It is becoming increasingly apparent as time goes on that the central components to the war in Iraq are based on economics and the imposition of military will, with these two factors working together as policy makers.
Since the beginning of the war in Iraq and through the continued U.S. occupation, the public has received fraudulent information concerning the invasion with excuses ranging from “weapons of mass destruction” to terror connections between the former Saddam-led government and al-Qaida, although neither point having been proven accurate. Yet, what is apparent is the U.S. military’s economic influence in the decision making process as it relates to contemporary American politics.
The cultivation of oil as an energy source with the construction of pipelines in both Iraq and Kuwait, at the expense of a tremendous amount of human life, is an example of the economic relevance related to Middle-Eastern/U.S. policies. Necessary for implementing these “war-policies” are the enormous contracts rewarded to major U.S. corporations by the United States government, with the use of tax-payers’ dollars.
A San Francisco Bay area-based organization called CorpWatch was created as an information center to counter corporate-led globalization. Through its watchdog research CorpWatch revealed these fascinating economic numbers:Lockheed Martin: Campaign contributions in 2002: $9.7 million, military contracts in 2003: $21.9 billion.Boeing: Campaign contributions in 2002: $1.6 million, military contracts in 2003: $17.3 billion.Northrop Grumman: Campaign contributions in 2002: $2.01 million, military contracts in 2003: $11.1 billion.Raytheon (means “light from the gods”): Campaign contributions in 2002: $1.08 million, military contracts in 2003: $7.9 billion.
There are other companies as well who received military contracts in 2003 exceeding $2 billion such as United Technologies, Halliburton, General Electric, and CSC/DynCorp, all this proving that the business of war can be quite a lucrative undertaking. This is why numbers, such as, over 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and over 1,300 dead American soldiers are less relevant to U.S. policy makers as are statistics based on economic profits to justify a war. Shareholders to the companies receiving these military and reconstruction contracts should be quite happy with these economic numbers, dead Iraqi children on the other hand, are not so happy.
What is the central idea here is the understanding that the current war in Iraq is being waged because of economic gains for large corporations, and U.S. military influence to that region. The war has nothing to do with liberating anyone from an oppressive government; if it did the United States might want to reconsider its liberation exercises by extracting its current political allies in Saudi Arabia, a well-known elaborate human rights violator.
The majority of wars throughout human history have been fought for the undertaking of wealth, and the power and control that comes with obtaining wealth. To receive public support the nations declaring war use a myriad of excuses related to liberation, whether those excuses are political, theological, or both in nature.
The U.S. decision to invade Iraq is not a unique response in the history of warfare, especially considering the economic implications in conjunction with that region, and the history the United States has in expanding its markets. To ignore the economic components to the war in Iraq is to accept whole heartily the fabricated political reasons which were so necessary in justifying the invasion to begin with.
