The sorry fact is that we don't actually know what kind of game Bush is playing in Iraq. Bringing peace and democracy to Iraq seems as probable to me as finding weapons of mass destruction. We cannot figure out whether we're winning without knowing what game we're playing.
On the contrary, Seer, I don't think there has ever been any mystery about the game Bush is playing in Iraq. He and the people he is beholden to have become extremely rich by raiding the US Treasury through truly fantastic arms and contracting deals, and have set themselves up for the long term to suck the resources of Iraq out while the country is still stable enough to drill for oil. (If and when Iraq is partitioned, you can bet the US will have bases only in the areas with oil fields -- Anbar province can go to hell.)
The only mystery is why so many people still think there's any reason at all to be in Iraq. Not just the batshit-insane class of Kagan and her ilk, but regular people who refuse to see what's been going on so transparently since day one.
If it were about the oil, Bush would have secured the oil fields. I'm not saying it would have been easy to secure the oil fields, all I'm saying is that it would have been easier to secure the oil fields than to secure Baghdad. So why didn't he secure the oil fields?
Well, I'd say that if anyone is going to profit from Iraq's resources, its business interests in the USA.
The fact that their joke of a war plan was as big a failure as everything else that administration has done only takes money away from American business interests. The Iraqis weren't going to benefit from their own oil no matter what happened.
What you guys are saying is that the game in Iraq is the war itself, which is close to my theory about Vietnam. Makes some sense. I'll have to think about it.
8 comments:
Has a Kagan ever been right about anything, ever?
The sorry fact is that we don't actually know what kind of game Bush is playing in Iraq. Bringing peace and democracy to Iraq seems as probable to me as finding weapons of mass destruction. We cannot figure out whether we're winning without knowing what game we're playing.
On the contrary, Seer, I don't think there has ever been any mystery about the game Bush is playing in Iraq. He and the people he is beholden to have become extremely rich by raiding the US Treasury through truly fantastic arms and contracting deals, and have set themselves up for the long term to suck the resources of Iraq out while the country is still stable enough to drill for oil. (If and when Iraq is partitioned, you can bet the US will have bases only in the areas with oil fields -- Anbar province can go to hell.)
The only mystery is why so many people still think there's any reason at all to be in Iraq. Not just the batshit-insane class of Kagan and her ilk, but regular people who refuse to see what's been going on so transparently since day one.
Sorry -- "his" ilk. Not sure where the "her" came from.
If it were about the oil, Bush would have secured the oil fields. I'm not saying it would have been easy to secure the oil fields, all I'm saying is that it would have been easier to secure the oil fields than to secure Baghdad. So why didn't he secure the oil fields?
So why didn't he secure the oil fields?
By The Seer, at 6:24 PM
Same reason he didn't secure Al Qaaqaa.
Chaos is more profitable than oil. Oil's good yeah. But war is where the real money is. Especially when other people have to pay for it.
Well, I'd say that if anyone is going to profit from Iraq's resources, its business interests in the USA.
The fact that their joke of a war plan was as big a failure as everything else that administration has done only takes money away from American business interests. The Iraqis weren't going to benefit from their own oil no matter what happened.
What you guys are saying is that the game in Iraq is the war itself, which is close to my theory about Vietnam. Makes some sense. I'll have to think about it.
Post a Comment