What's really at stake in Iraq?

Question

I know most people hate long winded questions, but all the points of this question will take some time to present. I will try to be as brief as possible.

For the purpose of this debate, I want to make the assumption that every President of the USA since FDR has based their decisions on the welfare of the country and nothing else. I want to dismiss any notions that personal agendas were involved or personal gains were involved. Let's just assume every President including GWB has acted solely for the good of the country as best as they could. That said, let's review a bit of history;



The USA didn't start issuing paper money until sometime around the Civil War. The script was actually a promissory note backed up by gold. All gold in the USA became the property of the government, and citizens were required to surrender their gold in return for script. A rate was fixed at $35 per ounce of gold. On the international market, the USA agreed to surrender gold in exchange for its script. This make U.S. currency as good as gold in international dealings and able to compete with the British pound sterling, which was the accepted international currency up to WWII.



The USA emerged from WWII as the wealthiest nation in the capitalized world. America didn't fight the war for free. It supplied arms and equipment to its allies with an invoice enclosed and captured most of the wealth from these countries. Great Britain, for instance, didn't finish paying off its war debt to the USA until just a few years ago. With no damage to its infrastructure, a booming industrial economy, and a full treasury the USA was clearly the economic leader of the world. Its currency immediately replaced the British pound as the international trade currency and has remained so to this day.



WWII created a new threat to the world, takeover by the communist state. For the first time in its history, the USA was not able to disband its military after the conflict. Since its treasury coffers were full, it presented little problems at the time for the country to maintain a guns and butter economy through the 1950s. The 1960s, however, strained the treasury beyond its means.



The 1960s brought on a period when the USA was maintaining a large military to keep the USSR at bay, it was financing a war in Vietnam, a space program, and began a welfare program for the poor. It was during this period that the government starting printing money in excess of its gold supply. This became quite evident to the international community, and in the early 1970s France came forward and demanded gold in exchange for its U.S. currency held in its reserve. This move by France started a run on the U.S. gold supply.



This was the major challenge that faced President Nixon during his term. His solution was to take the dollar off the gold standard and make a pact, which in time has proven to be a deal with the devil.



Note: from this point on, I am going to be a bit vague with actual names. Each time I put actual names in print here on this forum, the question ends up deleted for no given reason. When I use the word commodity, I am referring to the commodity you need to make your car go. When I mention pirates, I am referring to the group of foreigners who control the international supply of this commodity.

Nixon knew quite well that something had to determine the value of the dollars. His solution was really quite ingenious and a tribute to his wisdom. For the conditions of the world at that time, it was the perfect solution. Nixon made a pact which a group of pirates whereby they would sell their commodity on the international market and demand payment for this commodity only in U.S. currency. This was the establishment of what is called petrodollars today. The commodity became the standard by which the U.S. dollar was valued.



This solution did not come without an immediate effect. Without gold backing the dollar, the pirates thought their commodity was seriously underpriced. In 1974, the pirates enacted a commodity embargo, which lasted until their benchmark price was obtained. What followed was over a decade of inflation in the USA, which lasted until the money supply, the excess money printed in the 1960s, matched the economy.



Since the commodity based value of the dollar set an artificial value of its currency, the USA was able to print far more currency than its GNP demanded. This served the pirates well, as they too feared a Soviet takeover thus losing control of their commodity. But, this agreement of mutual necessity ended with the fall of the USSR. No longer do the pirates need the military protection of the USA. Only the USA needs the pirates the support its overextended currency.



Here lays the danger today. I don't recall the exact figures, but as of 2003 there was somewhere around 2700 trillion dollars tucked away in foreign reserves. This is currency used in the international commodity market. About 5 or 6 years ago, one of the pirates, who held a grudge against the USA, starting demanding payments for his country's commodity for food program in Euros rather than dollars. This move by this pirate started other pirates to consider the same. Even the largest pirate, who lived next door to this pirate, started making motions that it too would start trading in Euros.



The USA could not lose control of the international market that set the value of its currency. The only solution was to remove the pirate who started the whole movement. The opportunity presented itself when an unrelated group blew up the WTC. Plans were made, and the U.S. military went to work.



The plan, however, to secure the international commodity market with military force hasn't quite worked out. Another neighboring pirate, much larger than the first pirate, is now trading its commodity in Euros instead of dollars. That pirate is now trying to foil the efforts of the USA, and that pirate now seems to be in the military cross hairs as well.



So, what's at stake?

If the pirates start trading in Euros as opposed to dollars, the 2700 trillion dollars plus in foreign reserves becomes worthless except for here in the USA. This puts the industrial based in the USA in jeopardy. One possible way for foreign countries to recoup the value of this currency is to buy corporate America. We could see large companies like GE and Microsoft bought up with currency that would otherwise be worthless. Such a move would virtually place all of America in slavery.



We cannot change history. Every decision make in the past made by every U.S. President suited the times. We can only take a good look at where we are today and judge the correct action to suit the current conditions.



Which brings us to the question. Is success in the war in Iraq the answer to the problem?

Answer 1

The oil is at stake.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Answer 2

OK, so what your saying is the war was over the pirate not using the dollar for payment. Well, I disagree with your conclusion the International community has been well aware of the Euros future as a competitor for the dollar since the first Euro bonds hit the market in the 1980's, this was always the plan of the EU. The Euro does not represent a risk to the valuation of the Dollar as a commodity. And this was not the reason for going to war. Everyone knew including the President that "going it alone" would be financially expensive in the long run. Not a "traditional" war economy scenario.

The Euro simply gives smaller countries "collective bargaining power" against larger countries.

And two, as to the second pirate, they keep sending munitions into Iraq to kill our troops, then we had better attack.

Answer 3

Is success in Iraq the answer to the problem? The problem - meaning - the furure of our economy? I believe there is an even bigger picture being painted that includes the one you are addressing here. There are pieces of important information to be picked up when looking at decisions made by government officials throughout history. However, there are going to be a lot of missing pieces as well. Without having access to classified information in regards to your topic and without knowing those in power who make the BIG decisions, I cannot even begin to speculate. Therefore, I am limited as to what I can say in regards to your concern.

My opinion, however, is that success IS important in Iraq in regards of winning the hearts and minds of the people and establishing good relations with the Iraqi government. If we can secure a positive position in the hearts and minds of those people then we have a better chance for future dealings with them. We, the United States, have already spent lots of money in an attempt to do this and the government will continue to do so until the governement is satisfied.

You make a good point and it is a worthy debate, which IS being waged as we speak in our government. Address your government officials with this question and see what kind of reply you get.

Answer 4

Where to begin. Couple of things that need to be set straight. Communism was NOT held at bay until Reagan took over. The communist block kept expanding until Reagan brought the evil empire to its knees. The United States economy will continue to dominate the European markets until one of the two following happens: 1. Europe turns to a more free market society as opposed to their near socialist states they have now, or 2. The US becomes much closer to a socialist economy (See Hillary Clinton).

The European with it's "sophistication" is really an inept way of economics. Their economies are begining to show the strain of their inept way of doing things. We continue to roll along until another Dimocrat raises our taxes.

Answer 5

And this is why I believe our government was behind 9-11.
We needed 9-11 in order to have justification to invade Iraq. We had to invade Iraq.

Answer 6

That country is Iran ,our next target.But we will not win and wwlll will start.The greater Persia will come out of it ,and the Muslim world and other great powers will help them,Europe will stand down then join them against us.

Answer 7

May I have this in hard copy? Who is your editor? Will this question be available at Barnes and Nobles?

Answer 8

Aslan, first, let me start out expressing my gratitude at your personal invitation, asking that I address this question. I am flattered that you thought of me with respect to this complex and seminal issue.

The question is a good one, and it really does bring up a salient angle concerning the Iraq war that I never thought of. I will be candid with you in that I don’t know much about the oil trade and how it relates to the valuation of the dollar, and I am going purely off the assertions you posited in this question. You have shed light on an aspect of the war, and how it relates to global commerce, that I am admittedly wholly ignorant of. It’s something that I will have to do research on, so I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Hence, given my ignorance, and much to my own disappointment, I cannot contribute that much more than others who have responded to this question, who seem to know more about this issue than I do.

All that I can say is given the deceptive practices already employed by this administration concerning the very events of 9/11, and given all the fictitious reasons for going to war - Iraq’s supposed terrorist connections with 9/11 hijackers, their alleged WMD caches, freeing the Iraqi people, establishing a democratic Iraq, and finally preventing terrorism from leaving Iraq and coming here (the most preposterous of notions) – I wouldn’t put it past this administration to be that mendacious and utilize the war in order to preserve the value of the dollar.

Whether the Bush administration is utilizing the war to garner money directly from Iraqi oil, or is perpetuating the length of our occupation in order to allow American business ventures to profit from the “reconstruction effort” (something I am almost certain of), or if the impetus behind our incursion into Iraq more aligns along your novel theory, or a combination of all three forms of capitalization, one point should be painfully obvious – whatever reason we are doing it for, it is not for any lofty or noble humanitarian concern for Iraqis, or for the protection of liberty and establishment of democracy in the region, and it is certainly not an essential or even necessary component in this aimless “War on Terror”. In short, every reason given to the American public, and the global community, concerning our rationale for invading Iraq, and occupying the country, merely gives a pretext of moral legitimacy, but even a cursory investigation into our methods and what is going on there belies any impression that we are doing something that is ethical or morally laudable.

For politicians, such as Bush, his governmental colleagues, and corporate associates to lie to the American public concerning our justification for Iraq, and that lie resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of our soldiers, and thousands more Iraqi civilians, is detestable, but given that we are dealing with politicians and cutthroat businessmen, it is expected. They got to their positions in life by being an unscrupulous lot. What is truly more deplorable is that the American people are credulous enough to fall for this scam time and time again.

Every major armed conflict, after World War II, that the United States has been in involved in, has had as an underlying cause more profit that benefits the military industrial complex, which drives the politics in our country. The virtuous reasons for wars have, for the past 50 or so years, been manufactured in order to induce consent from the masses to commit money and the blood of our men, so that it would profit the few. Dwight Eisenhower, as recounted in the spectacular documentary film “Why We Fight”, predicated this unholy alliance between business, the government, and the military in fighting frivolous wars, all for the financial benefit of defense contractors, government officials, and corporate America, at the expense of the U.S.’s moral integrity and the lives of countless thousands.

We can theorize over which manner of pursuing profit the government and business elites are using this time, but the truth is that it is certain that we are in this war purely for financial reasons, not because of protecting the innocent. The real tragedy is that the ability of our country to go to war with spurious justification is completely contingent on the gullibility of the American people. We can lambaste the depravity of the government all we want, and speculate as to how they are profiting off the war, but we cannot excuse the American people, especially the conservative supporters of Bush, from subscribing to the asinine and patently false proposition that we are doing this for the good of the Iraqi people and for the safety of the American citizens.

It is that foolishness, which is completely the result of American intellectual laziness, dogmatism, and blind “patriotism” which is utterly inexcusable. The greatest moral sin is not that our politicians, who are inherently mendacious, lie to us. The biggest transgression against humanity, and the greatest affront to all the goodness of this country and the enlightened principles we say we espouse, is that the American people are too lackadaisical to investigate the true reasons for our wholesale exploitation and slaughter of our own citizens and those on foreign shores.

The greatest controversy shouldn’t be in which MANNER are we profiting off the war. Instead, the most egregious crime should be that we are using the war to PROFIT AT ALL, and that all it would take to stop it is for the American people to get off their preverbal behind and do at least a cursory study of the causes of this war, and then insist our politicians desist in their Machiavellian quest for power and capital at the expense of human life and dignity. It is only when Americans do this, that we will have the right to be called the greatest country on earth. It is only then we can actually say there is truth to our patriotic slogans.