Ok, so no one in the US administration has put it quite that way yet, but I’m feeling more and more that this is the facts.
My response to their discussion is at the end, and also located here, I will try top expand on these theories in the near future as well:
I have 2 words for you:
Before I read all of these comments I couldn’t put it all together in my mind. Previously I was only able to look at it on the surface as something that seemed plausible.
What I mean is, how many countries in Africa can you name who neither have pro-western(US) neoliberal style governments nor are engaged in pitched/constant “civil wars”?
Particularly given the insight raised here about Abd Al’Mahdi, his penchant for political “flip-flopping” his western, possibly pro-privatization attitudes, etc. The motive seems clear to me.
We need to stop looking at this from a United States vs. Iraq vs. the World perspective. GWB and Cheney do not represent the United States proper. They represent the neo-liberal agendas of transnational corporations. There is little reason to think the efforts of the Bush Administration are as directly related to US World Dominance as they are to the dominance and profit of transnational corporations.
What does it matter if Iraq has a stable democratic popular government if these corporations are able to extract the national resources under cover of “civil wars” and divisiveness and weak central governments?
After reading all of this, I’m tending towards the perspective that the Bush Administration is practically giving Iraq an ultimatum, either you elect al’Mahdi Prime Minister, or you get a civil war.
One or the other, and although the neo-liberal agenda certainly fares better in South Africa and Egypt, among others, Nigeria’s still managing to keep the oil flowing, and let’s not even talk about the so-called diamond coast.