Was This War Just?
It has been one year since U.S. president George Bush gave the green light for the American troops to invade Iraq for the purpose of ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A few countries, notably the U.K., Australia, and Spain, among others, supported that invasion.
The military objectives have been attained. Saddam Hussein is in the hands of the American forces. An interim government friendly to American interests, which has just approved an interim Constitution, is in place, and a timetable for the formation of a more permanent government is being followed. Unless there are unexpected developments, the American forces and their allies will be put of Iraq by June 30.
As a morality tale, the Bush administration can say that an evil dictator has been ousted and the Iraqi people freed. This will be the likely line to be spun as part of the re-election strategy of Bush, who must also justify the increasing number of fatalities after Saddam was toppled.
The motherhood line may be fine, but there is a side to this tale that was formally being spoken of only in whispers, but which is slowly being discussed openly by the public. Yes, Saddam was a tyrant, but was his ouster nothing more than a business decision that will favor a selected few? And will the Bush family gain from this business decision? These questions need to be asked. And they must be answered to the satisfaction of the majority.
Like it or not, the Bush family is engaged in the oil industry. Since this industry has many downstream businesses, it is not farfetched to surmise that some branch of the Bush family will prosper from the contracts involving Iraqi oil. In particular, the Halliburton connection must be explained, as it will not...