4 ms·

That is just not true. Just because the US invaded it does not equate imperialism. The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to

That is just not true. Just because the US invaded it does not equate imperialism. The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources. The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first. The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
  - toyg 5y ago
    > how come they didn't install a puppet regime Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen. The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      > a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set That is not what a puppet regime is...especially when you consider that "ideological confines" for the US means free trade, civil liberties, justice system, free elections. Calling that a puppet regime is whitewashing the truly horrible puppet regimes that Russia is installing.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? Because state production policy, not nationality of the firms involved, was the mechanism of influence sought. > And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all? They did; for quite some time after it was established, the post-Saddam Iraqi government took direction from the US. It didn't turn out to be durable nor did the US manage to use it as the planned lever against the rest of the Middle East, in part because a substantial part of the war and post-war planning was coordinated by “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” [0] (to quote Gen. Franks) and as a result the occupation/counter-insurgency phase was both botched from the beginning and, arguably, not really a realistic way of achieving some of its broader objectives even if it had been planned competently and executed ideally, and in part because the US changed policy priorities and executive administrations during the occupation away from the original objectives (in part because different policy makers has different ideology, and in part because of recognition of the how badly the situation was botched.) Hence the upthread description of failed imperial warfare, which would not be used of if the imperialist objectives motivated the war had been achieved. [0] it's looking like the planning for the Ukraine operation by Russia may have had similar levels prioritizing what the ruling clique finds to be ideologically-appealing fantasy over hard-nosed practicality in its planning.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources. The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first. The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.

flavius29663 5y ago
Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
- toyg 5y ago
  > how come they didn't install a puppet regime Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen. The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set That is not what a puppet regime is...especially when you consider that "ideological confines" for the US means free trade, civil liberties, justice system, free elections. Calling that a puppet regime is whitewashing the truly horrible puppet regimes that Russia is installing.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? Because state production policy, not nationality of the firms involved, was the mechanism of influence sought. > And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all? They did; for quite some time after it was established, the post-Saddam Iraqi government took direction from the US. It didn't turn out to be durable nor did the US manage to use it as the planned lever against the rest of the Middle East, in part because a substantial part of the war and post-war planning was coordinated by “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” [0] (to quote Gen. Franks) and as a result the occupation/counter-insurgency phase was both botched from the beginning and, arguably, not really a realistic way of achieving some of its broader objectives even if it had been planned competently and executed ideally, and in part because the US changed policy priorities and executive administrations during the occupation away from the original objectives (in part because different policy makers has different ideology, and in part because of recognition of the how badly the situation was botched.) Hence the upthread description of failed imperial warfare, which would not be used of if the imperialist objectives motivated the war had been achieved. [0] it's looking like the planning for the Ukraine operation by Russia may have had similar levels prioritizing what the ruling clique finds to be ideologically-appealing fantasy over hard-nosed practicality in its planning.