Did it make sense to begin this war if Iraq is quickly turning into another nest of al-Qaida?
The occupation of Iraq is a really very expensive thing indeed. The exact price the US taxpayers have to pay for stationing of the American army in Iraq has been already announced: it is $4 billion monthly. However, it was reported after the end of the war several times already that coalition servicemen discovered caches with hundreds of millions of dollars hidden by supporters of the former Iraqi regime.
Representatives of the US Administration explained in this connection that all money discovered this way (as well as money on frozen bank accounts) would be spent on post-war restoration of Iraq. But in the course of time there were less and less caches with money discovered in Iraq, and finally the whole sum of $1.7 billion once owned by Saddam and other influential figures of the former Iraqi regime turned out to be spent. The money is said to be spent on "reconstruction and restoration" of Iraq. Do ordinary Iraqis feel that about $2 billion have been spent for their welfare?
In fact, the sum of $1.7 billion would be enough to maintain the occupation troops for half a month. So, further it will be the USA that will pay for the staying of the occupation forces in Iraq and for the post-war restoration of the country. As far as diversions still continue in the country, it is unlikely that oil production will be revived there rather quickly. It is perfectly obvious that the US Administration is unhappy about the prospect of solitary realization of the burden of the Iraqi post-war restoration. This is the reason why the White House is now persistently urging the UN to increase the international presence in Iraq. Those countries that have already deployed their contingents in Iraq are not ready to finance the reconstruction works. They rather expect that Americans will pay extra to them.
There is one more type of pressure exerted upon the UN now. It is more and more reported that al-Qaida terrorists are penetrating Iraq. Today, Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan reports with reference to sources among the Iraqi Kurds that over 1,200 al-Qaida terrorists have penetrated Iraq within the past days. This is astonishing how omnipresent bin Laden's disciples are. At the same time, the newspaper touched upon Teheran. According to the newspaper, the terrorists entered Iraq from Afghanistan through the Iranian northern passes.
In this connection Russia's news agency RIA Novosti reports that some time earlier Saudi newspaper ash-Sharq al-Awsat reported with reference to a representative of the Kurdistan Patriotic Union that about 3,000 Islamic terrorists had penetrated into Iraq after the end of the war. Kurd home guards detained about 50 suspects, including Tunisians, Saudis and Palestinians. Islamist terrorists also came to Iraq through Syria and Jordan.
No doubt, Washington considerably profits from representing the events in Iraq as a struggle against international terrorism. First of all, weapons of mass destruction are mentioned now only in connection with the investigation of the suicide committed by Dr. David Kelly. Second, putting particular stress upon penetration of members of terrorist organizations into Iraq allows Washington to represent the situation in Iraq as a war against international terrorism. This fact in its turn serves additional leverage for exerting pressure upon the UN as far as fighting against terrorism is not the concern of the US only, but of the whole of the world community. However, the world community still supports a negative opinion concerning the war unleashed in Iraq.
However, an important question is still unanswered: did it make sense to begin this war if Iraq is quickly turning into another nest of al-Qaida? It is an open secret that Saddam and bin Laden were extremely inimical toward each other. Americans themselves admitted that there was no evidence proving any connection between the special services of the former Iraqi dictator and bin Laden's terrorists. However, ash-Sharq al-Awsat reported that Islamists and Saddam's supporters who used to be enemies became reconciled after beginning of a partisan war in Iraq.
So, it seems that the war in Iraq hasn't settled at least one problem which was declared the reason why coalition troops must invade Iraq (the only problem that seems to be settled is overthrowing of Saddam Hussein). At the same time, the number of other problems has considerably increased; and the US has no inclination to settle these problems alone.
Indeed, how dare they run US-independent policy? They should have followed the example of the European Union that turned independent states of the Old World into US-ditto entities
After the incident with the shootdown of the Ilyushin Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Russia will supply an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria