But to bring down the entire house just to kill a rat…!!! As the saying goes…

I’m surprised the people saying this war was all about oil don’t realize that behind the Group was James Baker and others like hiim, incluidng many Bush people, with huge Arab and oil interest ties (a handy excuse to appease Iran, namely the opening of Iran’s petroleum market to the USA). Israel has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and yet Israel is included in the plan of action, which involves dangeous things (and so predictable) such as giving up the Golan Heights (so Israelis can be shelled by artillery again). It’s just a sellout to Iran, a major petroleum producer, pushed by Baker (on the Saudi payroll) and others in the Bush administration and outside it as well, who favor oil interests over Israel. Where are the haters of Big Oil? Cheering the Group because they want see the USA retreat, defer to Iran, or just fail.

I agree with deadline idea, just didn’t think announcing it to the terrorists was a similarly good idea.

And if you can live with China, Europe and Japan not having a totally secure ME oil feed, we can make do here in the US starting tomorrow. We ramp up the S. American and Canadian flows a bit and buy from the ME when the market is opportunistic. Remember the shieks need us to buy their flammable mud just as much as we need to buy it to fill up your Escalade.

We ramp up the deadlines for hybrid engine technology, give a heavy tax deduction for hybrid auto purchases, force the oil retailers to put in more ethanol pumps, etc……..put some real teeth into lessening oil dependence and I think we can put a big dent into US oil consumption in 5-10 years.

Bringing Iraq into something that resembles a free and open minded national society that shares equally the wealth of their nation may not be possible. The Iraqis, if not the entire middle east, is far to rapped up with religious differences to see the obvious benefit of religious equality, and, this bigoted attitude permeates all other forms of equality with religious hate. The Iraq study group basically is pessimistic, and, I agree with that pessimism.

I also disagree with the “commanders� opinion that “all the troops in the world� could not make peace in Iraq. It might take two or three million but at some point more troops will do the job. Unfortunately without help from the rest of the world with combat troops, it won’t happen. We simply do not have the forces to do it alone. We cannot place ourselves between the rival factions fighting an insurgency and hope that “time will heal� or “time will sort out the problems�. These rivalries have been going on for a thousand years and they will not end in a decade.

We wouldn’t have to be bothered by these warring fools if oil wasn’t part of the scenario. Oil is vital and without it the world dies. Especially the United states. So, militarily it may be that we need to annex the oil, defend it with our military, offer to allow international management of its production, and, let the Iraqis sort out their political problems outside of the oil fields. When they get it together, we can gradually give it back to them. Does this sound like more of a Teddy Roosevelt solution that a Democrat solution? Yes. So be it. I want my country to survive.

It would behoove us to use our resources more wisely, rebuild and repair our armed forces, so that we can be in a state of readiness. If a situation were to blow up in another trouble spot, how could we respond, with all of our resources in one place? I think we are now in a state of weakness, and the rest of the world knows it.

kritter Says:

April 4th, 2007 at 8:25 am
It means access to ME oil, Swaraaj. The invasion of Iraq was not because of 9/11- that was just the excuse used to get the US public and our allies on board. If you look at the Project for the New American Century , a ’90’s neocon think tank, which called for regime change to maintain an American presence in the region, and wanted to establish a pro-western nation that would be more friendly to us and the Israelis, that tells you all you need to know. That’s why the dots never really connected between Sadaam and al queda.

I’m libertarian at heart, with a strong bent to isolationism, so I’ll agree with you without converting to your political religion.

It’s not too hard to find discussions of Iraq being the “swing state” in global oil flows and the destabilizing leverage that Hussein portended as far back as the mid-90′s. So, the Iraq “regime change” likely did have its oil flow motivations. However, it is also disengenuous for today’s liberals to totally ignore what he did to the Kurds and the Shiites. His overthrow was not a loss to humanity. And I have no disinclination to think he was not also inclined to harbor and align with world terrorism for his own agenda.

It is also a canard to always put solely on US oil interests. The US gets what, 20% of its oil from the ME? But what about your Euro and Asian countries? They would be totally bolloxed with a MidEast oil disruption.

The neocons, as you say, might have had US interest at heart, but it’s not like the rest of the world wasn’t going to benefit as well.

Nonetheless, we’re in 2007 now. Let’s deal with today’s problems as opposed to yesterday’s conspiracies (unless you’re a movie producer).

OK, the execution of the “nation rebuilding” exercise is/was piss poor. I’ll stipulate to that.

What would you and Nancy and Harry have us do now? Strike that. What would you guys have us do on September 2, 2008…….and assume the Iraqis still haven’t figured out how to run a country by then?

I think the nuclear threat from Iran, while serious is not as threatening as a well-armed USSR was, because the Iranians cannot afford a build-up like Russia had, and because of the financial sanctions that are being applied to them. Iran has not threatened to attack us with nukes either.

Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t call me ignorant- there is a comment policy here.

If the romance goes out what comes in…??? Threats…bullying…violence???

Elementary my dear…Watson…(oops Dave Schuler)!!!

But one must know how to go about getting oil.

It is a seduction game…quite like when you seduce a woman (or a man).

You don’t hit the man (or a woman) on the head when you can’t seduce them!!!

Is it the interest of the powerful business or of the ordinary people?

Both. The U. S. is a large country with lots of interests. Oil is certainly one of them. So are peace and security in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Israel is another interest both for domestic political reasons and the reality that, like it or not, the Israelis are our most reliable ally in the region as well as being a great asset for gathering intelligence.

Dave Schuler:I think they really owe it to use to explain how they’ll ensure American interests in the region when the inevitable happens.

Oh God! It it is all about the American interests all the time!!! What about peace and tranquility in the USA and world!!!

I am not sure what “American interest means”.

Is it the interest of the powerful business or of the ordinary people?

The implications of the rhetorical question in your title, Swaraaj Chauhan, are that neither the Administration nor the Congress is listening and that they should. Since the report outright rejects withdrawal from Iraq before the country is stabilized more than it is now (“precipitate withdrawal” i.e. on the clock rather than dependent on achieving objectives) and the Biden plan, it’s quite clear that the Congressional leadership has rejected the ISG report while the Administration is, essentially, following the recommendations.

I think it’s quite correct to criticize the Administration for refusing to negotiate directly either with the Iranians or Syrians. IMO that’s distasteful but necessary. The Administration should be negotiating directly with them.

However, I think that Mr. Panetta is detaching himself somewhat from the Report’s recommendations to follow his co-partisans. If the Congress’s Democratic leadership, following the lead of the opinion polls of the American people, are really sincere about wanting to remove our military from Iraq regardless of consequences, I think they really owe it to use to explain how they’ll ensure American interests in the region when the inevitable happens.