The CIA official responsible for coordinating pre-war intelligence assessments about Iraq has confirmed the lastsuperpower analysis at the time of the real reasons for the decision to go to war and the real reasons for the lies about the declared war aim being to "disarm Sadaam".

Here's the key excerpts, from an anti-war blog, of transcript of MSNBC interview with Paul Pillar, CIA's National Intelligence Officer for Near East and North Africa from 2000 to 2005:

vvvvvvvvvv

MATTHEWS: Were these elements we talked about, the nuclear case, the connection to 9/11, were they basically—were they the reason for going to war with Iraq or were they the sales pitch?

PILLAR: Well I think we've had some statements from the likes of Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith that they were not necessarily a real reason to go to war. I personally believe, and trying to just look at this as a student of American politics and looking at what some of the decisionmakers had written before, that the main reason for going to war was the desire to shake up the politics of the Middle East. And the hope that Iraq with this change force of the military invasion would bring about big change not just in Iraq but elsewhere in the region. I think that was the main reason.

MATTHEWS: Why didn't they admit it?

PILLAR: Because that was a lot harder to sell to the American public than the specter of mushroom clouds or dictatorial regimes giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. I mean, that has a resonance, a rhetorical value, that political sciencey type theories about political change do not.

^^^^^^^^^

The interview followed from web release of Pillar's article in next month's (March/April 2006) article in the old guard foreign policy establishment's house organ Foreign Affairs

The article and interview also confirms that the Bushies were adequately informed by the "intelligence community" as to the likelihood of the various costs and difficulties that they pretended not to expect and which the old guard and pseudo-left anti-war movement are still saying provide a good reason for not shaking up the middle east.

Looks like most of the commentary is following Pillar's lead in fatuously focussing on the rather old discovery that the Bushies were lying all along and completely missing the point that their own theories about incompetence and stupidity are being exploded and that they are still stuck for an argument as to why the real costs and casualties of shaking up the region by invading Iraq are not worth it as the only plausible strategy for draining the swamps of a stagnant region that will continue breeding terrorists as long as the autocracies remain in power.

They would rather not even think about the uselessness of "opinion leaders" who have to be offered the "resonance" of specters of mushroom clouds because their apparatchik ideological blinkers are screwed on so tight they are incapable of grasping elementary "political sciencey type theories about political change" which decision makers had to come to terms with after 911.

The new guard apparatchiks at the weekly standard don't want to discuss that either and are just defending the Bushies against "allegations" instead of simply saying "you guys deserved to be lied to because you weren't capable of thinking about politial change before the war and you still can't see what had to be done even after the event".

Both pro and anti-war commentary around the web are taking their cue from wapo's coverage

Our take on this could be of interest to web sites on both sides.

What an absolute load of garbage. When was it that people pretending to be marxist lenninists began repeating and swollowing lies about 'democracy' etc.

Do you forget that the USA continues to carry out a covert war against progressive and leftist governments the world over? Talk about the USA exporting democracy is truly disgusting. have you forgotten:

*Iran - 1953 - democratically elected government overthrown by USA, being replaced by the repressive and dictatorial Shah. Because the Iranians had the audacuty to take charge of their own oil!

*Guatamala - 1954 - democratically elected and slightly leftist government overthrown by USA because it was threatening to nationalise industries that had been traditionally underthe thum of American monopoly capitalism.

*Cuba - 1961- the famous Bay of Pigs invasion. A group of exile criminals, mafiosi and fascists trained by the cia attempt to invade cuba and install a fascist dictatorship. Invasion attempt because US imperialism and mafia had been kicked out of cuba and because the popular revolution constituted the threat of a good example.

*Chile - 1973 - democratically elected and progressive government of Salvador Allende is brutally overthrown in another CIA planned coup. the successful overthrow of the popular Allende led to the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet...hardly a war of liberation.

these are but a few examples of US imperialism interfering in the DEMOCRATIC affairs of supposedly soverin nations. other recent cases of us imperialism playing a thoughrouly undemocratic role can be seen in the cases of : Grenada, Nicauragua, El Salvador, Venezuala, the MAOIST movement of the Communist Party of the Philipines and their armed vanguard the New Peoples Army, as well as repeated threats against the Nepalese MAOISTS who are waging a just struggle against the repressive and archaich institution of feadalism...the napalese monarchy.

Kautsky, Pleckanov and other "social-Patriots' were polemically ripped to threads by none other than lennin...and lets face it thats exactly what you are. SOCIAL PATRIOTS. One of the most sacred tenets of marxism-lenninism is that which relates to the self-determination of all peoples. This applies particularly in the case of an imperialist nation invading a militarily weak nation to plunder natural resources, install  a puppet government that represents imperialist interests, and reduce the nation in question to rubble, and this is undeniably the case in Iraq.

So far the democracy that you speak of has been lacking. The iraqi people have no more democratic rights than they did under Saddam Hussein, and on top of that, they are at they mercy of imperialists, and imperialist mercaneryies, who will shoot if they don't like the look of you.

I implore you and all others who share these anti-marxist, objectivist, pro-imperialist views to look around. Even on mainstream monopoly capitalist controlled television one can see that there is no shortage of bloodshed and imperialist plunder in Iraq, but that there IS a shortage of democratioc rights of Iraqi peoples, safety, the right to self determination and the right to live without being shot by an American soldier , who is barely out of his teens and dosen;t know what he is doing.

You have to get to grips with what we are saying before anyone will bother to debate any sensible point that you could then possibly make.  All I can say at this stage is good luck with your reading and to help you along try my easy to understand posting Chomsky drowning not waving.

Anyway read around the site a bit before you have another go, because you can only waste your time and others at this stage.  BTW Double space to get  the paragraph separation and his name is Lenin. Good luck.

Comrades,

If Patrick is so keen to point out mis-spellings, he might, in the interests of even-handedness,  want to take a look at Arthur's 'Sadaam'.

Also, if he were to set aside his self proclaimed sense of academic superiority for a moment, and looked at the actual content of Comrade Sydneyguy15 's remarks, he should realise that he was making very valid points. Of course, it is really quite absurd, especially for Marxist,  to base a political analysis of the Middle Eastern situation on any piece of information, or disinformation, being promulgated by the CIA , any of its officials, or ex-officials. The Iraqi war was to "shake up the Middle East". Really?  No-one, of whatever political opinion, could have expected otherwise!

Of course, it is really quite absurd, especially for Marxist,  to base a political analysis of the Middle Eastern situation on any piece of information, or disinformation, being promulgated by the CIA , any of its officials, or ex-officials. The Iraqi war was to "shake up the Middle East". Really?  No-one, of whatever political opinion, could have expected otherwise!

Comrades,

I was wondering if you'd ever applied the principle of 'Occams razor' to your 'draining the swamps' theory. Occams razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or  theory.

I'd suggest that even you might agree that the alternative theory of the Iraqi war being 'largely about oil', but with some other side issues thrown in, such as removing a regime which was a potential threat to Israel, has much greater currency in World opinion, and, more importantly in Iraq itself. Indeed, your CIA official himself isn't contradicting this theory; it would make perfect sense to "shake up the middle east" if you felt that the pieces would land in a more favourable position afterwards. Clearly Arthur is not correct when he says uses the phrase "only plausible strategy".

Arthur , I do now believe, is correct in saying that the neo-cons are not as stupid and incompetant as is sometimes widely believed on the left. That's not to say  they didn't miscalculate though. Arthur is probably also right to suggest that their thoughts are very much along the lines of "you guys deserved to be lied to because you weren't capable of thinking about politial change before the war and you still can't see what had to be done even after the event". However, were they thinking of draining swamps or were they thinking of geopolitics, peak oil,  and the looming oil supply crisis? And when they spend billions on 'enduring bases', making it clear for all to see that they plan to be in occupation in Iraq for the next 20 years or more, regardless of the wishes of the Iraqi population; are they really thinking that they'll need to be there for that long to make sure that the swamps are properly drained?

Back to Occams razor. Make as few assumptions as possible. Lets not assume that there has been any fundamental change in the nature of the US regime, US capitalism, or US imperialism. They are still essentially the same as they ever were. What is the "only plausible" explanation?

Dear  patrickm and keza...

Both of you refused to engage with any of the points i made about the historical role of American Imperialism. I agree with you that Amer ican imperialism is in a crisis, however i believe that a truly marxist analysis shows that when the chips are down for an imperialist power, they become more not less ruthless. 

The patronising tone which ran throughout both of your replies to me, shows an unwillingness to debate key issues...is it perhaps because you are not confident in your argument?

Have you seen John Pilger's filmin which former high ranking CIA officials actually admit that democracy means nothing? If so what can you say to this? Surely it is very straightforward?

I would also like to know how your "theory" of progressive American imperialism fits in with the maoist principle of New Democratic revolution, led by the proletariat, not by an external imperialist power. Mao, Lenin, Engels and Marx always stressed that there was no alternative to the success of the proletariat in winning power and sweeping away the old and worn out institutions of feudalism and also capitalism.

Also, How does your analysis of bourgois style democracy fit in with the marxist concept of class dictatorship? Fascism is simply an acute form of imperialism/bourgois democracy, at a time when the country in question is going through a crisis. The Iranian war was a catalyst which affected greatly the character of the Iraqi government. However whatever way you look at it, under Saddam Iraq was under a bourgois dictatorship, after Saddam Iraq is still under a bourgois dictatorship. Only a New Democratic Revolution led by the proletariat could have changed the content of the class dictatorship in Iraq.

Finally, i must say that patrickm, your retreat back to the old "marxism is not a dogma" spiel is the oldist trick of a revisionist who refuses to argue for his point of view. I know that marxism is no dogma, however at a certain point, when you refuse to accept the basic tenents of the marxist dialectical materialist template of analysis, for example the mrxist understanding of imperialism, class dictatorship etc. you are longer a marxist.

I am afraid that i am probably going to censored, as hinted at in Keza's reply.

In the marxist spirit please reply to my concerns, and allow for the back and forth of ideas in line with Mao's acceptance of dissent etc.

thanks

I am under the impression that the underlying reason that the US is a loggerheads with the oil producing world is that they want to replace the petrodollar with petroeuro.

Hi sheltercrow, you've been left waiting long enough.

First things first. If you are asserting that the US overthrew the old regime in Iraq because of Saddam's September 2000 proposal to move Iraq's tradiing currency from the US dollar to the Euro, then you need to produce some evidence in US foreign policy decision-making. Without evidence, it's just an assertion.

I have read a lot of material about the notion that the war is about oil, including the later developed assertion that it was to do with Euros replacing dollars. What is lacking in everything I've read, including stuff posted at this site, is actual evidence that this worried US decision-makers to such an extent that they decided, on that basis, to go to war. If there is such evidence, please present it.

The assertion makes no sense, anyway, because the US's reversal of its long-standing strategy of propping up dictators like Saddam Hussein pre-dates the introduction of the Euro (which happened in January 1999). The US Congress's Liberation of Iraq Act was passed in 1998. The US-UN sanctions were imposed from 1990.

The former fascist regime in Iraq only threatened to move to the Euro after it saw the writing on the wall, due to the US hardline on sanctions, and needed to try to exploit the differences between the US and the French. It was a stupid symbolic move on Saddam's part as, at that time (September 2000), the dollar was much stronger than the Euro (i.e., one US dollar equalled 0.86 Euro). Iraq would have lost millions in revenue and, had the Iraqi people had any say (as they do today), the proposal would have been rejected as not in their interests. But Saddam was a dictator, the people had no say, and the regime was getting desperate.

Iraq's foreign reserves remained in US dollars - Saddam was just beating his empty chest. The farcical nature of the old fascist's gesture was highlighted by the fact that he declined to seek conversion from dollars to Euros of the $US 10 billion held in the escrow account at the New York branch of the French bank BNP Paribas. Even dictators need to have some measure of a grasp of reality.

To understand why the US overthrew the Baathists, and why they are supporting the democratic forces in the oil-producing countries, once needs to look elsewhere. We have produced evidence for the 'draining-of-the-swamps' assertion elsewhere on this site (in the thread of that title).

Barry

Hi Sheltercrow,

I shouldn't be too put off by Barry. He's always asking for more and more evidence that the Iraq invasion was about oil. He doesn't have much evidence to present a counterargument though. Unfortunately we don't have any secret tapes which have recorded GW Bush saying "Don't mention the oil!"  which would be the only thing  which would , just possibly, convince him. They may be available one day but at present we can only go by the evidence of what the US government have actually done in Iraq rather than what they say. Barry is pretty much the "Last of the Mohicans" on this site in arguing that the US are on the side of the angels. I'm not sure what has happened to the rest but they seem to have given up trying to defend the indefensible.

The question of the US dollar is fundamental to US imperialism. The US debt to the rest of the world is so large that they  cannot possible repay it. If the US were a company they'd have been declared bankrupt long ago and their assets auctioned off.  Military force prevents that happening in their case though. There is no way that the US  would repay the Chinese by exchanging their debt for US company equities. You may want to look up Sovereign Wealth Funds on Google to see the sort of consternation this possibility is creating.

This is the way it works. The US spends a lot more on its imports that it receives from exports. So much so that China alone has a net credit of over US$1 trillion. These dollars find their way from Chinese exporters to Chinese central banks. The Chinese government don't want these exchanged for Euros or gold. That would depress the US$ exchange rate. So they are exchanged for US$ treasury bonds. This allows the US government to spend these on military activities such as the Iraq war without having to tax their own population too much. Effectively the rest of the world pays for the Iraq war. They must think they are really smart! The problem for the US now  is that everyone who is holding US$ assets are now getting very nervous. The US$ is falling so they'd like to switch over to Euros or gold, but they can't dump even part of their assets because that would make the dollar crash making the rest of their US$ bonds effectively worthless.

It's quite possible that it is only US military force that is preventing, or more likely delaying,  a world -wide economic meltdown.

I would hope Sheltercrow would share my commitment to requiring evidence to support an assertion.

Nothing in cyberman's post provides evidence for the claim that the US was motivated by a desire to keep oil-producing countries tied to the dollar. Having failed to show any mechanism for US control over Iraq's oil in the proposed oil law, he now also fails to provide evidence for the 'Euro' theory. He admits that he has no evidence but ... (insert Twilight Zone theme music here) ... that's because it's kept secret (stabbing sound from shower scene in Hitchcock's 'Psycho' here please).

As I have said many times in relation to him and dalek, neither needs evidence. They proceed from a position that already knows the 'Truth' - everything, every international, national, local event, can be slotted into that 'Truth'. That their 'Truth' is expressed in 'Left' sounding rhetoric makes it no less religious as a way of thinking and no less reactionary as politics.

Sheltercrow, please look at the Draining the Swamps thread, especially the earlier stuff.

Cyberman is irrational. His account of the Euro/dollar situation actually indicates why countries won't be converting to the Euro in the near future. (The US$ is falling so they'd like to switch over to Euros or gold, but they can't dump even part of their assets because that would make the dollar crash making the rest of their US$ bonds effectively worthless.)

Watch this thread for dalek and cyberman continuing to not produce any evidence for the assertion. (But expect plenty of links about Euros and dollars to give the impression they know what they're talking about and we should therefore believe them).

Barry

When someone has committed a crime, you have to be pretty naive to expect them to be other than very secretive or believe any of their changing versions of events. There's nothing 'Twilight Zone' about the behaviour of the US administration at all.

 
Speaking of the 'Twilight Zone' reminds me of of those 50's 'B' science fiction movies. One plot that I remember involves aliens kidnapping people and replacing them with look-alike androids who, of course, eventually give themselves away by acting very oddly and differently. Maybe the young and intelligent Barry York, who would have easily grasped the reality of the present situation in Iraq,  suffered a similar fate and was replaced by the current version who says, and appears to believe in, the strangest things!

sheltercrow, you will see from cyberman's response above that some contributors to this site don't believe in any need to substantiate assertions with evidence. You raised the quesiton of dollars-versus-Euros in your post of 27 November when you wrote: "I am under the impression that the underlying reason that the US is a loggerheads with the oil producing world is that they want to replace the petrodollar with petroeuro".

I responded with a request for evidence linking the shift in US policy to the issue of dollar to Euro conversion; evdience of the kind that has been offered at this site in the 'Draining the Swamps' thread, evidence that actually connects policy direction to decision-making.

To cyberman, the following is meant to constitute evidence in support of the assertion: "When someone has committed a crime, you have to be pretty naive to expect them to be other than very secretive or believe any of their changing versions of events".

This is actually an admission that cyberman has no evidence. His displeasure at people believing in 'the strangest things' merely reflects his closed mind - there's no room for the counter-intuitive in his world outlook. And no need for evidence. (It's basically a form of religious thinking dressed up as 'leftwing').

In the meantime, sheltercrow, if you have evidence to support your assertion, it can be presented and debated here.

Regards,

Barry

Well if you want a little piece of evidence that the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9-11, the War on terror, or the belief that Iraq held WMDs take a look at this:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-HoustonChron-Herskowitz/

As time passes there'll be more of this sort of stuff that leaks out. There'll be more comments written up in various memoirs like Alan Greenspan's "everyone knows the Iraq war is largely about oil". The real evidence for what the Americans are about in Iraq isn't in these sort of leaks, however. It's right there for all to see in the way the US occupation is conducted. If you were really trying to win hearts and minds, and rebuild a stable democracy in Iraq, would you consider letting loose a paramilitary terrorist outfit like Blackwater, above and beyond the reach of Iraqi law to terrorise the local population? Would you guard the oil ministry imediately after the invasion but leave  all the others to be looted by street mobs? Would you concentrate all the efforts of the new Iraqi parliament on privatising most of the Iraqi oil fields when there are so many other issues: health education, jobs for the population, that are so much more relevant to the Iraqi population?

By all means take a look at the LS "draining the swamp" theory.  Its just so full of holes and doesn't hold any water at all.  Unlike the LS 's  proverbial swamps which are damper and wetter than ever!

Its not just in the middle east that the Americans, and with very good reason,  are worried about the status of the US$. Under the guise of globalisation, the World Bank and IMF have the power to impose, often at the cost of severe internal hardship,  balanced budgets and balanced trade accounts on countries wishing to join the 'club'. There is absolutely no question of the USA leading by example. They have huge deficits on both government budgets and trade accounts. If anyone were to ask the Americans about this the only possible justification they could give would be that they are America, with reserve currency stautus,  and the rest of us aren't! However, if they were to lose this status to the Europeans, and their Euro, the situation would be very different. They would have to do like everyone else and pay their way in the world. They'd need to cut their debt by several $trillion and the living standards of most Americans would  be slashed. Watching events unfold in a post-superpower USA would certainly be an interesting spectacle.

However, this is, perhaps, wishful thinking. They are the only world superpower and it's military force, of the kind that we see in Iraq, that keeps them that way.

It's just incredible that cyberman can post a link that yet again does not provide any evidence for the assertion that the war was about the US wanting to stop the fascist regime in Iraq moving from dollars to Euros as trading currency.  Once more, he proves that he doesn't have evidence - though we already know that he doesn't think he needs it.

It's just a form of religious thinking.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis and their allies continue to fight the enemies of democracy and some really positive signs are emerging that are frightening the defeatists into an unusual silence.

Barry

Barry,

The evidence, in fragmented form, is there for all to see. You just have to use your own intelligence to put the pieces together to get the complete picture.

Its true that some supporters of the Bush regime, and many within the regime itself, still haven’t fully understood that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, rather than a military unable to occupy Baghdad.  It might be different if the US succeeded militarily in Iraq.  I think Alan Greenspan fully understood it all well enough though. If the dollar were not the world's reserve currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an near impossibility considering America’s $800 billion trade deficit.

When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, we, the rest of the world,  will cease to finance the US trade and budget deficits, and the American Empire along with its wars will disappear overnight. Perhaps Bush will be able to get a World Bank loan, or maybe one from the “Chavez bank,” to bring his troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan!

I can understand that many people may find this argument a bit difficult to follow. It doesn't get the coverage it should in the world's media. If you are still having trouble understanding the connection between US$ hegemony, US superpower status and US imperialism, I'd suggest the following link:

 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/averting-world-war-iii-ending-dollar-hegemony-and-us-imperialism/

The problem, cyberman, is precisely that the evidence is not there "for all to see". Even as fragmentary evidence it doesn't establish your case that the US went to war to stop Saddam converting dollars to Euros as Iraq's trading currency. You probably are aware that you can't afford to try to "bring it all together" in the form of an argument because the evidence isn't there in the first place. You typically choose to ignore the order of events, too, in which US decisions to topple the regime predated the introduction of the Euro. I spelt this out in a previous post and, surprise suprise, you had no response, yet persist with your formulaic 'religious' understanding of the situation.

I'm off this thread for the next few days. Need to focus on more important related stuff.

Barry

Barry,

If you've made this point previously, I must have missed your posting. Sorry about that. But, I think you must be confusing the date of the introduction of the Euro as a general European currency, 1 Jan 2002, with the date of its creation for use as a reference currency, and for certain inter-bank and intergovernmental transactions,  1st Jan 1999.

In any case the argument is more about the dollar and its recycling in the form of petro-dollars than the euro itself. If the Euro hadn't existed there was always good old-fashioned gold as an alternative. The writing has been on the wall for the dollar for some time. It doesn't make much sense for the Middle Eastern, and other  countries who have large accumulated trade surplusses,   to put all their eggs into a single US$ basket regardless of the existence, or otherwise, of the Euro.

No-one is arguing that this was, or is, the only reason for the US occupation of Iraq. Such events rarely turn on one single motivating factor. There is evidence that GW Bush  was looking for an excuse to demonstrate his prowess on the international stage, as far back as the mid-nineties, and saw a personal score which needed to be settled with Saddam Hussein. It's quite possible that he, personally, was completely oblivious to the way that the US was so dependent on the recycling of petro-dollars by client middle eastern states. I wouldn't say that of Dick Cheney though, who's in a different intellectual league and who would have easily grasped the wider economic implications of a US occupation of Iraq.

Keeping the oil transactions in US$ is only part of the picture. The occupation has enabled the US government to cancel contracts signed by Saddam Hussein with both French and German oil companies and promote the interests of their own multi-nationals. 

The chronology still doesn't make sense for the 'Euro' theory. US strategic thinking shifted prior to 1999, as I showed.

When cornered to present evidence and unable to present evidence, it's typical of cyberman to become slippery: "No-one is arguing that this was, or is, the only reason for the US occupation of Iraq".

The problem was, and is, that there is no evidence to substantiate sheltercrow's assertion that "I am under the impression that the underlying reason that the US is a loggerheads with the oil producing world is that they want to replace the petrodollar with petroeuro".

The Euro theory is about as convincing as the blood-for-oil theory. And over several months, in the 'Good Oil' thread, neither cyberman or dalek could produce evidence of any mechanism whereby the US would control Iraq's oil.

Cyberman is so out of touch with reality that he thinks it was the US government, rather than the Iraqi government, that cancelled the oil contratcs of the old regime to open them up for international bidding. This really is Twilight Zone stuff and I really better stick to my word and stop wasting time with this line of 'argument'.

Barry

If you look back at both Dalek's and my postings you wont see any simple-minded single cause analysis of the Middle Eastern situation. There are a string of reasons for the Iraq occupation ranging from control of regional oil supplies, the US desire for military bases in the region, the influence of the Israel lobby in US politics, the necessity, as the US sees it , of maintaining and supporting client states in the region. The position of the US dollar, and petrodollar recycling, is an important part of the mix.

You are obviously still having some difficultly working out how the US has sought to, with considerable success,  control Middle Eastern oil since WW2. You could write a book on the subject of course. Its not achieved perfect control -it would certainly like to see the large State owned oil companies such as Aramco privatised. Petrodollar 'recycling' is another part of the control mechanism. The way it works is like you or I going down to the local supermarket storing up and paying for our weekly groceries , but then the supermarket lends us back all the money we've spent  at low rates of interest which we can spend again! The debt builds up so quickly that pretty soon we can't repay it. So why, you might ask, does the supermarket seem keen to continue the arrangement? Well , we've spent some of that extra money on guns and hired thugs of course and we are very much in a position to make the owners of the supermarket an offer that they can't refuse !

So, it was the Iraqi government that cancelled the contracts? Ah yes. Silly me for thinking otherwise!