Why is the US really in Iraq(not final draft) Added a few more things 27 july 07




1)Economic: Oil is sold in dollars, a year before invasion Saddam started to sell oil to UN in Euro's, if this trend carried on around world USA petrodollar system would weaken causing us economy to collapse, this could not be allowed, but the present weakness of the USA is shown by consequent actions of Chavez, Iran etc.

2)Geo-political: Most countries need oil for economic development, US control of Iraqi oil allows USA to have control of potential enemies/allies i.e. China, Japan etc.

3)Domestic: 9/11 created a climate where Bush and co could introduce laws curtailing freedoms and cracking down on what are domestic political opponents1 Since 9/11 Bush and co have attacked the constitution every chance they get.

4)Personal: Bush and cabinet in cahoots with friends from oil industry. Bush direct links to Texan oil, campaign funds, Rice ex oil board member, has oil tanker named after her. Oil companies interests in Iraqi oil motivated by desire to increase bottom line of oil. Invasion of Iraq allowed US to disrupt flow to UN and rest of the world, driving up prices equalling more profit for oil companies.2 Also the big oil companies feared that any subsequent privatisation of Iraqi oil would allow other foreign companies to share in the spoils and they don't want this to happen especially after they saw what happened in Russia during the 90's where they where excluded from the privatisation of state utilities after the fall of communism3

5)Military Industrial Complex: As warned by Eisenhower? This behemoth of US industry is ever present and intertwined in US foreign and domestic policy, and has especially close ties to the Bush administration with ex-chairmen Cheney now Vice-President and still on the payroll of Halibuton, at least early on in the administration, one of the companies doing very well out of the US occupation in Iraq through to logistic operation in controls for the occupying forces.

Current strategy:

At the moments the democrats and republicans are arguing about reducing troop numbers and congress funding, an argument that fundamentally misunderstands the Bush strategy in Iraq; the fact that their strategy is working.

Obviously to most people the amount of violence in Iraq might suggest that the overall strategy is failing. After all on many occasions members of the Bush administration have suggested that their goal is to provide an environment secure enough that the Iraqi government and their security apparatus can take over from the US army.

Unfortunately after 6 years in office the Bush administration the one thing we have learned is that we can not take them on their word. On many occasions they will make statements that have very little to do with reality, in fact from the beginning they have misled the public on their real reasons for the invasion4

My research has lead me to other conclusion;


1)That the threat of a Iraq descending into civil war is a creation of the occupying force, Iraq is a tribal society with a lot of intermarriage between the different religions. The sectarian violence is definitely present but is between opposing group that are operating in only a small percentage of Iraq, places such as Baghdad that have more chance of media coverage, and this coverage especially from western media is restricted to the Green Zone due to the security problems for foreigners, so journalist become reliant from sources such as 'senior US officials' etc. to provide them with copy



2)Therefore the current breakdown of society and decent into civil war is exactly what the coalition forces want mainly because it will allow the break up of the Iraqi state, most probably in to a 3 state system. This was mentioned as far back as November 2003 in the NY Times5,
3)This will allow the US to focus on the most important regions, that of the South where Bassra is located and the Kurdish regions in the south, while withdrawing from the central regions that have less resources but the most sectarian problems.
4)Continuing insecurity in this region allows the insurgents to continue their disruption of the country and its infrastructure. More importantly it allows the disruption of the oil out of the country an important element in pushing up oil company profits. As noted by others the big oil companies have been letting pipelines in their care deteriorate for years because they want to reduce production not increase it.6

Future Strategy:

So where does the USA go now. Obviously from Bush's recent statements they have no intention of reducing troop numbers or adhering to congress call to accept the new funding bills that would require some kind of commitment to withdrawal dates. This suggests that withdrawal will not occur till a new administration is ushered in, so that would mean after January 2009. Comments from US army generals back in 2003 stated that they believed they would be their for 7 years. That would suggest that the pentagon has been under the assumption the withdrawal would be spring 2010, around the time that a newly elected administration would be about ready to commence withdrawal.

Of course by then the USA would of installed army bases in strategic areas of the country. The Kurds will allow them to install bases in the north as they need US protection from any future military adventures by Turkey. While in the south they will probably use the use the ongoing tension with Iran as an excuse to install bases there, this will have the dual role of keeping control of oil resources while reducing the influence of Iranian backed Iraqi groups who would like to

Conclusion:

Iraq is about oil but it is a little bit more complicated than just that. The main reason before the invasion was a concerted effort by the USA to protect its economy from collapse and to stave off any competition from states such as China, Russia and Euro zone states such as France. But there is also a host of other reasons, such as the influence of the Israeli lobby, and of course the propaganda battle that is being waged back in America itself.


Robert fisk:

civil war, break up of country, Iraq is tribal not religious, they are all intermarried, borders are manufactured by foreigners therefore

Reason for war:

'that a superpower has a visceral need to project military strength',
completes an Iron curtain that runs from Greenland in the north to Somalia in the south, and on the other side of it is Pakistan, India, China and Russia
Pakistan has a bomb and many Taliban supporters
India and China are future economic rival that have tested nuclear capacity
Russia has the bomb and crucially natural resources as well as a competitor in the oil rich area of the Caspian (check that)
Is it just about American projection of power?

Le Monde diplomatique July 2007

Al Qaida: the unwanted guests (Syed Saqleem Shahzad):

As suggested above by Fisk the Pakistan and the Taliban where allies is backed up by the peace accord that they signed in summer of 2006 which suitd both parties as it provided monety and arms to the taliban while suppling Pakistan with breathing room to draw up a strategy to counter Al -Qaida infiltration within its tribal belt.

In this article Dr Muhammad Bashar al-Faithi is quoted as suggesting that Bremer dismantled the Iraqi Sunni security apparatus ''...to draw Al-Qaida militants into Iraq, where it is far more easy to kill or capture them than in Waziristan or Afghanistan.''

This has also helped speed up internal divisions between Muslim groups in Iraq as ''Indigenous Islamic resistance groups have reacted uncomfortably the growth of this near-heresy within Al-Qaida...'' referring to the influx of foreign fighters from Afghanistan that adhere to the Takfirist ideology that regards ''bad Muslims as the real enemy''.

Dr Al Faithi also goes on to state ''We welcomed the first wave of al-Qa'ida fighters, but now we are paying the price; everything they are doing now has badly hurt the resistance movement.''

This would suggest that in the US eyes allowing the foreign extremists to enter Iraq has facilitated a number of strategies
To capture this elements easier as suggested above
to hurt the indigenous resistance elements to the extent that their overall opposition strategy to the US invasion would be rendered less effective
thus in some cases such as the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) whose ''....goals where so dissimilar [to Al Qaida] that in some circumstances the IAI might be more willing to deal with the US.''

Spiderman 3 / the review



Well after months of hype, it has arrived and I've just seen it. So here we go and hopes are still high, even if it is a Hollywood production it has a lot of potential, a huge array of characters and 40 years of back story. The strength of the first two, was the development of the characters backed up by 5 minutes spells of CGI magic.

As a big spidey fan the idea of brining him to the wide screen at first filled me with horror as visions of that 80's Captain America movie and other assorted horrors. Well that didn't happen and now we're up to number 3. I hope you all remember how we got here cause I ain't going to bring you up to date, nope let get in there.

Right first problem a little like the second it takes an age to the introduction of the new baddies , focusing on Peter and MJ's on off relationship, while this was fleshed out in the second one, here it revisits old ground almost mirroring Stan Lee's habit of weighing the original comic down with excess dialog and teenage angst. In a set of 2 hours movies this is not a good move and stunts the growth of the franchise when it looked like it was moving in a direction that due to Lee's huge back story could of gone on for years.

I also didn't enjoy the way the plot was tied together and I feel that maybe too much was put in here, too many subplots when there was enough strength in the material that one or even two of the villain could be cut out. Remember in the comics all the subplots here where major story lines developed over years and to have the Sandman introduced as Ben Parkers murderer than have all the loose ends tied up over this and three or four others plot strands in two hours seems like too much to me.



In the end the overall excitement of the first two has been let down the story is bogged down by too much going on while nothing is explored and developed apart from Peter/ MJ's relationship which as I mentioned just seems to thread old ground and at the same time denies long standing spidey villains Sandman, Venom and the Green Goblin the chance to shine. In the comics all these characters have had profound effects on Spiderman but here, with exception to the Goblin, they are introduced and dispatched without much fanfare and thats a shame cause venom is a major villain.

Overall I was disappointed but word of a fourth is already spreading so lets hope this franchise can correct its direction for the next episode which should be along in about 2 and half years can't wait.

Playoff update: Warriors take Mavs in 6



The biggest upset in playoff history occured last night as the 8th seeded took down the number 1 Dallas Mavs with special mention to Baron Davis, Matt Barnes and a lot of help from a home crowd that aint seen playoff action since back in the days of Run TMC.

It wasn't just the biggest upset but also a fun series with the Warrior small ball showing the potential that the Phoneix Suns lack, strength at all 5 positions. The Warriors though did come in with a decisive edge that
of their coach just happening to be Don Nelson the Mavs previous coach, a definite psychological advantage.

But to be fare to the Mavs the Warriors were better than 8th seed, possibly as high as 5th in my opinion. The Warriors entered the playoffs with a strech of 9 wins out of 10, while the Mavs spent early April, having clinched homefield advantage, resting key players in anticipation of a long playoff run. One of the ironies of this series, as noted by Steve Kerr on TNT last night, was of a matchup of these two in the final week of the season that would of kept the Warriors out of the post season if they had lost it.

Still the Mavs where the better team and really the blame should fall on the coach and the big stars. Did Avery need to change his line up to match Nelly or should he have stuck with what won him 67 regular season games. Maybe? but remember in 3 competitive regular season games the lost all of them and had their 17 game win streak ended by the bay area crew, so I think trying to second guess Avery here is unfair. It is towards the players that a fair amount of blame should be attached, Howard had a good series but Nowitzki was contained most of the time and no one else apart from Stackhouse stood up when it mattered. With many experts pointing to the strength of the Dallas bench this was a huge disappointment especially when the starters failed to show up.

But for all the failings of the Mavs, the Warriors showed that they are a team to be reckoned with though I doubt they have enough to win a championship this year, mainly because I don't see Davis staying healthy the rest of the way. Without him they lose too much experience and with Nelly threatening to use a 6 man rotation already, major bench issues could be just around the corner.

The positives at the moment though out weight these potential problems. Nelly showed that time off between jobs has not blunted his edge and his adjustments kept Dallas from gaining a foothold every time they threatened. Avery was never able to find a solution to the 5 position with his centers slowing the team down too much when in and the paint too open when they where out. One example of this was Steven Jackson's ability to drive to the rim early in the 4th quarter for easy points as Avery tried to match up without Diop or Dampier in the game.

Another plus was Baron Davis, reacting to the big time by being the only star that earned his big paycheck, keeping the Warriors in games when they looked shakey and fighting through the pain last night when he picked up an early injury in the first. At this crucial point Dallas looked like they could of pushed forward for a big blowout but Davis came back on and even though his ability to reach the rim was severely hampered he still hit some crucial shots. Next up for special attention is Matt Barnes, who was a a game time decision yesterday and in the end moved from the bench to the starting line up. The whole series he showed the kind of hustle that teams need coming of the bench and hopefully next season he can start to be more consistent in a team that looks like it has most of the pieces to challenge seriously in an western conference already loaded with talented teams.

Finally special attention must be given to a homecourt crowd that showed the essential advantage of homefield advantage, and a final advantage that pushed the Warriors over the edge to victory.