I was disappointed with Part II of Bush's War

[sharesunited]

The details of the political hot potatoes and shin sucking quagmire were important.

But Part II emphasized how "light" we wanted our footprint to be, and how eager we were to come home and turn the whole thing over to the Iraqis. (That the surge is somehow an expression of that. Give me a break.)

And I have a hard time reconciling that with our overwhelming insistence on staying. No mention of any billion dollar embassy compound or permanent military bases. No mention of the corporate control of the oil we pressed the new Iraqi government to codify.

Perhaps my feelings of being shortchanged will be short-lived, if there are more Frontline segments coming along which address these aspects of the fiasco.

[elleng]

1. I'm 'waiting' for the ones that discuss this. Won't hold my breath.

The Iraq War was a Conspiracy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3052131&mesg_id=3052131

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Will they tell you the real reason for the war?

The Thirty-Year Itch

News: Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.

By Robert Dreyfuss

March/April 2003 Mother Jones


If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html