|
Edited on Wed May-12-04 09:17 AM by mike_c
Iraq was chosen for invasion largely because of it's location (and its oil reserves, of course). The PNAC was quite clear about the importance of maintaining a large military force presence physically IN the ME for the long term, and identified Iraq as the ideal location.
This was never about WMD's, liberation, and so on. The invasion and occupation have always been about regional hegemony-- that's why the U.S. is building it's largest embassy EVER in Iraq and planning a huge permanent military presence, ala post-war South Korea.
on edit: One of the reasons I'm so frustrated with calls to "stay the course" or even to involve NATO or the UN is that any strategy other than complete withdrawal preserves the real PNAC agenda. The only outcome that will truely defeat that agenda is scrapping the occupation entirely and leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. Otherwise it's perpetual war for the PNAC. That's what the neo-cons want!
|