As President Obama has carelessly blundered the US government into a war with a few thousand Islamic extremists, we need to ask, “Exactly what is the American foreign policy anyway?” After almost bringing us to the brink of war over the Ukrainian conflict (and with a nuclear-armed Russia at that), Mr. Obama has now followed in the footsteps of his predecessor and launched a war in Iraq and Syria against ISIS.
Committing Air Forces to a battle against a small group of radicals, (including bombers, fighters, AWACs, cruise missiles and drones) to annihilate ISIS is an example of overkill at its worst. Although a few Arab allies will join Washington, and right-wing governments in Canada and Australia have also entered the conflict, the brunt of the battle and its costs fall on American taxpayer shoulders.
The “kill ‘em all and let God sort them out” rhetoric sounding from the White House is a reflection of Vietnam era strategy. Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power appear to be running the show. Neither they nor President Barack Obama seems to have any grasp of military or geopolitical strategy. It’s amateur hour driven by a frenzy of alarmist hysteria from politicians and the media.
But what is the real motivation behind this move? It certainly isn’t purely humanitarian; we aren’t just routing out the evil-doing ISIS from the wonderfully stable governments of Iraq and Syria. No, the answer is money.
Nomi Prins recently wrote for The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:
Citigroup opened its first Iraq branch in September 2013; ten years after George W. Bush began his Iraq War while facing a recessed American economy. A decade ago, the Bush administration selected JPM Chase to manage billions of dollars of financing for Iraq imports and exports. JPM Chase also opened a branch in Iraq last year to compete with Citigroup for current gains. Billions of dollars in new pipeline funding and other projects are now up for grabs in Iraq. If the US supports the Iraqi government (against ISIS), these banks, as well as oil and infrastructure-building companies are poised to get more of a chunk of that money. Citigroup is already a forerunner for arranging a $2 billion loan for Boeing Jets to Iraq. As Iraq’s Deputy Transport Minister Bangen Rekani said in April, “We need a lot of funds…we’re in a race to complete the maximum number of projects in a short time.” (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/september/26/gateway-policies-isis,-obama-and-us-financial-boots-on-the-ground.aspx)
The truth is that Obama’s policy is one of economics, driven by mega-banking interests. The hope is, of course, that reconstruction, pipeline construction, and economic recovery will be financed through these institutions. Chase, Citigroup and the IMF all stand to profit. At a press conference in Beirut in June, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim told the international community that the World Bank would help to rebuild Syria (at a cost of $150 billion after an “internationally recognized government” was put in place).
In the meantime, Russia is playing the same game. They are fighting for the same domination in Ukraine and have recently invested $4 billion in transporting Iraqi oil. They hold a 75% stake in Iraq’s West Qurna oil fields.
Thus, the Obama foreign policy is really economic policy. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. That complex has turned to a governmental-banking mega-complex. It is far worse that the United States is sending the young into battle for banking interests than the supposed threat of terrorism. ISIS poses no threat to the people of the US, but it does pose a threat to US banks.