John Bolton Has No Shame
By N Oji Mzilikazi
December 19, 2011
In a December 15, op-ed piece in The Guardian (Uk), John Bolton lamented the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. He called it a tragic mistake and stated: “It jeopardises the gains made by President Bush’s (and Tony Blair’s) eminently correct 2003 decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”
To paint an illegal war- to which Blair, Bush and company deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity as “eminently correct,” underlines the neocon ideologies of prevarication and mendaciously defending the indefensible in the promotion of their politicised version of truth.
For all the evils attributed to Saddam, America’s invasion of Iraq set the country back at least 100 years, and Bolton has the audacity to speak of “gains.” Given the widespread destruction unleashed upon Iraq by Coalition Forces, and the subsequent increase of sectarian violence and suicide bombings against Iraqi civilians, pray tell, what were the gains and who were the real beneficiaries of said invasion?
It is one thing for a foreign power to overtly or covertly support an insurrectionist movement in a sovereign state, and quite another for a foreign power to invade that state. America was not invited by Iraqis to invade the country nor did they do so in support of revolutionary forces trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Other than the companies for whom war and reconstruction are multi-billion industries, Israel was the sole beneficiary of America’s invasion of Iraq. Iraq was invaded on behalf of Israel- to make Israel safer. It was Israel getting its war against an ancient enemy on by proxy.
Some years ago at a Washington 15 Conference, a United Jewish Communities event, Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State made the point “that those people who might want to ‘cut and run’ from Iraq now are endangering Israel.” He added that leaving Iraq made Iran stronger. Clearly the invasion of Iraq was all about Israel.
In the aftermath of Iraq in ruins, the entire world was a witness to Israel summarily beating the drums of war against Iran- another ancient enemy, and doing everything in her power to get Bush to bomb Iran before he left office. Especially after Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
Since as a senator, Obama had opposed the invasion of Iraq, the proponents for the bombing of Iran knew that in no way, shape or form would Obama as president of America sanction the invasion of Iran. Thus Obama opponents oft described him, prior to becoming president of America and after, as “not a true friend of Israel.”
Nevertheless, we have seen Israel, and both Canadian and American Israelophile hawks continually push the “bomb Iran to save democracy” line. And they always bring it up at times when the Obama administration is under severe stress.
Americans and others have a right to fear the consequences of American troops leaving Iraq. And for that- Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rove and the Field Marshal with their imperial games are to be blamed. They toppled Humpty Dumpty and didn’t clean up the mess – put the country infrastructures back in place. Not that they had any intention of doing so.
How would you feel, if someone broke into your home and completely trashed it? Wouldn’t you be out for revenge and or want to see them caught and punished?
Legally, a person who damages the property of another must make the person whole either through repairing the damage or paying for it. Sometimes the case is made for punitive damage to further punish the wrongdoer.
Millions of hungry and angry Iraqis who experienced the devolution of their nation state by American hands open the door for blowback.
“Karma can be a devastating bytch.”
Is it any wonder in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McClain indicated he was for staying the course in Iraq. He was willing to turn the invasion for the liberation of Iraq into an occupation – keep American troops in Iraq for one hundred years.
Since the withdrawal of American troops was a done deal, Bolton had no qualms exposing the neocon agenda. “Overthrowing the regimes in Iran and Syria could have been substantially advanced during the US military presence in Iraq,” he wrote. Consequently, he characterized Obama as weak and indecisive.
Who is the beneficiary to a destabilised Iran and Syria? Israel.
It’s interesting the way Americans are so cavalier to the overthrowing of regimes. Yet, when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour and Bin Laden on 9/11, they invoked the mantle of righteousness and displayed wonderment as to why they were attacked. One cannot sow the wind and not reap whirlwind.