Iraq: The war is over but the war still goes on?

[Disco_Destroyer]

IRAQ: THE WAR IS OVER —
THE WAR STILL GOES ON?

British political scientist William Engdahl analyzed the much-talked-about "100 Orders" of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and concluded that Iraq was actually looted. The only prominent characteristic of today’s state of Iraqi democracy is the freedom to sell pornography on the Baghdad streets.


Without doubt, pictures of the American troops leaving Iraq remind the pictures of the Soviet troops leaving Afghanistan (to those who have seen both, of course). The latter, however, have not been pulled out in the dead of night. But still the difference between the consequences of the Soviet military "presence" in Afghanistan and American one in Iraq are much more relevant than some transient associations.

Soviet Union entered Afghanistan as an ally of a certain native power group — the one having rather significant public support. Perhaps Soviet leadership could have influenced the concept of socialism and Marxism of their Afghan colleagues but it did not predefine the political system in the country — it was established before the entry of the Soviet troops and managed to exist for a few years after their leave. Mujahidin, however, failed, to secure their power, having lost their position to Talibs, whom numerous Pashto military specialists (and former servicemen of pro-Soviet Afghan army) have joined prior to that. Talibs — as well as the monarchic Daoud regime, overthrown by the left officers, and the Afghan communists from the PDPA themselves — were the unitary power, unifying the country. It was the ideology that was different and the victory of one project other another was defined by the whole set of internal and external factors of Afghan contemporary history. Today Afghanistan is buried in chaos. Condition of Iraq is better by no means — in a strategic prospect it might as well turn out to be worse.

However, current state of affairs in today’s Afghanistan is a quite different subject. There’s much more important thing — speaking materialistically, the USSR didn’t destroy but rather built things over there. The USA at the same time spent billions of dollars for anything but the civil construction. Total amount of American expenses for the "Iraqi peace" make up $751 billion at the very least.

At the same time Soviet Union used to create social and economic infrastructure as the means of "fraternal aid" — some of these schools, hospitals, industrial objects and power plant are operatinal even today — for free and without any particular reason. At that, American "help" in the matter of establishing the "Iraqi democracy" that once shocked Vladimir Putin is anything but free of charge.

British political scientist William Engdahl analyzed the much-talked-about "100 Orders" of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and concluded that Iraq was actually looted. The only prominent characteristic of today’s state of Iraqi democracy is the freedom to sell pornography on the Baghdad streets. Patchwork coalition — torn apart by the discords and consolidated only with the American presence — failed to create a legal government having any serious and independent authority in the country and capable of maintaining the order. It’s not Najibullah with his administration who have unfolded full-scale advance against the armed opposition after the withdrawal of Soviet troops — they’ve managed to inflict series of significant defeats on their enemies, to survive the collapse of its ally and patron and perished only in 1992, mostly due to the interrupted supplies of Russian fuel.

Given all that, withdrawal of the U. S. troops out of Iraq, announced by Barack Obama is not as unequivocal as the pullout of the Soviet troops was. Since the 1st of September, operation "New Dawn" has started in Iraq — within its framework "limited contingent" of American servicemen 56.000 strong would stay in Iraq and would promote the "consolidation of local government authority". There are also certain doubts that thousands of foreign mercenaries along with the private guards, protecting the interests of trans-national corporations (who have actually colonized Iraq), are planning to leave Iraq any time soon. Before Obama "turned the page", these mercenaries used to do the most part of the dirty jobs for the sake of "democracy".

Obama emphasized that since that moment the United States are to be preoccupied with its domestic issues. He said: "We have to understand that power and influence of our nation abroad, our wish to spread the democratic values all over the world are to be grounded upon the solid foundation of Iraqi prosperity". Does that mean that the future of "Iraqi democracy" is being passed into the possession of its promoters — transnational corporations that are really going to rule the country with the help of its private lance armies.
By Marat Kunaev

http://www.win.ru/en/school/5376.phtml