|
I am not sure if George Bush even had a plan. His purpose, and the reason why he became president, is to put his smirk into the cameras and read uber-cool sounding rhetorical masterpieces from a sheet of paper. Occasionally, he also has to duck real questions, shake some hands, and look cool (they dress him up for that).
But the people behind Bush, who made the Iraq attack plans years ago, they do have a goal, and they are on their way of achieving it. The goal is to seize control over "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history" (as the State Department called the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia 1945).
With several huge permanent military bases and the largest embassy of the world, this is now almost accomplished. It is still rough on the ground, but it is hard to see what can stop the US from staying there indefinitely as long as there is no popular movement in the US to thoroughly dismantle the US empire.
Just as in Vietnam most of the strategic war aims seem to have been achieved before the US finally withdrew (mainly stopping any nationalist movements), it seems the case that the US again will succeed in Iraq in implementing most of their clandestine war aimes.
The number of dead Iraqis and dead American soldiers, the increased threat of terrorism, nothing of this really plays a role in the calculation for them, unless they somehow endanger the above primary war aim.
So, yes, I think it was a "success" for them, although this "success" has nothing to do with this tragic event, and their "success" is many peoples loss.
But then I suppose you were not really trying to talk about the real, (somewhat) clandestine war aims, but point out that the overt "war goals" were all big propaganda lies. Which of course is correct, but rather obvious, if you are willing to open your eyes a bit.
|