January 4,2005

         The fake ‘success’ of the Iraqi election was a foregone conclusion.
The ‘victory for freedom and democracy’ was designed to convince the
American public and a skeptical world opinion the invasion and occupation of Iraq
was justified. The mass media’s drumbeat of ‘victory’ was so loud and
insistent even critics of the Bush Administration began to ask in print: “What if
Bush was right all along?â€�  This ridiculous question was posed again and
again as if the President’s original intention had been to stage an election
rather then neutralize Saddam’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction
and punish the Iraqi dictator for his non-existent links to Al-Qaeda.

         The mainstream media, quick to fall into line to promote another American
success story, peddled the idea Iraqis, anxious to embrace ‘freedom and
democracy’ defied terrorism to cast their ballots. Few pundits explained voter
attendance was guaranteed from the outset because both Shiites and Kurds saw
an opportunity to become the dominant civic power in Iraq after having been
excluded for decades. The Shiites, suppressed under the Saddam regime, make
up two thirds of Iraq’s population. They were ordered to vote by their Grand
Ayatollah, an Iranian national who could not vote but obviously has a dream of an
Islamic State along Iranian lines –sometime in the future. The Kurds also
pressed their people to vote - to promote Kurdish aspirations in any new power

        The minority Sunni population, controlled by the insurgents and conscious it
would no longer be the dominant power in Iraq, was ordered to boycott the
election. It thus will virtually have no representation in the new democratic order
envisaged by the Washington engineers of Iraq’s future.

       That future, after the polls, looks as chaotic as the current situation. Neither
the Sunnis nor the insurgents are likely to sit back and let ‘the others’ run
Iraq. The climate is perfect for civil war, the main reason why the U.S. military has
already created five ‘permanent’ military bases in Iraq. Their main task is to
safeguard Iraq’s oil resources and ensure the black gold keeps flowing, most
of it into the pockets of the American and Western oil cartels that will set global
petrol prices. Outside these strategic petrol-producing areas the Iraqis may go on
killing each other as long as their stamina holds out. Like in Vietnam and Korea
the U.S. will even supply its favorite side with arms and know-how. That could
keep the confrontation going for years and provide the excuse the U.S. military
cannot leave Iraq.

        There are, of course, flaws in this grand Washington stratagem, as there
were flaws in Vietnam and Korea. Iraqis have a history of stubborn defiance of â
€˜colonial’ occupation. In fact one could venture with near certainty most
voters cast their ballots in the belief they were also voting for an end to U.S.
occupation. When this false assumption is debunked both Shiites and Kurds are
more then likely to support the anti-American struggle. This in turn will add to the
Administration’s argument the U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq. The justification for
this argument is sure to be that freedom-loving Americans, the champions of
human rights, can not leave Iraqis to murder one another – or, more realistically,
allow the Iraqi oil, lifeblood of our existence, to fall into the hands of ‘the enemy.

       We all know who the enemy is: The ‘terrorists’ who have replaced the
‘communists’ as the scourge of our civilization.

       Washington’s Grand Iraq Strategy is so perverse it is almost genial in its
diabolical conception:

       Phase One: Go to war against a tyrant who threatens you with (non-existent)
weapons of mass destruction - and intended to kill your Daddy.

       Phase Two: When you cannot (obviously) find these weapons convert the
war into a clarion call for freedom and democracy and the struggle against

       Phase Three: Hold an election which will give the country a democratic
façade and legitimize legislation that will privatize the Iraqi oil industry, offering
American investors a stake in the exploitation and ownership of Iraq’s vast oil
resources.  (Iraqi interim Finance Minister Abel Mahdi announced this law during a
press conference - not reported by the mass media - on December 22, 2004 at the
National Press Club in Washington.)

      Phase Four: As civil war explodes in the wake of the election maintain your
military occupation without a timetable for withdrawal. Peddle the excuse as the
champion of human rights America cannot allow Iraqis to kill each other in a civil
conflict (a conflict Washington has deliberately created in the first place).  
      Phase Five: As the civil war escalates concentrate your troops around the U.
S. military bases in the oil producing areas turning these areas, de facto, into a
canton under U.S. sovereignty.

       In this Grand Iraqi Strategy the election to bring Iraqis ‘freedom and
democracy’ was just one more phase in the plan to control and own the
largest oil reserves in the world.  Their control (coupled with the U.S. domination
of Saudi Arabia’s oil) gives American interests the power to set the vital petrol
prices and supply for the rest of the world. With this control the U.S. can squeeze
out of the market or impose terms on its main industrial competitors, the European
Union and China.

     In our dispassionate corporate era all this makes corporate sense. The price is
relatively small in corporate terms: Perhaps half a million dead Iraqis and some
10,000 dead American and allied soldiers, a nation devastated but easily rebuilt at
huge profits during an envisaged reconstruction boom financed by the Iraqi share
from its own oil revenues. In corporate terms this amounts to a major coup: You
milk the oil from both sides - for your own profit.

     Sadly, the equation has been successful – at least so far.