> > "I wonder if this is intentional to keep Iraq in a broken condition." > > And how, precisely, is this a good thing for the U.S.? Keeping in mind > that the point of the exercise is to have Iraq up and running as a > close-to-democracy as soon as possible, I fail to see how keeping Iraq > in a 'broken condition' is a desirable goal. I would think the desire > of Bush & co. is, in two or four years, to have pictures on TV of Iraqis > driving to work in nice shiny cars. Whether that is reasonable or not, > it seems pretty clear that this is their intention. If in two years Iraq is a shining city on the hill, then there won't be any need for the US to be in the region. The US gets sent home and loses influence in the region. The Arabs will have their oil and grow stronger. If the current disaster continues for two (or twenty) years, the US will always be the dominant power in the region. The US gets the oil and others don't get the oil. The US will have a powerful issue that it can use to beat allies over the head (the "War on Terror") and keep the American population in a panicked state ("Vote for safety!") But that's theory. Look at reality. This is indeed Israel's strategy: keep the Palestinians weak and shattered. The schools, local government, water pumps: everything has been destroyed. And it works brilliantly: Israel dominates the Arabs. The government denounces as collaborators whomever wants to work with Arab terrorists. Whenever a Palestinian boy in deep frustration throws a rock at an Israeli tank, the Israels shrug and say "what else can one do with such uncivilized animals?" So it's a good thing for Israel. I wonder if the US is following the same strategy. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html