Where Goes Iraq?

Tuesday's news was a Bush press conference. He was finally getting some heat from the press, but no more heat than from Helen Thomas. Veteran Whitehouse journalist Thomas was finally called on by Bush. She said something to the effect "Since all the public reasons for invading Iraq have proven false, then why did you invade?" Bush essentially dodged the question and refused to allow her a follow up, but he did say essentially "Everything you have heard is false;" and "No President wants to go to war." He is right that everything coming out of the administration about Iraq is false. After all, there is a whole department for propaganda in the Pentagon - a department that is failing to convince either Iraqis or Americans that things are improving in Iraq. And Bush may have been telling the truth that no President wants to go to war, but then he doesn't see himself as a President, but as the chosen of God. Wow, two (possible) truths in one press conference.

But it was clear that Bush world is still not the world that most people see. When he was asked about the fact that former Prime Minister of Iraq Iyad Allawi had said that Iraq is in a civil war, Bush said he liked Allawi, but disagreed with him. In fact things are going so well that the issue of bringing U.S. troops home will be the decision of "future presidents." Yes, plural, "presidents." Iraq (in Bush's opinion) will have a U.S. military presence for many years to come. However, that is not news either as the U.S. has been building permanent bases across Iraq. It is also telling that the new booming business in Iraq is terror insurance. Yep, you can now buy terror insurance to cover your family if you are shot or blown up.

But things are not going well in Iraq as violence continues and reports of U.S. troops massacrers of Iraqi civilians continue to arise.

So why did Bush invade Iraq? Certainly not because they thought that any of their "public reasons" were true. Yet another refutation of that deception came to light with the revelation of the information passed by Naji Sabri. Sabri was Iraq's foreign minister, and a paid informant for the United States. He said that there were no biological and chemical weapons, nor even near term nuclear weapons capability. Like the "yellow cake from Niger," reality was inconvenient and therefore buried.

There is little doubt that the reason was oil. However, it is unlikely it was as simplistic as simply controlling Iraq's oil. Decreasing Iraq's oil production has added to the cost of crude and therefore the profits of the oil interests (including those of the Bush's). It also allowed a major U.S. military presence in a critical location to control oil outside of Iraq. That is not working as well as the administration may have hoped as Iran refuses to either back down, nor cooperate with those plans. Iran is as important in oil and gas now as it was when the U.S. put Reza Shah in power (and kept him there).

Other nations are also aware of the importance of Iran - namely Russia and China. So we have Russia blocking UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, and China makes oil and gas deals with both Iran and Russia. Now we have the conflict with Iran and the disaster in Iraq merging into one highly complex knot. An excellent discussion of this situation is put forward by Gareth Porter from the International Press Service titled " Iran, Iraq Crises Converge Despite U.S. Hardliners." In this article, Porter discusses not just the convergence of Iran and Iraq, but the schism within the Bush administration over its stance towards Iran.

The oil wars are on in earnest, with hardly a veneer of lies to keep the (American) public quiet.