Good point....

On Wednesday, Emma, at Notes on the Atrocities, referenced an excellent article in the May Harper's (not yet online) to make the astute observation that the goal of the Iraq war is the "Latin-Americanization of the Middle East."

There’s a reason Iraq was such a great country to invade—it’s unrulable, at least in the short term. Weighted down by hundreds of billions in foreign debt and confronting the burning rage of a divided population, Iraq is spoiling for years or decades of instability. From the US’s point of view, this means opportunity. It can support whatever government emerges, and in a pattern well-established in Latin America, slowly bind the country to the US through a kind of free-market colonialism.

[...]

The process feeds on division. While foolish anti-war types like me were busy howling that this war would destabilize the region, Rumsfeld was nodding sagely: that's the only way this model can spread. In countries like Iran, where the population is generally homogenous, the Bushies need to stir up a little trouble. As a new regime establishes itself in Iraq, there will inevitably be charges that it's a US puppet. The fall-out will lead to divided populations. The evidence that the US is after destabilization abounds (and I don't know how I missed it): the war's not even over, and the US threatens Syria? An ally?

And so the US fiddles while Iraqis loot. Even the most nonpolitical Americans have a gut sense that this probably isn’t so hot for a healthy democracy in the long run. They wonder why the US didn’t foresee or try to prevent it. We’re left to conclude that a healthy democracy isn’t what the President’s after. He’s after an unhealthy one. And for that, looting and revenge are just what the free-market colonialist ordered.[Emphasis mine.]

Notes is a regular on my must read list.