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.''