We're in a real mess in Iraq.

We can't win complete control, and our Troops are suffering casualties, although not nearly as many as in past wars.

We can't leave!

  While getting control of the resources of Iraq was probably the main reason for invasion, the occupation after the battle, was completely screwed up.  The planning doesn't seem to have been very deep.

Because of Iraq's lack of any significant military force, our leaving would open up the country to the nation that could move the fastest.  Iraq sits on a sea of oil. If a Nuclear Power, such as Pakistan, were to move their armies across the border, the Iraqis wouldn't be able to stop them, and because they have access  to Nuclear Weapons, we'd find it almost impossible to dislodge them.

Like others have mentioned, CONTROL of the oil is the key.  While we can survive without Iraqi oil,... oil is really the currency of the world. Inspite of other means of power, armies still run on OIL!  If a country doesn't have access to oil, its military might is severely compromised.

Controlling such a large amount of oil means that a military power, such as the USA, can have significant influence on any other nation's ability to win a war.

   We don't have to take the oil. We just have to be sure that no other nation does!

 Its our misfortune as Taxpayers, to be guided by shallow thinking leadership. This debacle is costing us a fortune.

   Simply keeping the Iraqi Army intact would have had them policing their own country...instead of us trying to do it.   This would have also meant that our kids wouldn't be facing battlehardened ex-Iraqi soldiers which make up a good portion of the "insurgency".

   I understand that this tactic of using the police/army to control the country, is common knowledge among conquerer's. I'm sure our own Officer Corp suggested this and was over-ridden by their siuperiors....people with a notable lack of military experience...but with a nose for oil.

I may be wrong but, my rough calculation tells me that everytime our Government spends One Billion Dollars it costs me, average Joe Taxpayer, about $10.  When they spend the money IN this country, it gets recirculated into the "economy".  When the money is spent OUTSIDE the country, such as with a war,....its gone!  Too much spending outside the country leads to deficits in the economy of the country.  This shows up as deficits in the National Budget, because we spent more than we took in, and in Trade deficits, because we had to borrow from other nations.

 We had to finance these extra expenditures (war) somehow.  We can't just print more money. That would mean "inflation"... although that's probably in the near future. We had to borrow!

 If we had gotten control of the Iraqi oil. everything thing probably would have showed a profit. (Its Plunder...this basis for war goes back past Alexander the Great and has been the main motivator of many conflicts...including this one.  IMHO)

Unfortunately,....that leaves the USA between a "Rock and a Hard Place".   Expensive to stay....Impossible to leave.

Gil

(Post 1 of 2) This article is one of the strongest anti-Bush arguments I've seen without the writing becoming a rant. Although it is such a strong argument, the argument itself has many flaws. One of the most noticeable ones is the fact that, once again, the $80 billion cost of the war can never total the amount of the oil available in all of Iraq. I find it strange how every argument about oil seems to leave out any monetary figures that could put a price on the quantity of oil in Iraq. Another flaw is that he uses dog logic, over and over again. A prime example of this is the beginning of the last paragraph, where he states that what he thinks an army's rights and responsibilities are must be the truth. His opinion somehow jumps from opinion to fact, with no evidence to back it up. And the poll. The poll used in this writing has no credibility, for many reasons. He even says before the poll that this was the last poll that he knew of. The last poll that he knew of? Do some research and be positive.

Everyone must remember the 'principles' on which this free market war was based upon! Just like all customer service facades, the neo-con double speak has enriched its citizery to noncompliance as it's sons and daughters are dying for their lies. Principles must be remembered as this war has 'costs' which is just part of business. This business costs human lives as resources become increasingly difficult to steal. America must 'stay the course' because i'd rather have one disrupted, ravaged, destroyed nation in the world bearing the brunt of this lie than many other nations that would share grossly similar fates if this unchecked, 'unbridled', colt takes on the world like all American cowboys do. I've seen it in the movies. The principles of the market is cost effectiveness while remaining profitable. American lives seem to be cheap. With all those homeless in America it seems they could wage oil wars forever. There will be no end until resistance is destroyed. Eliminate the competition that's another market 'principle'. Remember 'real men' still wanna go to Tehran.

Why is Chomsky comparing US occupation forces with Nazi troops? I see that as a common thread in some arguments of his, as an example in which the otherwise astute and thorough sociopolitical analyst may go too far, either out of ignorance or deliberately disingenuous parallels. I agree that it ought not be a surprise most Iraqis want us out. I thought myself that, by the act of voting last January as insurgents vowed reprisal, most felt their ballots would go toward a parliament that would call for an end to our occupation. The question now is what happens if we withdraw, and under what circumstances can withdrawal be successfully achieved without a mass slaughter on the part of Iraqis fighting for their lives as a great void forms once we've left. But, as usual, there seems to be a lack of policy prescriptions proposed. I wonder, being optimistic, if there are indeed any we can realistically think of to serve the long-term, greater good.

Opinions have turned against the war pretty quickly (compared to any other war we've been involved with) but real opposition in the form of direct protest is still pretty weak. The call for withdrawl is gaining momentum as well, though. Less than a year ago, before the election, there was almost no talk in the media and/or government about getting out.

F. C. - Again I see no evidence of 'strong' opposition. Opinions to pollsters matter little. I guess I would characterize strong opposition as the people demanding immediate withdrawal. We will probably get there, but it will be down the road and after more needless bloodshed, perhaps 20,000 US dead.

"Before the war, the fiercest resistance was expected from Saddam's elite units, most of which however evaporated when battle was joined. Infact the strongest resistance was offered to the invaders by regular units at the Shia towns of Basra, where the British Army was held off for almost two weeks Um Quasar, which had to be fought for house by house by the marines and Nassariyah, where the Marines suffered their highest casualties during the entire conventional war. The home of the Baathist elite, Tikrit, surrendered without a fight. Throughout the insurgency Tikrit once dubbed a potential Monte casino by the press in anticipation of Thermoplayan last ditch battle to the end has seen far less insurgent activity than towns like Fallujah and Ramadi which had a reputation of antagonism to the Baath elite. During the election the only section of Sunni Baghdad which did not join the widely effective boycott, was the upper class Al Mansour, district where the old elite lined up to vote for America's puppet Alawi. The most powerful strongholds of the insurgency have been the working class Sunni districts, like AlAmariyah, in Baghdad, a virtual no go area for the coalition forces in Baghdad, the poor Jolan district in Fallujah, which was totally flattened by the marines during the second assault on that city and the slums of Mosul and Sadr city in Baghdad."

Sooner or later there has to be some sort of withdrawal, Washington has some of the well worked recepies at hand anyway; a puppet govenment with strong police force, client state like military dictatorship (worked cheaply before), if nothing works, dividing multi ethnic Iraq into smaller countries is feasible, and we have West, East and North Iraq, support the oil rich (and politically friendlier), isolate and impoverish the Sunni part.

Strong opposition at home? Please provide examples.