Tony Kevin's suspicions about the insurgency in Iraq are well founded. The fact is that the US economy is structured so that it is dependent upon being continuously engaged upon or preparing for warfare. It is therefore irrelevant whether the war is being won or lost as long as it keeps going. If it eventually grinds to a halt as it did in Vietnam, after a few regional skirmishes like Cambodia or Panama or Grenada, another major war will be started to keep what Eisenhower called the "military/industrial complex" in production. No doubt a suitable triggering device like 9/11 will be found to justify the action and the "necessary wartime restrictions on civil liberties" which will follow.

Another recommended book to read along with those Tony suggested is "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin.

Oh come on Symneology

I said it on this string BEFORE Tony rightly wrote it down. See the FIRST comment on this string.

"The US appears to be in Iraq to:
- control Iraq’s oil production and reserves (a significant proportion of the Middle East’s (world’s major producers) oil supplies)
- protect Saudi Arabia from outside threats particularly from the Shiite threat (including Iran). Bush has a long record of personal and public ties with the Saudi’s...
- [HERE IT IS] Give a large (post Cold War) US defence establishment something to do. Defence spend[ING] is traditionally good for the US economy and hence the Republican’s chance of reelection.
...
Whatever happens I think a large US presence in the Middle East will remain, however winning or losing the Oil War is measured.

Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 15 September 2005 1:35:56 PM"

Yours sincerely

Plantagenet
(feeling childishly miffed!)

OK Plantagenet, you said it first:
- [HERE IT IS] Give a large (post Cold War) US defence establishment something to do. Defence spend[ING] is traditionally good for the US economy and hence the Republican’s chance of reelection.

My point was that the US will always find an excuse to go to war whichever party is in control of Congress or the White House. Remember it was a Democrat President Roosevelt who got them into WWII after allowing Pearl Harbour to happen, and it was a Democrat President Johnson who escalated the war in Vietnam after his leader (JFK, who wanted to de-escalate) was out of the way. It is interesting that Johnson's firm, Brown & Root, which got the contract to build Da Nang airbase in Vietnam, is now, as Kellog, Brown & Root, a part of Cheney's firm, Halliburton, which has contracts for most of the infrastructure in Iraq.

So it does not matter who wins or loses, the wars or the elections, the war profiteers will win either way.