil anywhere near $70 a barrel. You need to look to other forces for that increase in cost because at most the Iraq was is a tiny factor.
As for Sun Tzu, you can bet the GOP leaders have read it. Most of them come from corporate culture where he's been required reading for years.
Dave
11 - Blue Meanie
Dave, I fully understand that Iraq was but one factor in the current price structure of the futures markets. I am stating that it is my own opinion that our government's decision to invade Iraq, and the following diplomatic positions and reaction to said invasion, are huge factors and the primary cause. Notice we did not see the huge jump from about $30 a barrell to the over $50 and now $70 levels until after Rumsfeld's great line, "freedomm is messy" while the looters ran rampant.
On the topic of corporate types reading Sun Tzu: yes they do read it, and Musashi as well.
They just don't understand either.
12 - U2
You got to be kidding me! Is nessesary to obtain more TRUE facts-not just some google searchs- to really understand the "game strategies" of the US goverment in relationship with the tragic events of 9/11 and this "war with terrorism"...
It cannot be called virtue to kill one's fello-citizens, betray one's friends, be withouth faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory. Machavelli
13 - Zare
I still think the American government was responsible for what happened on 9/11... bit some other terrorist group. There's a Machiavellian theory for you ;)
14 - Zare
**not some other terrorist group
15 - Zare
sacrificing a group of people for the good of the state... VERY MACHIAVELLIAN !