Serious Question; pls answer w/ your serious, best thoughts:

Pls no facetious answers, rote answers, etc. I'd like your serious thoughts . . . .

BushCo is going to great lengths to keep the largest possible presence in Iraq as long as possible. But we've been told our military can't hold out beyond this spring -- they're depleted, broken, they just do not have the personnel; we'll have no choice but to pull back at that point, if not completely out.

Is anyone seriously arguing that we're going to pacify the entire country, or that the Iraqi gov't is going to get it together, within the next 6 mos.? NO -- everyone who knows anything says, if we really want this to work, we've got to be there 10 more years, or more.

But WE DO NOT HAVE THE MILITARY RESOURCES TO DO THAT.

Whatever Congress does, there's going to be some kind of reckoning this spring -- they're either going to have to start pulling troops out, or institute a draft, or something. Will pulling out or instituting a draft be more popular for having been deferred 6 mos.? I don't think so. Most people already want to pull out and don't want a draft. Personally, deferring and then nonetheless arriving at either 6 mos. later would just infuriate me the more.

And pulling out in the spring seems to me to be too late to help the Repubs in 2008 -- in fact, from the point of view of anyone trying to get elected in 2008, it would be much better if they admitted we're in a no-win situation as soon as possible, and commenced earnest efforts to correct the mistakes of the Bush admin. as soon as possible, rather than tarring themselves with having perpetuated those mistakes any longer than necessary, to the obvious detriment of everyone except Halliburton.

So what other motives or forces could be in play?

Oil and other private business interests maintain hopes for profits so long as the war continues?

A continuing presence enhances continuing possibilities for war with Iran?

The continuing war enhances continuing possibilities for consolidating their power?

Is there something else they're hiding by keeping it going?

Other ideas?

Please, serious thoughts about this!

I can't really think of any GOOD reason for ANYONE, Dem or Rep, to want to continue the war -- yet they all seemed determined to do so, despite the likely damage not only to their country but their own careers. If we're going to end this fiasco sooner rather than later, we need to make sure we understand the real reasons WHY. If we already knew them, we might have been able to use them to end it by now; so we should consider the possibility that we're missing something.

We have no intentions of ever leaving.

We are being led around by the nose by leaders in our own party. The talk out of both sides of their mouths.

We will enthrone another strong-man that grazes from the US trough and will heed to all of our corporate demands.

I read various sources....right, left, center and some in directions there is no human word for.

I think the idea that the military might have to pull completely out is unrealistic. After all, they have the money for as long as they want.

It could tangle up the campaign. There are a dozen ways that Rove (who is probably still calling the shots) could use more MIHOPs and LIHOPs to twist the course of events.

I'm not sure there IS a plan right now -- I believe they are just holding the place for the time being, waiting for an opportunity to act. Tweety said they have just "put a cork in it" for right now. That may be so.

There will be NO draft, there WILL be privatization of the military, it will be Blackwater, etc, that will fill the need. Rome did it, it is not new. It is very obvious this cabal negates the lessons of history (the Roman Empire died because of 'outsourcing and privatization of the military') and is doomed to repeat it.

individuals that will join the military to have a job. Our economy is ready to implode. Many families are going to lose their homes in the next few months. Heating & energy costs are going up.

The acceptable age for military service has been raised to 42, that includes lots of people. Many will join to keep food on the table & have "housing" even if it's military housing.

Poor & desperate people will do what ever you want them to do. Sad but true.

The timetable now has shifted to the summer of 08 for withdrawal to "pre-surge" levels. This is the republican goal. Then we can be beaten senseless from now to the conventions. The fact that the troops can not hold out is solved by upping the bonuses, and like proposed by a Neocon on NPR...hire mercenaries. Anything to keep it together until the conventions. Then after the election, if a democrat, there will be a draft, as the person being in the WH will avoid being a "we lost Iraq" democrat at any cost. They will take the lesser of the evils. A draft.

If a republican is elected, the war continues on obviously, but there will be certain "international things" that happen that will turn the tide to support the new republican president. Sign ups increase, and a draft will not be as odious in a frenzy of patriotism again.

will rule iraq. they gently brought the wonderful american "investors" willing to risk "investing" in iraqi corporations etc blah blah blah. this will be quietly repeated again and again, no one will notice. our troops defend the thieves of baghdad

they formalize the oil lease agreements (PSAs) with the federal government and various regional entities. Then they will start withdrawing some troops and replacing them with Iraqi and foreign militias/mercenaries. However, a substantial force will stay and protect the puppet government. Sooner or later we'll move against Sadr--with him gone there's no nationalist force left among the Shia. Iran will have to decide whether to get involved and risk being bombed, wait it out, or withdraw completely. They actually might wait it out and hope the US military destroys Sadr and then a Democratic president withdraws from Iraq--then their allies can take control of the Shia areas and oilfields.

Staying indefinitely and establishing long-term contracts is what the Oil/Defense lobby wants anyway IMV--there's been too much sacrifice and blood spent to turn back now as far as they are concerned. They want those oil profits. They want to move in their with hired labor from 3rd world nations and harvest the oil--the Iraqis can either capitulate or die.

That's my best shot at a conspiracy theory...for what it's worth. It's about generating oil profits in Iraq and milking US taxpayers for war profits as long as they are dumb enough to pay out.

I agree with everything you said, and your theory is why the war wil not end. The president if a Democrat will never leave though I think.

Richardson, and increasingly Edwards, are coming out for full withdrawl. This is the position the base wants. Without US troops, they can't enforce oil agreements. Americans believe aggressive wars for oil are immoral--that's why no one in the media is talking about the real reasons we are there.

Much depends on whether the Iraqis pass the oil law. If they do, the pressure on the US Gov to stay from special interests will be overwelming. But if they can't ram that law through, then there's really no legitimate basis for staying in Iraq for the oil.

Once upon a time in an office rented to them by the American Heritage Foundation, a group of powerful men directly connected to the halls of the capital and the defense and energy industry formed a fringe rightwing organization based loosely on the teachings of Leo Strauss. They called themselves the Project for the New American Century. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (both chaired by William Kristol) and as such is largely funded through it. Direct funding for PNAC comes from, but isn’t limited to, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($700,000), the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation ($50,000), and the John M. Olin Foundation ($70,000).

Unsurprisingly these three exceedingly conservative foundations have strong ties to weapons manufacturing and several members of the Project are former CEOs and board members of defense contractors and energy companies. (Halliburton, Trireme, Bechtel, etc.)

These guys drew up a plan for using our role as last remaining super power to expand their respective global markets through force. Specifically, their published documents call for the violent overthrow of regimes around the world that weren’t friendly to their business interests. The plan, as it was drawn out, called for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and seizing control of the Iraqi oil fields. Also, the regime of Afghanistan had to be deposed in order to construct a pipeline to secure access to the natural gas reserves of Central Asia. Once the energy resources were secured, the next step in the plan was to create an archepelago of military bases throught the Middle East and Central Asia as a staging point for further operations including the toppling of Iran and Syria. -snip-

rest (fairly short I promise) here ... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m29153

note: I'd say as irrational and inconceivable as it may seem to quite a few of us now ..... I'm not sure the PNAC neo-cons are ready to give up on their agenda ..... just yet.

Peace.

I honestly wish I knew how much weight to give religious belief in this situation, as far as George Bush is concerned.

If you look at the text of the preaching of the First Crusade at Clermont by Urban II in 1095 (as recorded by Guibert de Nogent) you see the pope appealing to many issues other than religion for a justification to go on Crusade: there were socio-economic and political issues which could, albeit tenuously, equate to America's desire to control Iraqi oil, and spread our ideology into the Mideast.

But Urban also utilized apocalyptic scenarios common in that age to justify the First Crusade; the reasoning went like this: Christ would return to defeat Antichrist; before Antichrist would make his appearance there had to be a Christian king in Jerusalem for Antichrist to defeat; and how could there be a Christian king in Jerusalem when it was in the hands of the "Infidels"?

I know this sounds whacked but bear with me... :D

The current predominant strain of apocalyptic thought, which George Bush (apparently) adheres to, is the "rapture" form of Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism; again, the Mideast plays a key role in this apocalyptic system. As you have probably noticed, most of the "end-times" stuff that gets published these days focuses on the Temple Mount, or Israel, or some kind of scenario involving war in the Mideast with Israel, Russia, China, and the US involved (plus allies of each side).

Nuclear confrontation is expected, in one form or another, with Christ returning at the appropriate time to "intervene" on the Judeo-Christian's behalf.

OK...

Just as the motivations of those who went on First Crusade were a mix of socio-economic-political issues (with a healthy dose of medieval apocalyptic thrown in to legitimize things)so our modern venture into the area has been based upon cynical desires for control of Iraqi oil, a desire to gain a large military staging area in the Mideast (outside of Israel), a desire to spread "democracy" and "free-market capitalism" in the region (as long as elections result in "friendly governments").

But there is also that portion of Bush's base which supports this whole thing because they view it as a crucial precursor to the return of Christ. Just like Ahmadinejad is waiting for the "12th Imam" to appear...

I just wish I knew how strongly Bush's inner psyche was influenced by these beliefs...they can exist interwoven with all kinds of seemingly contradictory values and actions. And they can be very powerful lenses through which to view the world.

I wish I had the answer to that one...

believe they are better, smarter, and most importantly, have a divine right to rule the world. They have made their plans and their egos will not let them abandon or change them. Even if the whole world burns as a result, they will never stop.

I agree that our troops "can't hold out" much longer.
They're not really holding out very well now, and they
haven't been for quite awhile.

But that doesn't mean there will be any "reckoning". Not
in the Spring, not ever. Simply because they can't hold out
does not mean they will be brought home. Because this
administration SIMPLY DOESN'T CARE.

No matter how bad it gets for our troops there, B*sh will
never care. Their situation will be used for HIS benefit,
just like always.

If an entire base is overrun and wiped out, B*sh will say
it's proof that we need to invade Iran. And he'll wave the
names of the dead soldiers at anyone who dares question him
chanting "honor the fallen".

If morale disappears to the point that units collapse into
violent anarchy, B*sh will blame it upon "liberals back home
who don't support the troops".

No matter what happens, it will be SPUN to justify whatever
B*sh feels like doing. No matter how INSANE the required spin is.
Just like always.

B*sh simply doesn't care what happens to them. Never has, and
never will. And he never admits he's wrong- his entire life has
taught him that he doesn't have to, so why would he start now?

Those troops are going NOWHERE. The Repubs will never allow any
"reckoning". Not in the Spring, not EVER. And the DEMS don't seem
much inclined to force one.

WHY that is, I suspect, involves a few of those "things we're missing".

The Iraqis were pull off a real attack on the Green Zone or some other Ami base, and kill hundreds of Americans at one time (like in Lebanan in the early 80s). Then you will have a real debate.

Thing is, not enough Americans are dying to piss enough people off. The primary cost is to the treasury, and Americans don't seem to care. Many of those who would normally care have figured out how to profit from the war (invest in the right companies etc.).

I doubt they'll bring back the draft (bad for politics), but they'll keep sending our current military back time and time and time and time again. The troops are regarded as fodder and nothing more. It's very sad.