Herbert: Oil and Blood

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/opinion/28herbert.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

It is now generally understood that the U.S.-led war in Iraq has become a debacle. Nevertheless, Iraqis are supposed to have their constitution ratified and a permanent government elected by the end of the year. It's a logical escape hatch for George W. Bush. He could declare victory, as a senator once suggested to Lyndon Johnson in the early years of Vietnam, and bring the troops home as quickly as possible.

His mantra would be: There's a government in place. We won. We're out of there.

But don't count on it. The Bush administration has no plans to bring the troops home from this misguided war, which has taken a fearful toll in lives and injuries while at the same time weakening the military, damaging the international reputation of the United States, serving as a world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups and blowing a hole the size of Baghdad in Washington's budget.

A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses. But the whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as "the greatest single prize in all history."

<snip>

It's the oil, stupid.

[Dudley_DUright]

1. I envision a quick withdrawal

to those 14 permanent bases inside Iraq. I don't see BushCo ever giving those bases up.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. kick

[snot]

3. I won't claim great minds; but just posted elsewhere:

ok, so Bush/Blair seem resigned to pull troops out asap--

political exigencies.

I don't suppose they'd do so w/o assurance that the 14 permanent bases will remain in Iraq; that the oil will remain under U.S. hegemony, etc.?

Let's focus: if we pull troops out, exactly how are "we" to retain control of whatever it was "we" went to war for?

I'm trying to figure their strategy. (end of previous post)

I'm truly unclear on practical aspects--I mean, I meant this as a real question: they're apparently willing to pull out; exactly what is it they hoped to gain control of and how do they hope to maintain control of it?

E.g., black box voting in Iraq?

[Vitruvius]

4. Why should the Bu$h gang pull out? They get the oil, other people die;

they get the big-money defense contracts, other people pay the taxes, they get the power, the rest of us get to eat it. It's a win-win-win for them and a lose-lose-lose for us. What's not to like -- for THEM.

And with Rethugnican voting machines in place, they think they can keep their racket going forever.

[checks-n-balances]

6. Yes- they're supporting democracy over there so they don't have to here.

Of course they're not really promoting it there either. But here, with those voting machines in place, they don't even have to pretend.

I doubt there's ever been a more cynical, hypocritical, power-obsessed, totally selfish, and ultimately destructive crime syndicate on the face of this earth.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Another part of the op-ed

This op-ed is also cited and discussed in the Israel/Palestine Forum at

see, especially

The madness took a Dr. Strangelovian turn in the summer of 2002, before the war with Iraq was launched. As The Washington Post first reported, an influential Pentagon advisory board was given a briefing prepared by a Rand Corporation analyst who said the U.S. should consider seizing the oil fields and financial assets of Saudi Arabia if it did not stop its support of terrorism.

<snip><

But dreams of empire die hard. American G.I.'s are dug into Iraq, and the bases have been built for a long stay. The war may be going badly, but the primary consideration is that there is still a tremendous amount of oil at stake, the second-largest reserves on the planet. And neocon fantasies aside, the global competition for the planet's finite oil reserves intensifies by the hour.

Especially interesting is the link to

<snip><

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing. It was presented on July 10 to the Defense Policy Board, a group of prominent intellectuals and former senior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy.

<snip><


"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

<snip><

Murawiec said in his briefing that the United States should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services."

If the Saudis refused to comply, the briefing continued, Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets should be "targeted," although exactly how was not specified.

(Of couse, Muraweic tied in regime change in Iraq as a way of influencing the Saudis -- "Coastie")

Food for thought.

[hadrons]

7. any 'pull-out' from the Bush crooks is one of two things ....

1) to fool the hopelessly foolish voters who still pull down (R) at the voting booth

2) wishing-thinking as returned to the WH as the Bushies really believe that they'll find enough Iraqis to be their proxies