There never was the intention of "winning" the war in Iraq.

[hector459]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy13.html

This was always intended to be a war of "occupation." Great theory.
Maybe that's why the Bush administration never had a "exit strategy" in place. We never intend to leave.

[FloridaPat]

1. 14 military bases. That was a sign. PNAC was another sign.

It's been obvious since he started the campaign for the invasion.

[havocmom]

2. PNAC plans need a large staging area in the Middle East

to allow for various ah adventures in empire... The princes of capitalism need their royal exercises. Too bad all those innocent military personnel and local citizens have to die for their gambits.

Am I the only one who has just about choked some fool who starts in with the 'defending our freedom' routine? When has any Iraqi citizen ever threatened any of our freedoms?

Their only transgression is living in a strategically advantageous location on top of oil. For that they pay with having an occupation which has destroyed their infrastructure and murdered tens of thousands. Our citizen soldiers have lost their freedom and too many have lost health or lives for this folly.

All for the glory of gold to greedy corporate cowards... The cradle of civilization bombed to rubble and a decent people made to hate us...

[two gun sid]

3. Actually, I've always felt....

it was a way of getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia yet maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf. It would take some heat off of the Saudi royal family and possibly take some heat off of us. Remember, one of Bin Laden's complaints was our presence in the land of the Prophet.

It's hard to tell what the PNACer's real objectives are. Maybe they just thought it would all be a cakewalk and they could make a big pile of money.

[Grey Ranks]

4. I think it is about opening markets

Iraq is about opening up new markets. Ironically I just posted something against Fahrenheit 9/11, but in Fahrenheit 9/11, there is a guy who says that greatest new opportunity for economic growth is Iraq. Iraq has oil, money, and no infrastructure or goods. Meaning they can buy from us. I think that we do want the war to be over. Every extra day we spend money in Iraq is one day less that we get profits from Iraq.

[BeFree]

5. Markets?@!

We are there to steal the oil. And we will be there until they kick us out, or we get smart and find an alternative to oil.

American empire, vis a vis, PNAC is what it's all about. If it were markets we wouldn;t have had to invade, besides what the hell can we sell the Iraqi's?

[ldf]

6. and every extra day we spend money in iraq

means another day of our tax payer money going into bush's and cronies pockets.

methinks you are desperate for a rationalization that will divert from the real objectives.

[Grey Ranks]

7. Your missing the big picture

What sense does that make, that money would go into the pockets of cronies regardless. We, or specifically certain American corporations, can have pure profit from Iraq, or we can suffer loss of profit by a war.

I didn't justify anything.

PNAC isn't about military domination. People who think that are mistaken. It is about economic domination, using the military for support. This is neo-imperialism.

[chlamor]

8. Plugging Iraq Into Globalization

New World Order=Old World Colonialism-Same Old Song

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
-Michael Ledeen (American Enterprise Institute)


In early April, during the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon until Pentagon PR realized that didn't look very good and ordered them renamed. Those soldiers knew the score. Several months and dozens of lives later, Bechtel, Halliburton, and a host of oil companies are ensuring that the fledgling "free market" in Iraq will be particularly free for US corporations.

The ultimate prize in Iraq, of course, is oil, and the Bush/Cheney gang has uncoiled a vastly underreported legal and financial cord that plugs U.S corporate control into these resources at least through the year 2007. The basic wiring has two prongs and is already complete. The first part, created by the UN under US pressure is the Development Fund for Iraq­ which is to be controlled by the US and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Unsurprisingly, this is looking more and more like a slush fund for corporate welfare. The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. And a third and final prong is being crafted to ground the whole system and get as much profit as possible out of it.
<snip>

New debt will accrue through the very program that Ambassador Negroponte said would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq. Some of the funds will finance reconstruction projects approved by viceroy Bremer. But other funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm), whose mission is not development or poverty alleviation, but rather the creation of US jobs and the promotion of American business abroad.

On June 19, the U.S. ExIm announced that it was open for business in Iraq and would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is, companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq for working capital guarantees. Corporations have found it impossible to obtain private bank credit for work in Iraq, due to the ongoing insecure environment. But ExIm has stepped in to take a lead role in facilitating U.S. business in Iraq.
<snip>
The third and final prong needed to plug Iraq fully into the global economy is perhaps the most ironic of all. While ensuring that the Development Fund will be used to deepen Iraq's debt to the US, the Bush administration is demanding that the Gulf States, Russia, France, and the international financial institutions forgive Iraq's existing $60 billion-plus debt. If it's done, we will surely hear the pundits praising the lifting of this burden from the backs of innocent Iraqis.
http://www.counterpunch.org/kretzmann07222003.html