Nabi,
Let us look at the Keypoints of the DPG
Quote:
Key Points/Excerpts:
· The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
· Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.
According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."
The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."
The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.
· If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.
There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.
The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.
The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.
|
In another document that I have (which I somehow cannot fish out) it states that US has to have bases near areas of potential conflicts or where it has strategic resources so that it cuts down the cost of mobilisation as also the reaction is fast.
Now take the above.
Iraq fits in like a T!
How can anyone fault the logic of the approach to what is the US interests. It is a different matter that somewhere down the line, it has got messed up.
No, the US is not in Iraq merely for Oil, even though Iraq has the second largest oilfields in the world and more importantly, it is a low sulphur oil, wherein the refining costs become much lower than the normal! A plus point, if you will. You must read Cheney's National Resource Policy Paper along with the DPG. It all sort of falls in place.
It is essential for the US to be physically present in the Middle East. The ideal area is Iraq since it is in the centre of the whole area, so to say. Iraq is bordered by most Middle East countries and so to 'intervene' in case it is unavoidable, launching from Iraq would not require movement through other countries. Politically, nothing could be more ideal!
The US could not find a better excuse to establish itself in the Middle East than taking on Saddam, whose shenanigans are legend and who was not popular with the Moslem world since he snubbed them all, Shias and Sunnis alike. He also attempted to do something which was immensely detrimental to the US hegemony over oil - change the currency to Euro for oil transaction (as Iran has done). This was a serious matter for US economy!
The US industries were seriously being affected by the manipulation of the OPEC countries in controlling production as also the price. Therefore, the stranglehold of the OPEC had to be contested and broken. Iraq, with the second largest oilfields in the world, was ideal to have to ensure that the OPEC stranglehold is broken.
You maybe aware that the US Oil Consortium has plans to build pipeline from the Central Asian Republic oilfields to Europe skirting Russia. By positioning US troops in Iraq and more so, in northern Iraq or Kurdistan, it would be ideal to put a military presence in the vicinity. By influencing the CAR it would also keep the pressure on Russia from the South.
The so called Rainbow Revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and the failed ones in CAR are but in pursuance of the DPG. Lebanon, too, is a part of the proceedings.
Therefore, the US actions are no flashes in the pan.
They are well thought out and brilliant from the strategic point of view.
It is also in US interest to have the world following the US pattern so that it becomes easy for the US to deal with other nations.
As far as the Mess that has been created as a consequence, that is another story!