Ron Paul On Iraq Part 2: "The ‘Liberation’ Neocons Would Rather Forget"

Tyler Durden's picture

From Ron Paul

Iraq: The ‘Liberation’ Neocons Would Rather Forget

Remember Fallujah? Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military fired on unarmed protestors, killing as many as 20 and wounding dozens. In retaliation, local Iraqis attacked a convoy of US military contractors, killing four. The US then launched a full attack on Fallujah to regain control, which left perhaps 700 Iraqis dead and the city virtually destroyed.

According to press reports last weekend, Fallujah is now under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates. The Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, is under siege by al-Qaeda. During the 2007 “surge,” more than 1,000 US troops were killed “pacifying” the Anbar province.  Although al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invasion, it is now conducting its own surge in Anbar.
For Iraq, the US “liberation” is proving far worse than the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein, and it keeps getting worse. Last year was Iraq’s deadliest in five years. In 2013, fighting and bomb blasts claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces. In December alone nearly a thousand people were killed.
I remember sitting through many hearings in the House International Relations Committee praising the “surge,” which we were told secured a US victory in Iraq. They also praised the so-called “Awakening,” which was really an agreement by insurgents to stop fighting in exchange for US dollars. I always wondered what would happen when those dollars stopped coming.
Where are the surge and awakening cheerleaders now?
One of them, Richard Perle, was interviewed last year on NPR and asked whether the Iraq invasion that he pushed was worth it. He replied:

I've got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can't a decade later go back and say, well, we shouldn't have done that.

Many of us were saying all along that we shouldn’t have done that – before we did it. Unfortunately the Bush Administration took the advice of the neocons pushing for war and promising it would be a “cakewalk.” We continue to see the results of that terrible mistake, and it is only getting worse.
Last month the US shipped nearly a hundred air-to-ground missiles to the Iraqi air force to help combat the surging al-Qaeda. Ironically, the same al-Qaeda groups the US is helping the Iraqis combat are benefiting from the US covert and overt war to overthrow Assad next door in Syria. Why can’t the US government learn from its mistakes?
The neocons may be on the run from their earlier positions on Iraq, but that does not mean they have given up. They were the ones pushing for an attack on Syria this summer. Thankfully they were not successful. They are now making every effort to derail President Obama’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. Just last week William Kristol urged Israel to attack Iran with the hope we would then get involved. Neoconservative Senators from both parties recently introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, which would also bring us back on war-footing with Iran.
Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

It was always about opening the oil fields to the multi-national oil companies.  They are making billions pumping oil from Iraq (Saddam had shut them out).  If you accept that it was always about this, it is easy to understand why they lied about everything else.  

kliguy38's picture

Definitely a major element of it and now the neocons have already begun to change the script claiming through the MSM that "we left too soon" though we ever left...we have a hundred thousand private contractor mercenaries guarding our loot so we haven't left ...the globalist will never let us leave until the suck the blood out of them......and us

markmotive's picture

The Iraq invasion simply unleashed a decade of hell.

We all know why the US really toppled Saddam. And it wasn't because of his chemical weapons.

The Petrodollar - War Machine

upWising's picture

There was a time, early-on, in the campaign to "Free Little 'Raqi" from the Tyranny of Uncle Saddam, when the campaign was christened:





(Just before this little pearl of Truth in Advertising went to press, its significance was discovered by someone in the administration with two digits in their IQ, and the endeavour was re-christened Operation Iraqi Freedom).  

Never Let a Good Acronym GO To Waste.©

Amercia is Jesus' Favorite Country.©



malikai's picture

One could make a long laundry list of reasons why the invasion happened. I'd have to say the reason was not solely that the neocons are evil. Sure that was the impetus, but it was taking advantage of a simple fact about "American Exceptionalism" we can see in technicolor right here, from the annals of 2003.

Chris Hedges' Rockford College Speech. Still makes me ill to this day.

GetZeeGold's picture



Let's not stop at the neocons......cause there's nothing worse than a neocon pregressive.....yes they do exist.

In fact....they're damn near everywhere.

malikai's picture

Neocon, Neoliberal, all look the same to me. It's just a label for the individual subgroup executing the agenda.

I should have been more clear about that.

DOT's picture

Perhaps we can agree on "meta-" as the prefix, as all of the content is derivative and prepackaged.

(Bunch of punks there at RC. Not a single analytical skill has survived their "education". I am proud to have been declared persona non grata at this institution.)

BobPaulson's picture

Wasn't it to follow through with the moral outrage created by 9/11? Hand, glove; glove, hand.

For me the saddest thing is how passionate people were for the invasion at the time. It is simply astonishing how easily people can be manipulated into just about anything. My guess is 75% of the people posting here right now were strongly in favour of it. 

I remember watching Tony Blair diatribes about a ICBM chemical strike on London, and people were genuinely afraid. How about Colin Powell showing silly powerpoint graphics that looked like they were from the "Money for nothing" video saying that the evil 1980 holder of the Key to Detroit was devising such evil mobile weapons arsenals that the US hadn't even seen them yet? It was like "Wag the Dog" and almost nobody was calling bullshit.

malikai's picture

I didn't see that video at the time. It was only within the last few years that a friend showed it to me.

But I remember 2003 very well. That was the year that the republican in me died. Shortly after, I realized it was time to get out of dodge.

But I guess I was lucky. I was already aware of Hubbert's curve. The whole Iraq thing made everything as clear as day to me.

Jugdish's picture

yo kno way dogg thats mynigg dogg i went ot chool wit at nigga og that nigga iraqui freedom dog we went to war to rotec amecains dogg now yall niggas is swetin thae dmin dogg they just protetii u . 1

DavidC's picture

I'd like to arrow you down but I can't as I haven't the faintest idea what you've said/written.


Analyse2's picture

The Bush regime lied and fabricated "evidence" that was used to deceive Congress, the American people, and the United Nations. 

At the time that these absurd claims were being made, only experts knew that they were false but today everyone knows that the claims were lies.

I wonder why everyone has forgotten how much hate FRANCE got for NOT wanting to contribute in the Irak war.

The whole dumbass "LIBERTY FRIES" , the “cheese-eating surrender MONKEYS”  things   all kind of silly jokes still continuing, even in ZH …. Five years of Anti-French slander and vilification was thus thrust by the White House, the administration, members of Congress, governors and by lackeys in the media (like Fox News or Murdoch Press).

May all Americans remember what they did, and how it speaks volumes about how are treated dissent, opinion and opposition.

Spanky's picture



[I]t speaks volumes about how are treated dissent, opinion and opposition. -- Analyse2

Ratscam's picture

The french made up for it by attacking the country with the highest living standards in Africa, lybia.
lybia and Iraq are now both polluted by civil war and uranium depleted amunition. Hey but the people are happy for the freedom we gave them.

Analyse2's picture

There is no possible comparison: not at all the same scale, not so many deaths, and the lybian civil war had already begun before the United Nations intervention ...

malikai's picture

A 'civil war' usually does not begin with foreign spies paying off traitors and mercenaries to start a fight.

Analyse2's picture

Lybian Civil War

The conflict can roughly be divided into two periods before and after external military intervention authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

Active resistance to the government began in Benghazi on 18 February,

On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace

The initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US expanded to seventeen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance

It wasn't a French attack but an international intervention (including the US).

kridkrid's picture

I think it had more to do with Iraqi oil being sold in dollars vs the euro, but either way, it had NOTHING to do with WMD or anything else our govt told us.

dick cheneys ghost's picture

it was as much about keeping Iraqi oil OFF the market than about anything else........

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

DING DING DING we have a winner.

If the Iraq war was all about the Evil Oil Companies, then why has their ROI been so incredibly shitty on this "deal"?

Nope, it was about destabilizing secular Arab regimes in favor of Muslim extremists-- the empirical track record is quite clear as every single secular regime has been taken down in the region with the exception of Syria...which only exists thanks to Russian intervention.

Who are the Muslim fundamentalists in the region who might have an interest in restricting oil supply?

HINT: rhymes with "Gaudy Arabians".

Harbanger's picture

Obama has been charged in the International Criminal Court as an accessory to the mussie brotherhood.  Haven't heard a peep about it from the gov controlled MSM in the US.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You have it backwards.  A few very large private corporations control MSM (and .gov, because MSM convinces 90+% of the population to continue voting Red and Blue, and to continue believing meaningless bullshit about Progressives and Conservatives and how the two groups should hate each other).  

Harbanger's picture

So private corporations prefer Democrats?  What are you sayin?  It''s pretty fucking obvious that the MSM is biased.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You really don't get it, do you?

Private corporations prefer to continue the charade that there is a difference between the parties.  Including your buddy Rush who has more listeners than all cable news combined.  But he's the underdog, right?  Drudge receives millions of hits a day.  Rush has millions of listeners.  These are MSM, just as much as NY Times.  Open your eyes.  MSM is expert at creating a false paradigm of choice.  You are eating it up.  

Harbanger's picture

Listen Norwood 5.  Why do you assume I listen to Rush?  In fact I've just started listening to Michael Savage ( I recommend people search him and download his show).  The MSM is an abomination to the idea of a free press in the US, we've always suspected that it's controlled, but Obama's presidency solidified the fact that they will do whatever it takes (lie cheat and steal) to make democrats look good in the public eye.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I'll try one more time.  The MSM engages in daily propaganda.  They put up pretty pussy and preacher hair on Fox, and ugly lezbos and glasses wearing talking heads on MSNBC.  NYTimes puts up Krugman.  Murdoch puts up Kristol.  They divide us by party, Conservative vs. Progressive, Gay vs. Straight, Duck Dynasty versus Duck Fuckers, race versus race, poor versus "rich" (meaning people who make as much in a year as the oligarchs make in a day), pro-union versus anti-union.   The oligarchs/bankers are not Progressives and they are not Conservatives.   They are about power.  It's not about money to them.  They have more than they can spend.  They are modern Royalty.  We all work for them.  We pay taxes for them, and we owe interest on our mortgages and credit cards for them.    When we open up a savings account, we give them more money to fractionally reserve.  When we buy stocks, we pay them.  When we buy bonds, we pay them.   Both parties put up candidates vetted and funded by them.   They laugh their asses off while being flown in private jets to the Hamptons and islands we never heard of that we blame each other for what's wrong.   We know something is wrong, and it's easier to blame each other than some unknown entity that most never see.   Unless and until the average guy sees that the Fed, the bankers, the oligarchs are the first and foremost problem, they will continue winning. 

Savage has his moments but he's too often caught up in the Conservative versus Progressive circle jerk in which you find yourself.

Let's all agree to band together and End the Fed, and then let's debate politics.  Guess what.  It will never happen.  So the politics debate is pissing in the wind.

Spanky's picture



The oligarchs/bankers are not Progressives and they are not Conservatives. They are about power. -- LetThemEatRand

But not this...

It's not about money to them. -- LetThemEatRand

Money (and its accumulation) is a form of power.

But we do ultimately agree... 

Unless and until the average guy sees that the Fed, the bankers, the oligarchs are the first and foremost problem, they will continue winning. ... So the politics debate is pissing in the wind. -- LetThemEatRand

MeMongo's picture

Somehow to me, it doesn't seem like you're describing the Amish!

Jugdish's picture

Sometimes I wanna take a piss then shit but it just sometimes doesnt work like that.

Muppet Pimp's picture

Agreed on nearly every point.  This being the case, the Tea Party is the best solution.  Lower taxes, smaller government. 

If unseating the existing power structure "just because they are powerful" is your goal, my question to you is, if you are successful what do you think will fill that void?  A group of kinder gentler oligarchs? 

Spanky's picture

Gee, and I remember when Savage worked the liberal side of the mic (late 1980s)... Guess conservative advertisers made him a better offer. 

A Nanny Moose's picture

Personal attacks based on Poison Well fallacy. Try again Wesley Mouch.

upWising's picture

"With the Republicans and the Democrats, it's like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb.  There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them."

––George C. Wallace, 1968.  [Governor and "First Gentleman" of Alabama, Presidential Candidate].

disabledvet's picture

the whole point seems to be to keep oil speculators "liquid" if that's all we're talking about. in other words "we can't have oil prices fall! we can't have oil prices fall!" for some strange reason appears to be "the strategic goal"...which is WAY out there in left field than what the neo-cons wanted. I mean need ten million down to trade oil contracts...but you need at least a billion if you're trading in basis points. (obviously no single person can trade in basis points. probably not true with oil...but if the price really falls out of bed as with gold and silver this year you could be looking at some stupendous losses if oil and natural gas prices suddenly head South.) very "fluid" situation (literally and figuratively actually) and I'm definitely no expert on "the Middle East" which encompasses a lot of peoples and a lot of real estate. It sure looks to me like we're heading down this road at "breakneck speed" though: very large amount of uncertainty...and from my point of view "improbability." An outright deflation as the result of the "War on Terror" would have been about .0001 percent chance in my book.

Spanky's picture



The Samuel Huntington reference (Clash of Civilizations). I remember his articles on the subject in Foreign Affairs back in the mid 1990s. Simply amazing how his predictions came to pass, with a little help from his neocon friends...

[Edit] Funny, everyone here talks about propaganda, but not too many seem to understand how it works, except to point at the MSM... unfortunately. Simply put, the MSM is merely an end product.

Seer's picture

I'm not certain, it could be...  But one thing is for sure, the U.S. had locked down Iraqi oil back in the early 90s (Gulf War I) with sanctions and those sanctions were due to expire and they hadn't managed to assassinate Saddam or get him to blunder (again) on the international stage.

Here's some early history on oil in that region (interesting read):

fallout11's picture

Also, Saddam wanted to sell oil what oil was getting out for "other than USD$" (google Iraqi oil bourse). Can't have that.

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

i dont know why that resulted in so manhy down votes, as it most definetely was not about keeping the iraqi oil off the market. I personally spent a year staring at two iraqi oil terminals, and the endless line of tankers waiting to fill up, protecting both. I even walked around on them. That oil most assuredly made it to the market, with the US govt blessing. I agree its more about what it was sold for. Iraq and libya both made the mistake of attempting to bypass the perto dollar, and look where that got them. I am by no means defending the practice, but thats how it goes.

Seer's picture

It was about control of Iraqi oil on the open market.

The U.S. geostrategic planners KNOW that the House of Saud is on shifting sands (and also likely know the decline of Saudi oil fields) and it was essential to lock down one big pool of oil over there: Iran is the other, but the Iranians are pretty stable and Iraq was not (thanks to U.S. sanctions, which was the whole point- destablization in order to get rid of Saddam [didn't work, so war it was]).

StychoKiller's picture

"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -- Mua'd Dib

Apostate2's picture

That's called taxation


Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"I think it had more to do with Iraqi oil being sold in dollars vs the euro, but either way, it had NOTHING to do with WMD or anything else our govt told us"~

Personally I think the reason for Iraq II was a little more banal and base. Bush 43 went after Saddam for trying to whack Bush 41. See:

The fact that it impacted the House of Saud favorably was just icing on the cake.

Jack Burton's picture

Same for Libya. The same for the coming war on Iran. The same for the god for saken African nations the US and NATO are tearing apart. The play book is well known. Today in Iraq, a major civil war is breaking out, this will be a part of the Syrian war, as large groups of Iraqi Al-Qaeda cross into Syria to fight for the US allies of the Sunni Jihad. Also, Iraqi shia have crossed over to aid Assad's secular government in it's battle against the proxy invasion of Syria by NATO terror Army. Lebanon will be sucked in. Egypt is nearing an all out civil war, with the US backing the military. Saudi Arabia is funding every Sunni terror gang from Sothern Russia to Libya. This is one unholy fucking mess. The day George Bush invaded Iraq for no reason but that to be a war president, we have seen all hell break loose and spread like wildfire.

Israel and Saudi are playing with fire and flirting with Al-Qaeda, or should I say Israel flirts with Al-Qaeda, Saudi IS Al-Qaeda. The US plans to pivot to China and confront them, leaving their Iraq adventure as one of the most useless costly bloodbaths in modern history.

What a government we have. Dancing to their corporate masters, the arms makers and military contractors feast on our tax dollars! My son-in-law fought in the surge to win the big one for America. Now he is home and crippled, people should ask him what he thinks of liberating Iraq! Ha! Ha! He is not amused. He was played, and now he knows it. Bush was evil, Obama is evil. Why do people support their team red, or their team blue. That is useless.

NoDebt's picture

Jack, it could be worse.  We could be in Syria right now, too.  

Do we have to thank Obama for being as incompetent getting a simple war in Syria off the ground as he is getting Obamacare off the ground?  Did Obama accidentally adopt the Ron Paul position on foreign policy by having NO coherent foreign policy?  

I don't like the thought that by sheer incompetence and stupidity this administration got to the right answer in dealing with the Middle East.  Yet, I find that idea not easy to dismiss.


jekyll island's picture

Uhhh, Syria doesn't have any oil.  Kinda hard to justify to the sheeple that the US is going to war to prevent Russia from building a pipeline that would threaten Fabian Europe.