US taxpayers will be ‘crying in their beers’ when Iraqi reconstruction bill arrives
The neocons and the military-industrial complex are rubbing their hands with glee over profits to be made from Iraqi reconstruction, but that cannot be said of the US taxpayer who must foot the bill, says Ron Paul Institute Executive Director Daniel McAdams.
After Amnesty International had published a report accusing the US coalition of partial responsibility for mass civilian casualties, Major General Rupert Jones, the deputy commander of the international anti-ISIS coalition, criticized the findings, calling the allegations disrespectful and naive.
“It strikes me as being written by people who simply have no understanding of the brutality of warfare. But we should be absolutely clear who were deliberately killing civilians,” Jones told the Telegraph.
RT: How much legitimacy is there to support the permanent basing of US troops in Iraq following the military operation in Mosul that has left much of the city in ruins?
Daniel McAdams: There is absolutely no consensus in Congress; there has been no new authorization. The ground is very shaky legally for the US to permanently base troops there.
It is almost like a case of national amnesia. We forgot what happened in 2003 when President Bush said: “mission accomplished, we have done everything we need to do, great victory.” The reality is that just created the problems that we are still fighting today. So, the idea that we are going to do the same thing, which is to defeat the so-called enemy there and then remain indefinitely and somehow the result will be different is an absolute fantasy. The neocons and the military-industrial complex and the people who are going to be involved in the reconstruction are absolutely rubbing their hands with glee, while the American taxpayer, who is going to be given another bill for destroying and rebuilding Iraq, should be crying in his beer.
RT: What kind of an attitude will the people of Iraq, and especially Mosul, have towards the allied forces following the highly destructive campaign?
DM: It invites more people to become radicalized and view the US as the enemy, and rightly so. The people that have had their houses destroyed. Over 5,800 civilians have been killed just from February to June in Mosul by the US and allied bombs. If anyone thinks those people and the families of those people are not furious and hate America, they’ve got another thing coming. This is a population that will be radically viewed as anti-American because of the destruction of their city and the fact that we are staying there makes the US military into sitting ducks and makes the country more vulnerable to people who are radicalized by their presence. They just don’t get it that it was our presence in the first place that inspired these attacks. Being there longer, being their permanently will just inspire more.
RT: Will the defeat of ISIS in Mosul guarantee the end of hostilities there?
DM: No, it is not a guarantee that the conflict will end, but it is a guarantee the US will pull its nose out of somewhere that is doesn’t belong. It was the US intervention, the US invasion, the US attack in 2003, which we now know was based on nothing but lies by the neocons amplified by a media in the US that is absolutely incurious, that never challenges the government on these things. That is what led to the problems. It was the initial US invasion of Iraq. So, we won’t necessarily turn Iraq into Switzerland if we leave, but at least it will help us stop making things worse which is what we are doing by invading, re-invading, blowing it up, rebuilding, blowing it up. It just keeps going on and on and doesn’t solve any problems. It is inevitable that somehow the Iraqis will have to solve their own problems one way or the other.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
