The military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were not done in retaliation for 9/11. The Bush administration had them clearly in mind upon taking office, and they were set in motion as early as Feb. 3, 2001. That was seven months prior to the attacks on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon, and the objectives of the wars had nothing to do with terrorism.
The fraudulence of the “War on Terror,” however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts:
* In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist. Offers by the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden were ignored, and he remains at large to this day.
* In Iraq, when the United States invaded, there were no al Qaeda terrorists at all.
* Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.
* The U.S. embassy nearing completion in Baghdad is comprised of 21 multistory buildings on 104 acres of land. It will house 5,500 diplomats, staff and families. It is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world, but we have yet to be told why.
* A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows the war in Iraq has exacerbated, not diminished, the threat of terrorism since 9/11. If the "War on Terror" is not a deception, it is a disastrously counterproductive failure.
* Today two American and two British oil companies are poised to claim immense profits from 81 percent of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. They cannot proceed, however, until the Iraqi Parliament enacts a statute known as the "hydrocarbon framework law."
* The features of postwar oil policy so heavily favoring the oil companies were crafted by the Bush administration State Department in 2002, a year before the invasion.
* Drafting of the law itself was begun during Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, with the invited participation of a number of major oil companies. The law was written in English and translated into Arabic only when it was due for Iraqi approval.
* President Bush made passage of the hydrocarbon law a mandatory "benchmark" when he announced the troop surge in January of 2007.
He did, but with conditions, which I believe were basically ‘give us proof OBL did this bad thing and he’s yours’. I don’t know how sincere that was, however, and in any case, there was no smoking gun proof offered by the Bush admin.
OSL? Osama “Stinkin did it, the dirty bastard bin” Laden?
I have a hard time believing in a conspiracy to invade stuff, when prior to Sept 11th the most impressive thing the President (or current occupant) did was spend more time on his ranch in Texas than in DC deciding.
The Taliban refused to surrender Bin Laden and the rest of the alQaeda leadership per our demands, the most they were willing to do was, if they were provided with evidence, to have him stand trial in an “Islamic court” (it’s worth noting that the only people the Taliban consider truly Islamic are themselves).
Mullah Omar had a vague understanding of the world outside Afghanistan at best and probably did not expect anything more than previous air and missile strikes on alQaeda bases. alQaeda themselves had a bit better understanding of what they were in for and assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance (the folks that eventually marched on Kabul underneath US air cover) the day before 9/11. But that was just a coincidence, I’m sure.
In any event, 9/11 was, if nothing else, an act of war by Afghanistan, given the pretty deep links between the Taliban and al’Qaeda (which funded the Taliban and supplied several military units). Our overthrow of the Taliban regime was justified and legal.
Iraq, of course, was neither. The author torpedoes himself when he tries to conflate the two.