They don't need to stay for four years, just until January 2009. Then it's President DemocraticSucker's problem.

Shorter Kevin: let's leave the brutes to slaughter each other.

Ah, Kevin.

Nobody said it was easy. Nation-bluiding is hard work, see? Just look at George Washington at VAlley Forge, and his struggle to keep his forces together. He probably only haed four battlaions.

This is the VAlley FOrge of our genration. I hope we meet the test. AFter Gen. Petraus gives hhis report, I predict AMericans will clamor for vicotry in Iraq. ANd Pres. Bush will see aproval ratings of 70% or more!

Here is what I thought was the money quote:

The officials who agreed to discuss the commission recommendations did so in some cases because they believed that disclosing them publicly would help diffuse their impact and focus attention on the Petraeus-Crocker report.

Egbert is blogging drunk, I see.

It's interesting. His spelling, word usage, syntax and respect for the rules of grammar are, strangely, unaffected by this development.

egfart: "Just look at George Washington at VAlley Forge..."

That was in our own country, you useless piece of Bushsnot.

Start over from scratch?

That is actually a great idea.

Let's start over from scratch, beginning with November 2000.

... and insufficient revenue from oil due to low production and skimming
... and sanitation that still doesn't work
... and lack of electrical ppower
... but in Egbert's wet dreams the 37th corner has been turned and all will be well in the next Friedman.

egbert, you say "Nation-bluiding is hard work, see?"

Don't you remember the 2000 election? GWB said he didn't believe in nation building and has proved it over and over again these many years.

Pretty much everyone has lost confidence in Nouri al-Maliki, though there's no replacement in sight who seems like a better bet.

Nonsense Kevin. Allawi seems like a good choice to replace Maliki. Why don't we give him a chance to run Iraq and see how well he does before we cut and run like you liberals advocate? Even liberal Democrats like Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton say Allawi would be a superb choice as a replacement. Give Bush a chance by letting him replace Maliki with Allawi, wait a few months, see how he does, and then we should judge how well the free and democratic government in Iraq is going. Replacing prime ministers in a parliamentary government is a normal thing and should be encouraged.

By the way I agree with what egbert just said also.

Give Bush a chance by letting him replace Maliki with Allawi

Um, don't you mean let the Iraqis replace Maliki with Allawi?

That's it, democracy fans. If you've lost Al, it's game-over. . .

Al -- we've started down the road of D-e-m-o-c-r-c-y, remember! So it's up to them to chose now, as they chose Maliki. Otheriwse we could go back to the amazingly stupid plan-A of imposing Chalabi or any other stooge.

We can't build, rebuild or re-rebuild either the police or military because sectarianism is ENDEMIC. We let the cat out. Opened Pandora's box. Sowed the wind.

Look! Some things you only get one chance to do right, then the moment is gone. Every soldier most defininely understands that; it's the difference between success and failure, life or death.

IF we had gone into Iraq with sufficient numbers, the plan and intention to maintain security, AND done everything right, we might still be where we are today.

We went in with too few, no intention or plan, and have done almost everything wrong.

Right now, every life lost, every person damaged physically and/or mentally, and every dollar spent is water under the bridge. It was all lost getting us and the Iraqis to this point.

That's a really hard thing to say and to face, but it's the truth.

What sort of effort and commitment would it take to make everything right from here? More than we're willing to make. A draft for starters.

And there still would be no guarantees.

We've gone nowhere, absolutely nowhere in 4 1/2 years. If I had any idea how we could ameliorate the situation I'd suggest it, but we have been and remain most definitely part of the problem.

We need to engage those who have better ideas and greater empathy -- Iraq's neighbors and the region.

It's time to stop kidding ourselves, roll up the tents, say our "sorries" publicly and ashamedly, and leave.

This is becoming a comedy of the absurd.

"is becoming"?

This entire war has been a comedy of the absurd from the beginning: aluminum tubes, Winnebagos of mass destruction, "mission accomplished," a trial and execution of a despot that was executed so poorly that it led to an outpouring of sympathy for Hussein, "last throes," the planting of stories in Iraqi papers for money, Halliburton no bid contracts, a new Iraqi flag made to look suspiciously like Israel's (!), poll after poll that shows a great majority want the US to leave ASAP, I could go on all damn day. Oh yeah - did I mention an insurgency that has been running CIRCLES around the US occupation from the start?

AM wrote:

Shorter Kevin: let's leave the brutes to slaughter each other.

Shorter AM: Let's sit in the middle while the brutes slaughter us AND each other.

Do you ever hear your own words, Kevin? How do you spin this into an argument for U.S. intervention?

This is their democracy. The Iraqis voted, this is what they voted for. They pass the U.S. dictated Constitution as the law of their land. How does the U.S. justify intervention, removing Maliki, getting rid of their police force, making any decisions for them, about them, without admitting self-determination was never a consideration on our part?

egbert: "I predict AMericans will clamor for vicotry in Iraq. ANd Pres. Bush will see aproval ratings of 70% or more!"

Sounds like the acid finally kicked in ...

Hey, John Stewart had this down pat a short while ago: he recommended that the US should pull out and reinvade, only this time do it right.

History books will show to the Marvellous Iraq Adventure as one of the greatest miscalculations ever. And the MIA above is an apt description.

Excuse me Al but Allawi has a meager constituency at best. A Shiite who worked for Saddam will always be suspect among the Iraqi majority. They don't care that he broke with Saddam 30 years ago.

You're forgetting as well that Allawi already had a shot as our hand picked PM before the first election. Under his watch the insurgency really took off. He's viewed as an American puppet.

The only way Allawi makes PM is via a coup and guess who'll have to pull that one off.

Why the hell do you think that Allawi's lobbying here for the PM job rather than in Iraq.

...because every war deserves a second chance.

I have always treasured the optimistic comments about the Iraqi Army. Some math:

We have ~20 combat brigades, or about 100 battalions, of troops in Iraq, plus support troops.

The Iraqi Army has 6 battalions.

There is no security in the country.

At this pace, I figure it will be 15-20 years until we can train enough Iraqis to take over our "mission", which is to drive around and hope we don't draw fire. I'm sure we can find plenty of Iraqis that want that mission.

Pretty much everyone has lost confidence in Nouri al-Maliki, though there's no replacement in sight who seems like a better bet.

And that decision belongs to the Iraqi people and their elected representatives rather than arrogant Americans anyway.

al: Allawi seems like a good choice to replace Maliki. Why don't we give him a chance to run Iraq

why don't we?

because the iraqi's didn't elect allawi?

Kenji,

I don't get here that often, so I was sure Egbert was a troll satire. You'd know better than me, though. That's pretty funny. I thought maybe the unorthodox capitalization was some sort of code.

Silly me. But not as silly as thinking we can keep making the same mistakes in Iraq and somehow get a different result.

Yet another remarkably moronic idea from the Repukeliscum.

In other words, except for the fact that Iraq has a disfunctional government, a disfunctional police force, and a barely functional army, things are going great. I can't wait to see how Crocker and Petraeus spin this into an argument for staying another four years.

—Kevin Drum

"General Petraeus told The Australian during a face-to-face interview at his Baghdad headquarters there had been a 75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year, a doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August, a rise in the number of al-Qa'ida "kills and captures" and a fall in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombings."

How many times during '04 election did Bush brag about "standing up, standing down", and the numbers of Iraqi forces? Can't someone string together those quotes to show how lame he was? That was 3 (long and deadly) years ago!

Pretty much everyone has lost confidence in Nouri al-Maliki

Who is "everyone"? The US government?

It doesn't matter - Bush will most likely lose his most urgent benchmark: the Hydrocarbon Framework Law - per Think Progress

--- “If passed, the Bush administration’s long-sought ‘hydrocarbons framework’ law would give Big Oil access to Iraq’s vast energy reserves on the most advantageous terms and with virtually no regulation.” The framework law proposes to hand over effective control of as much as 80 percent of the country’s oil wealth.

A recent poll showed that all Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups across the political spectrum oppose the principles enshrined in the oil law, and 419 Iraqi oil experts, economists and intellectuals recently signed their names to a statement expressing grave concern over the bill. The head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils said recently, “If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny.”

Nouri al-Maliki would gain the confidence of Iraqis if he just tell Bush that the Hydrocarbon Framework Law is non-starter. Maliki is either with Iraq or against it. Bush should understand that line, right?

I think the report was talking about the National Police, which is a unit of the Ministry of Interior but not the regular Iraqi Police which patrol the streets.

The National Police was intended to be a Carabinieri type paramilitary unit which would conduct anti terrorist and major anti-crime raids. The problem is that they were built out of the nucleus of the "Wolf Brigade" and other units which were recruited from Badr and other party militias.

I know this is crazy, but what "IF" they got the power working more then an hour a day? Wouldn't that help? What "IF" instead of contracting only US companies with shipped in staff we used only Iraqi companies with all Iraqi staff. So to recap we fix the power and put them to work rebuilding the shit that is blown up. If it is a Sunni area we have a Sunni run company if Shiite area we do the same there. The idea is that if you make it you have less reason to blow it up. People have a reason to not flee the country other then fighting. I know how naive all that sounds I know how much more complex it all is but if we are having pipe dreams I say light up......

The premise that there are Iraqis who share our objectives, who will constitute a new police force, is deluded. We are an army of occupation that invaded and destroyed their country under false pretenses. They want us gone. That's why there's no army (except a few Kurd battalions of light infantry) and no police force on our side.

I can't wait to see how Crocker and Petraeus spin this into an argument for staying another four years.

—Kevin Drum

From the same NYT piece cited by Drum:

"According to several administration officials, the Jones commission also reached largely positive conclusions about the Iraqi Army’s performance since the start of the new security strategy in Iraq — a sign, several officials said, that a determined American effort to remake Iraqi institutions holds some promise of success."

Kevin, I think you have managed to outline our next "strategy," to be rolled out after the country unites very briefly (and only in a few imaginations) to recognize the success of our current "strategy"--The Surge.

Don't trouble yourself with such mundane distractions as the implosion of the Iraqi police force. If our true strategy is to stay in Iraq indefinitely, everything you have described makes diabolical sense.

We'll be there forever. We value Iraq far more than we value the Iraqis. And by the way, just to show the world how crazy aggressive we really are, we're planning to attack Iran.

It's not a strategy that the common people can grasp or embrace, but the vampire elite understand it perfectly.

"Can't wait to see how Petraeus spins..."

Well, he just told the Australian and their Defence Minister that sectarian deaths have been reduced by 75 percent from over a year ago because of the Surge.

The Pentagon is in major Spin mode on the deaths - Far different from independent reports, but, then FAUX and CNN FAUX-Lite do not report on Juan Cole and the independent sources, but, that of DoD. Goebbels would be soooo proud.

"Why don't we give Allawi a try?"

Uh, because we already did? Three or four years ago? And he not only botched it, but lost the next election?

Anyway, JimBob nails it. This is all part of George Bush's new victory strategy, which is "run out the clock."

Because then, when his successor takes responsibility and gets the hell out of Iraq to rebuild our military, Bush will say "oh no! You moved our troops right when we were on the cusp of victory! We would have won, but for you meddling successor! All subsequent problems are you fault--I claim victory based on the 'you never know what miracle might have happened' rule!"

I can't believe you have never heard of the time-honored "run out the clock and blame failure on your successor" victory strategy. It's been employed by incompetent CEOs since time immemorial.

Since Bush brought up the Viet-Nam comparison, it's only fitting that all of the comparisons get aired. Starting over? Then, of course, the US had no qualms about replacing the government under the theory that there was no choice (Maliki's guards: what price/threat/promise is needed to turn them?) so if I were Nouri, I'd be sure I was loyal to the Imam his guards are loyal to.

I know you're probably tired of the Pentagon Paperscomparisons, but when it comes to counterinsurgency, here's the analysis from them:

Finally, and closely related to any examination of the leverage issue, there is
the question of the adequacy of counterinsurgent theory and doctrine. The
progression from physical security through the establishment of socially
oriented programs (political and economic) to the objective of earning and
winning popular allegiance seems both simple and logical. It may also be
simplistic, for its transformation into operational reality bumps head-on into
some very difficult questions. Is security a precondition to loyalty, for
instance, or must some degree of loyalty be realized as a precondition to
intelligence information adequate to make security feasible? This
chicken-and-egg argument has been debated for years without leading to any
noticeable consensus on guides to operational action.

Seeking answers to any of these questions is a difficult, frustrating business.
There exists no "control" by which laboratory comparisons of alternative courses
can be made. There is almost surely no hard choice which will not carry with it
very real liabilities along with its advantages. But if the lives and effort
expended in the U.S. military advisory effort in South Vietnam in the 1960's are
to be justified, a substantial portion of that justification will consist of a
closer examination of past assumptions in order better to guide future policy.

Talk about not learning the lessons!!!!!!

Crocker and Petraeus will spin it as this administration always does...every failure just means more opportunities for success. There's no arguing with them; they're insane.

Is Allawi Arabic for Thieu?

Even if we could do it, it means (a) putting 26,000 armed and pissed off Iraqis back on the street, (b) running the country without a police force until a new one is recruited and trained, and (c) spending two or three years building a replacement.

If Petraeus and Crocker are reporting that security is sooo much better, then all we have to do is disband the Iraqi police force immediately and deploy our "surge" soldiers as policemen, acknowledging that their lack of Arabic will be a little bit of a problem. But we have to act fast, since we HAVE to start drawing down our troop strength this spring, due to simply not having enough new troops to cycle in and keep up the numbers. "Surging" ends this spring, unless everyone is willing to see our soldiers' tours of duty extended from 15 months to 18 months.

So what new plan will we embark on in spring that will allow us to pretend we can "win" until Bush runs out the clock?

I can't wait to see how Crocker and Petraeus spin this into an argument for staying another four years.

One way is to simply lie. Juan Cole briefly shows how things in general have deteriorated in Iraq, then focuses on a Bush administration official claiming that US troop deaths have fallen because of the surge while the facts clearly show that they have not.

On site after site, blog after blog, I see that is rare to find mention that the US cannot sustain current troop levels in Iraq, because we don't HAVE the troops. Okay, it's mentioned now and then, but kind of an aside or afterthought or additional argument.

I thought the whole thing was an illegal disaster from day 1 (really, day -60) that woudl lead to a bloody occupation, but even kool-aid drinkers have to confront the truth of an exhausted military.

In other words, except for the fact that Iraq has a disfunctional government, a disfunctional police force, and a barely functional army, things are going great.

In other words Iraq has become much like the US, with the exception that we still have functioning police....

Besides the brutes slaughtering each other, didn't I hear Crocker say that gas prices will go to "$8-9 per gallon" if we leave Iraq.
And don't you see, it makes perfect sense, if we invade Iran gas prices will drop to the $1 gallon they were in about 1988! If we nuke the whole ME gas will be free! Free gas! Hell, they'll pay us to drive.

Commenter jfaberruiuc at The American Prospect site (prospect.org) brought some quotes on building the Iraq army together in a comment.
The group blog of The American Prospect

Lather, rinse, repeat:

Bremer 2003: "After a week of deadly violence and sharp criticism from Iraq's Governing Council over security, the US-led coalition said yesterday that it would accelerate the training of more Iraqi police and troops.

The top US official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, vowed that by September more than 200,000 Iraqis would be involved in defending their country, either in the military, the police, or the civil defense forces. "This is, after all, their country"

Bush 2004: But Bush said "a great many are standing firm," and the United States would continue training Iraqi security forces "so the Iraqi people can eventually take responsibility for their own security."

Bush 2005: "In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq -- and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot."

Gen. Dempsey, 2006: "Dempsey said the Iraqi army, now with 115,000 soldiers, will reach its final goal of 137,500 soldiers by the end of this year, at the same time that overall Iraqi security forces, including police, reach their goal of 325,000, up from 265,000 currently.

"The Iraqi army will be built by the end of this calendar year," Dempsey told a Pentagon briefing.

That means that at the end of 2006, he said, the Iraqis will be fully capable of recruiting, vetting and training soldiers, forming them into units, putting them into barracks and "sending them out the gate to perform their missions".

Here's another stroll down memory lane. If anyone falls for these platitudes and number games again, a judge should appoint a legal guardian for them to look after their interests. They will end up purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge and Florida real estate full of alligators.
Bush from Crawford, August 11, 2005

Iraqis are taking control of their country. They're building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

And we're helping them succeed. We have a strategy to help them succeed. On the one hand, we're hunting down the terrorists, and we're training the Iraqi security forces so Iraqis can defend themselves. Our approach can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when that mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will come home to a proud and grateful nation.

Pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis. Our mission in Iraq, as I said earlier, is to fight the terrorists, is to train the Iraqis. And we're making progress training the Iraqis. Oh, I know it's hard for some Americans to see that progress, but we are making progress. More and more Iraqi units are becoming more and more capable of fighting off the terrorists.

I am pleased with the progress being made when it comes to training Iraqi units. One of the things I announced at Fort Bragg was our strategy to embed our troops within Iraqi units so to better facilitate the training of those Iraqi units. And this morning, General Casey reported to me and Secretary Rumsfeld and -- the folks standing right back here -- reported to us that more and more units are becoming more and more capable, and that the embedding process is working.

Now, there's not that many that can stand alone yet, but there are a lot more that are -- have gone from raw -- you know, that raw recruit stage, to plenty capable. In some cases, some units need no United States or coalition force help; in some cases, they need minimal help. But the point is, is that there is a matrix, and we're following that matrix as more and more troops become capable and competent. And so my answer to you is that we are making progress.

And I've said all along we'd like to get our troops home as soon as possible -- but soon as possible is conditions-based. And so we're monitoring progress. The important thing for the American people to know is we are making progress. There's a political track on which we're making progress, and the security track on which we're making progress.

Nemo,

Yes, Juan Cole does mention the unnamed Bush administration source, but at HuffPo this morning, you can read Petraeus's comments to the Australian, where he claims a 75 percent reduction. So, the good? General goes on HH and, also gives an interview with an Australian rag, while an Aussie top official from their defence ministry is visiting. And, somehow, some think that he will have an epihany in the next two weeks? The typeset is in place; all that awaits is roll 'em. Then, "EXTRA, EXTRA, read all about it."

Interrupting for a public service announcement:

If you move your cursor over Al or Egbert's name, the email address "none@none.com" appears. Not only are they trolls, but probably the same troll.

So, ignore them.

End of announcement.

Ignore, Eggie? But, how else will I learn to spell?

"smaller, more elite organization"

Oh. Senior Unnamed Official means we should reconstitute the Republican Guard. Gee, why didn't anyone think of it before?

Hasn't the whole Iraq fiasco, from the start, been case after case of the Bush administration making pronouncements, buying time, kicking the ball down the field, and then moving the goal posts when the gamble goes bad?

I can't wait to see how Crocker and Petraeus spin this into an argument for staying another four years.

Why? They'll say its going to get worse if we leave, and we have to stay there to give it time to get better. Its the same spin that's been used forever, and it. They'll make reference to signs that things might be getting ready to turn around (probably citing things that will turn out, months from now, to have been cooked up conveniently for the occasion.)

Really, as long as the same game keeps selling things to Congress even if it doesn't work with the American people, why would they change?

cal1942: You're forgetting as well that Allawi already had a shot as our hand picked PM before the first election.

Nah, he's not forgetting. It's part of "Al's" satire, and pretty funny, too.

And speaking of parodies, I think egbert's funky capitalization is a clear signal he's trolling for anonymous sex. I'm told there's an intricate code for that on blogs.

The Republicans know this is a lost cause and have known for a while now. They are busy compiling a laundry list of hypothetical changes to propose that will be time-intensive which will provide them the best post-election scenario should Dems take the government in January 2009:

1) If the Democrats play along they will get mired in Iraq in the worst way possible and the party will become divided between the anti-war left and the "let's try to fix a bunch of their mistakes and turn Iraq into a success" moderates. This will leave the Democrats fighting amongst themselves in 2009 and beyond and allowing the Republicans to take advantage of that.

2) If the Democrats are smart, they will dig in their heels and demand to get out of Iraq and stop fucking around with it and do it now. This still leaves the Republicans with ammo later: "We proposed all the changes to fixup Iraq and they wouldn't let us implement them and look at the mess there now!"

There is and there is going to be a big mess there for a long time to come. The question is how long is it going to take for enough people to wake up to the fact that the idea of trying to occupy the place is flawed from the getgo and there IS NO solution we can impose from the outside to this mess.

Me_again wrote: "Bush will most likely lose his most urgent benchmark: the Hydrocarbon Framework Law ..."

It is amazing to me that there is almost no discussion of the US-drafted Iraq oil law on this blog. I don't think Kevin has ever written one single article about it.

There is endless discussion by armchair generals of the minute details of "counterinsurgency strategery" and the like, but virtually NO discussion of the one and only reason that the Cheney-Bush administration used the US military to invade and occupy Iraq under blatantly false pretenses: namely, to put in place a US puppet regime that would hand over control of, and the profits from, Iraq's vast oil reserves to Cheney-Bush's cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies.

That's exactly what the US-drafted Iraq oil law does. Passage of that law, and the establishment of a US puppet regime in Iraq that will accept a large permanent US military presence to enforce it, is the sole and entire goal of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Passage of the Iraq oil law is the real Cheney-Bush administration definition of "winnning" in Iraq. That is what tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed for. That is what millions of innocent Iraqi civilians have been impoverished and displaced for. That is what thousands of US troops have been killed and maimed for.

And yet it is virtually never discussed here.

Petraeus doesn't have to say that it will get worse - He already told the Aussie press that we have to protect the gains that have been made by the Surge - Ala Verdun - Protect those scant yards gained, as the General Staff wines and dines back in Paree.

SecularAnimist is correct - The true DoD is in Houston.

Discussing "accountability" for education results in New Orleans Tuesday President Bush reiterated one of his favorite sound bites, "It's what I call challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations." Alas, not when it comes to the President himself and certainly not when the subject is the progress in Iraq.

For the details on why the White House wants the GAO to grade Bush's Iraq surge on a curve, see:
"White House: Bush Deserves 'Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations' on Iraq."

The problem with the majority of the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic leadership in particular is that they don't answer to the American people, who are overwhelmingly and increasingly in favor of ending the US occupation of Iraq. They answer to the same Big Money interests as the Republican Party.

And with regard to the occupation of Iraq, the relevant Big Money interests are the biggest of all Big Money interests: the military-industrial-petroleum complex, whose agenda is to possess and control Iraq's oil and the profits therefrom, and the permanent US military occupation of Iraq to enforce their possession and control of that oil.

There certainly are true antiwar Democrats -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich being one of the best known nationally as a result of his campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination. Kucinich has opposed the war in Iraq from the fall of 2002 when he correctly pointed out that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any "weapons of mass destruction" or "links to Al Qaeda" and posed no threat whatsoever to the USA, and that the whole Bush administration justification for invading Iraq was a lie.

But the "mainstream centrist" Democrats are just as beholden to the Big Money military-industrial-petroleum complex as the Republicans. They will offer some antiwar end-the-occupation rhetoric to the Democratic voter base, which like the overwhelming majority of Americans wants the occupation to end, but they will never take the necessary action to end the occupation: cut off funding for the occupation.

They will vote to continue funding the war, not because they are afraid of the supposed negative "political consequences" of ending the occupation (which negative consequences don't exist, since ending the occupation is what the majority of Americans want), but because continuing the occupation with the goal of ultimately gaining possession and control of Iraq's oil is what Big Money wants, and Big Money is who the "mainstream centrist" Democrats answer to.

egbert: "AFter Gen. Petraus gives hhis report, I predict AMericans will clamor for vicotry in Iraq. ANd Pres. Bush will see aproval ratings of 70% or more!"

Ja! Und de Fuhrer's new miracle weapons vil also help turn de tide!

If there are any really smart congressional aides out there they will have Gen. Jones testify. And I don't mean on the narrow subject of this commission.

SecularAnimist said :

I believe that the above is the sole reason for the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Also I believe this was first discussed with Cheney's "Energy Meetings" and the documentation of which were conviently made off limits by Cheney. Congress should undo this and make these public. I'm sure it will show criminal intent and racketeering by the highest levels of oil business & government.
Perhaps congress should meet with some of the participants and make them reveal the secrets under oath.

Secular Animist said:

"Passage of that law [the US-drafted Iraq oil law], and the establishment of a US puppet regime in Iraq that will accept a large permanent US military presence to enforce it, is the... goal of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Passage of the Iraq oil law is the real Cheney-Bush administration definition of "winning" in Iraq. That is what... thousands...have been killed for."

Erika said:

"...I believe this was first discussed with Cheney's "Energy Meetings" and the documentation of which was conveniently made off limits by Cheney. Congress should... make [this information] public. I'm sure it will show criminal intent... by highest levels of oil business & government."

Secular Animist and Erika have NAILED IT. The Iraqi "Hydrocarbon Law" or oil-revenue sharing law is discussed very little in our national debate over Iraq. When mentioned, one usually hears only about its provisions providing that oil revenue will be shared between Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. One sees little mention of the law's grant of oil exploitation rights to non-Iraqi companies. And why is that?

I believe for the very reasons cited by S.A. and Erika: The oil exploitation rights, to be guaranteed by long-term U.S. military bases, were the largest realpolitik motivation for this war.

Drafts of the law provide for wonderfully generous recoveries for the U.S. and western oil companies (drafts list BP/Amoco, Royal Dutch Shell, and Exxon Mobil) who are thereby given exclusive rights to exploit the (world's second or third largest) Iraqi oil fields.

And yes, I believe Cheney did lay this out during his secretive Energy summit meetings at the beginning of the Bush years. How do I know this? Richard Clarke (former national security assistant to Clinton and G.W. Bush) and Paul O'Neill (former G.W. Bush Treasury Secretary) have told us, in remarkably consistent acccounts, that invading Iraq was talked about in Bush cabinet meetings from the very outset of this administration in Jan. 2001. The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks just made their endless-war marketing effort easier.

"dysfunctional"

Why don't we give him a chance to run Iraq and see how well he does before we cut and run like you liberals advocate?

Al, did you just advocate we launch a coup against a government we helped install and support? Even AFTER Allawi has already had his shot and that's part of why we're in this mess?

I guess that's about all that's left to completely screw up this country... Why don't we poison the food supply and set some oil wells on fire just for kicks.

Ha. This nonsense just gets better and better.

"We should start over" Yes we should by impeaching Bush & Cheney the two worst crooks that have ever occupied the White House. Bush wants $50,000,000.00 more for the Iraq war that he can deposit in the Bush Family Vault being the theif he has already proved to be, and as for as the troops being over strained already cetainly the troops are over strained and should be brought home immediately, they are serving no perpuse over there except being targets for the rag heads so Bush can continue to steal the oil from Iraq, Flush all Republican crooks.