Excellent post about the money interests involved in Iraq War III, JML!

I wonder why our Corporate MainstreamMedia never discuss to such obvious things.

Could it be that they are eager to hide Corporate interests?

Could it be that US militarism - the idea that international conflicts of interest have to be solved mainly by use of violence or threat of violence - have its main supporter here, among the Corporations?

And gil,

you are of course right when you “correct” my “quote” in post 26:
” … We did it to secure your cheap gas for the future! We lied, but our intentions were GOOD!”

Even when these guys are willing to come NEAR the truth they still have to lie.
Western people in general do not like it to be seen as EGOISTS.
Weird. Because on the other hand we all openly advocate egoism, when it comes to economy.
But when we wage war, we of course only do it benevolently, to support the interests of the others, and for ideal (and not material) ends.
Fascinating hypocrisy in so many of us!

Rick Moran is a comparatively honest guy, in this respect.

Let me address MY own egoism with this statement:
Yes, people, I AM an egoist - but in my own, very personal interest I do what I can to interpret my personal interest in terms of a collective interest. My personal wellbeing requires mankind’s wellbeing. And that does NOT mean that my own wellbeing of means automatically the wellbeing of mankind. It’s more the other way round! (Such reflection requires quite a complex evaluation of interests, and a threefold logics; binary logics fails to meet the complexity here.)

So, for example, being a liberal I know quite well that for my success as a liberal I NEED the conservatives and their strength, too. Because my personal sanity and soberness comes from balance, and a liberal can only balance himself insofar he is challenged by (real!) conservatives.

That is a lesson Rick Moran does not want to adopt. Although, in some of his reflections, there is a good trait of it. That is why it makes sense for reasonable liberals and reasonable conservatives to read his blog.

Sometimes I have to wonder if Iraq isn’t turning out exactly as planned. When in doubt, follow the money.

The Republicans have been telling us for years that we need to privatize virtually every last facet of government because private industry can accomplish things faster and cheaper and that would be a plus for the taxpayer. Be that as it may, it also shifts the focus of the now-privatized services from providing a public service to making a profit. In some instances, profit motive and public service can be polar opposites. If airport security is provided by a private firm, then profits come first. This means that labor costs need to be kept at a minimum. This is done by paying security personnel as little as possible, with the byproduct of ensuring that talented candidates accept jobs elsewhere. Costs are also kept down by providing an absolute minimum of training and providing the cheapest equipment. Security personnel must also take care not to be excessively disruptive of airport operations because passenger inconvenience is bad for business. (If we had real airport security on 9/11, perhaps we would be talking about a crazy plot that was foiled back in 2001 versus the bitter memories that we have today, but I suppose that could be a whole separate discussion…)

Now, Rick, to answer your question, we might apply the same principles to the Iraq war. Contractors are involved in such tasks as operating mess halls, laundry facilities, security, and logistics. These are things that used to be handled by military personnel. Supposedly, contractors are more efficient and less costly. However, it is in the contractors’ best interests that the war not end because that would be the end of their gravy trains. Remember, their primary purpose, as with any private industry, is to make money. When I consider the cozy ties between Bush and Cheney and contractors like Halliburton, I have to ask whether they indeed did plan for an insurgency; if the idea all along was to maintain a sort of low boil going in Iraq while literally banking on Americans’ patriotic sentiments. The money would flow virtually non-stop from taxpayers into contractors’ coffers.

I have recently read the suggestion that, at this point, the military is really acting as a sort of cheap security force for the contractors (who are, ostensibly, supporting the military).

I hate to say it, but at least this scenario makes sense in a very cynical, twisted way. The point is money. Halliburton’s profits are up something like 800% since 2001. This war has been very kind to a select few. Also, bear in mind that Bush has said repeatedly that Iraq will be up to the next (poor bastard) president to resolve.

Any other scenario can only lead me to believe that this administration is unquestionably and criminally incompetent and stupid.

(Any ideas as to what Cheney’s Energy Task Force was talking about behind closed doors in the days before 9/11?)

I agree with your views.

The only difference of opinion is that I believe that the war was not for lower gas prices, but for bigger gas revenues for this Administration’s masters. The oil Conglomerates.

Poor oil man, they waited all their lives for their golden opportunity to take over the second largest reserves of oil on hearth, they put in their best man Cheney as VP, they lobbied and gave hundreds of millions of Dollars to turn politicians into putty, and soften rough spots. They were one short step away from having it all……. And then they get the “Decider” deciding, and it all goes to hell.

Iraq’s oil is at the very center of the impasse in the Iraqi Government. The Kurds are the main road block. Why? Because it is in Northern Iraq that exist the largest proven reserves of oil in the country. And Kurdistan also happens to be the friendliest political force to America….. And American oil Companies.

If Iraq goes Shiite, America will get but a small portion of oil contracts. If on the other hand Iraq can’t get an agreement and the Kurds go their way, America will get the lion’s share of Iraq’s oil.

America can’t afford the Shiite controling such a big portion of the world’s oil reserves (Irak and Iran). For it is the Shiite and not the Sunni that are our natural enemies in the Middle East. Therefore, one more time I have to wander at Bush the oil man and his sanity.

Like I said everithing was going fine for the oil man, until Bush came along.

We are supporting Sunni insurgents
who oppose the Iraqi government
which we support,
which is in turn supported by militias backed by Iran,
who we oppose.

The administration is calling this the path to victory.

Screw the coffee, where did I hide the whiskey?”

= a wonderful reader’s post on the comment of Washington Post’s Krauthammer, who suggested now to empower the Sunni 20% against AlQaida and, if necessary, also against the Shiite 65% majority …

There is a bloodbath already going on, and for some time now, and it is spiralling worse by the year. Maybe a million have already died due to the direct and indirect effects of the war:
occupation
resistance
sectarian civil war
crime caused by chaos
general decline of health.

Will the bloodbath become bloodier after a US withdrawal? - We don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not.

A good withdrawal plan might provide some measures to limit the continuing bloodbath.

THE BETTER REASON why the USA has to stay in Iraq is correctly put by Rick Moran this way:

“It is bothersome that liberals like Obama can’t differentiate between a humanitarian mission where American interests (oil, economic, strategic) are not in play and a place like Iraq …

Bush will have a lot to answer for from history but his monumental failure in articulating what is at stake in Iraq while failing to make his actions match his rhetoric will be perhaps his greatest blunder. No wonder the American people want out. When their president has failed so miserably in giving them logical, coherent reasons to support the mission, why not just give up and go home?”

Well said, Rick Moran!

The USA do have strategic interests in the MidEast, and these strategic interests - OIL, mainly - will continue to demand powerful and efficient US presence in the area.

Sober liberals know this. And accept it. Hillary Clinton does. That is why they opt for the Baker-Hamilton strategy. It would be quite flexible concerning troop numbers and intervention policy in Iraq, to influence the power struggle there, but limit the carnage in terms of blood and money a little.

I would not expect it to work sufficiently, but it seems to be the best option now. (The Baker-Hamilton plan is of course an admission of defeat, too, and that is Bush’s and Cheney’s reason not to adopt it.)

As for the critique Rick Moran hurls against GWBush:

The Bushies could not start the war in outing their true motive(s). Americans want to FEEL GOOD when they go to war: “good” motives, certain victory, splendid display of their army (a good show).

“Well, people, we want to take over Iraq because of the oil there and to control the oil region … because of strategic interests that have to do with our nation’s demand of cheap oil in the next 20 years at least …”
- no, giving such a cold reason he would NOT have gotten a majority for going to Iraq.

But now, of course, the USA need a sufficient reason to stay, and that can only be the true strategic one - but now it is late, maybe too late to confess to the people the UGLY TRUTH:

that there was not only the WMD deception in the run up to the war,
but also THE OIL DECEPTION -
“we have hidden from our national debate the real reason of this war … we have lied all these years about our true motive to wage this war of aggression and occupation and oilgrab. We did it to secure your cheap gas for the future! We lied, but our intentions were GOOD!”

When the Iraqi people voted they voted for their Sects. That is to say Shiite voted for Shhite, Sunni for Sunni and Kurds for Kurds.

Look at the record, and don’t get confused.

You don’t build a Democracy like that.

The Iraqi Government is composed of a buch of Pro-Iranian Representatives, Insurgent, and Militia Leaders and good old crooks. If you call that a “Democracy” I have a bridge I want to sale you.

You guys need to please stop and THINK about what you are asking our Military, and the Iraqi people to do. You want our Military to some how continue fighting until some day down the road HOPEFULLY the Iraqi people, in a miracle get an epiphany and start to love each other, after having killed themselves for a thousand years.

And why do we want that? “Because if we live they win” that’s why!!!!!!

People you do need to grow up. They don’t call Right Wingers delusional for nothing.

So Iran is having a field day making our troop’s life miserable in Iraq. And guess what? As long as we stay in the Middle East our Army will suffer proxy attacks by Syria, Iran, and just about every country that wants to hit us with impunity, not to mention the thousands of “Jihadist” that will love nothing more than to teach the “Great Satan” a lesson. But according to the Right “We loose if we live” …. Yeah and if we stay you guarantee IED attacks on our troops till the cows come home …. Just great guys!!!! Congratulations your strategy is showing incredible results!!!

You have our soldiers running around Iraq getting killed and maimed while “policing” a bunch of tugs, terrorists, militias, insurgents, al-Quaida Jihadist, desperados, sadist, rapist and every low life one can think off because “we can’t loose” and “we need to give the Iraqi Government time ” ….. The Iraqi Government delusional people is Al Sadr, is Al Sistani, is Iran proxy politicians….. And the rest are as corrupt as a Mexican Bandido.

I have news for you people. You have our Army in their fifth year of a Nation building enterprise they were never designed as a force to do.

If you want to continue with this noncense stop using the 101 Airborne, 82 Airborne brcause we don’t have enough combat troops to patrol streets !!!! This is Idiotic. What’s next Navy Seals, and Delta forces guarding road blocks?

Is part of the “we most stay to win” Bull that does not make sense. Satay and be targets? Is that what we stay for?

Or do you actually suggest that your pals on the Right will some day grow the courage they need to call for a draft, and send the amount of troops and resources that is needed to match their rethoric?

You guys live in Lala land. You just love to bull shit.

Say the “surge” is working…. Problem is that the Government is at the beach on vacation for August. We bought them time indeed…… Yeah, time for a vacation.

The good news is that the “surge” is working in some areas.
The bad news is that is not working in others, and even if would, we will still be unable to get out because the solution is not Military, but political. The Right’s bleeding harth never ending commitment only makes the Iraqi Government like a poor guy on welfare why work if money is in the mail?

So thank’s for nothing pal.

And to my righty friends who insist on believing that victory on the battlefield will translate into an Iraq with a functioning government that represents all the people while creating some kind of viable, multi-sectarian state I would point out that the military doesn’t do faith. Nor do they do trust. Nor do they do hope. And without those three attributes, Iraqi society will remain what it is today – a broken mess teeming with hate and vengeance.

Agreed you can’t do democracy at the point of a gun, but this is a subject that for over 30 years they haven’t even had a chance at.

When they had a chance they overwhelmingly voted for it.

But then they have others trying to cancel out that vote for their own reasons.

Do I think it is going to occur by September.

Yes I do, the only question is which year it will be down the road that September appears in.

This is not a McDonalds drive in quick solution, some need to grasp that and adjust their timeframes.

Reason will prevail if the last of the 26%er’s finally wake up and smell the stench coming from YOUR white house. Reason is on the way - it started to happen after the last elections, but we need to finish the job. Losers like you are not patriots - you’re traitors to the Constitution. If you really want a king, go with W when he leaves office and move to Paraguay (where he recently bought a ranch). BTW, the US does not have an extradition treaty with Paraguay - hmmm, maybe that’s why all hat and no cattle bush is going there. kinda makes you proud, huh?

If the Bin Laden Sunni’s lose, do the Iranian Shia win?