Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Petrolio e sangue

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/opinion/28herbert.html?hp
Oil and Blood
By BOB HERBERT
It is now generally understood that the U.S.-led war in Iraq has
become a debacle.
Nevertheless, Iraqis are supposed to have their constitution ratified
and a permanent government elected by the end of the year.
It's a logical escape hatch for George W. Bush.
He could declare victory, as a senator once suggested to Lyndon
Johnson in the early years of Vietnam, and bring the troops home as
quickly as possible.
His mantra would be: There's a government in place. We won. We're out
of there.
But don't count on it.
The Bush administration has no plans to bring the troops home from
this misguided war, which has taken a fearful toll in lives and
injuries while at the same time weakening the military, damaging the
international reputation of the United States, serving as a
world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups and blowing a hole
the size of Baghdad in Washington's budget.
A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses.
But the whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a
long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of
the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been
described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as "the greatest single
prize in all history."
You can run through all the wildly varying rationales for this war:
the weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), the need to
remove the unmitigated evil of Saddam (whom we had once cozied up to),
the connection to Al Qaeda (which was bogus), and, one of President
Bush's favorites, the need to fight the terrorists "over there" so we
won't have to fight them here at home.
All the rationales have to genuflect before "The Prize," the title of
Mr. Yergin's Pulitzer-Prize-winning book.
It's the oil, stupid.
What has so often gotten lost in all the talk about terror and weapons
of mass destruction is the fact that for so many of the most
influential members of the Bush administration, the obsessive desire
to invade Iraq preceded the Sept. 11 attacks.
It preceded the Bush administration.
The neoconservatives were beating the war drums on Iraq as far back as
the late 1990's.
Iraq was supposed to be a first step.
Iran was also in the neoconservatives' sights.
The neocons envisaged U.S. control of the region (and its oil), to be
followed inevitably by the realization of their ultimate dream, a
global American empire.
Of course it sounds like madness, which is why we should have been
paying closer attention from the beginning.
The madness took a Dr. Strangelovian turn in the summer of 2002,
before the war with Iraq was launched.
As The Washington Post first reported, an influential Pentagon
advisory board was given a briefing prepared by a Rand Corporation
analyst who said the U.S. should consider seizing the oil fields and
financial assets of Saudi Arabia if it did not stop its support of
terrorism.
Mercifully the briefing went nowhere.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it did not represent the
"dominant opinion" within the administration.
The point here is that the invasion of Iraq was part of a much larger,
long-term policy that had to do with the U.S. imposing its will,
militarily when necessary, throughout the Middle East and beyond.
The war has gone badly, and the viciousness of the Iraq insurgency has
put the torch to the idea of further pre-emptive adventures by the
Bush administration.
But dreams of empire die hard.
American G.I.'s are dug into Iraq, and the bases have been built for a
long stay.
The war may be going badly, but the primary consideration is that
there is still a tremendous amount of oil at stake, the second-largest
reserves on the planet.
And neocon fantasies aside, the global competition for the planet's
finite oil reserves intensifies by the hour.
Lyndon Johnson ignored the unsolicited advice of Senator George Aiken
of Vermont - to declare victory in Vietnam in 1966.
The war continued for nearly a decade. Many high-level government
figures believe that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a minimum of 5
more years, and perhaps 10.
That should be understood by the people who think that the formation
of a permanent Iraqi government will lead to the withdrawal of
American troops.
There is no real withdrawal plan.
The fighting and the dying will continue indefinitely.

A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses.
E se lo dice lui che sono "losses" allora....!!!
-Stefano

 E se lo dice lui che sono "losses"
"Lui" scrive sul NYT. Tu sul "Campanaccio di Capracotta". Io punto sul NYT.
Namib

"Lui" scrive sul NYT.
Come i cari Jayson Blair e Rick Bragg?
*ROTFL*
-Stefano


That's it
E ti ci puoi giocare casa, macchina e amante.
Messaggio alle anime candide.
Saluti Cad Ali'
--
Dalla sura * della Conversione*..............
"Combattete coloro che non credono in Allah e nell'Ultimo Giorno, che non
vietano quello che Allah e il Suo Messaggero hanno vietato, e quelli, tra la
gente della Scrittura  che non scelgono la religione della verità, finchè
non versino umilmente il tributo, e siano soggiogati" (Sura 9:29).
"Se non vi lancerete nella lotta, Allah vi castigherà con doloroso castigo e
vi sostituirà con un altro popolo, mentre voi non potrete nuocergli in
nessun modo" (Sura 9:39).
"Uccidete gli idolatri ovunque li troviate, fateli prigionieri, assediateli
e combatteteli con ogni genere di tranelli" (Corano 9,5).
"Combatti quelli che non credono in Allah... combattete finchè non paghino
con umiliazione il tributo" (Corano 9,29).

 wrote in message
news:SnbGe.22528$fm.16...@news4.tin.it...

#_ :))))
L'hanno gia` buttato fuori anche dal "L'urlo di Fontana Secca"???
Giano

 Come i cari Jayson Blair e Rick Bragg?
#_Disse la volpe all'uva.
G.   rrrr