It's all so simple now...

Over the past few days, I've been following the legislative passing of new Iraq troop funding which guarantees US military presence for at least one more year. It may have been a bit hard to spot because another Spears sister is all over the news, but it's a major story. I'll spare you the details, which you can read about here, here, and here just for starters.

It got me to thinking about the true motivation behind the invasion of Iraq. Here are the reasons we have been given so far:

1. Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons or had the capability to make them. We know this isn't true.

2. Iraq had ties to Al Quaeda and the 9/11 attacks. We know this isn't true, and a short history of the Ba'athist party and the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims will confirm that.

3. Saddam was a dangerous dictator and a threat to the security of his own people. 70,000 dead Iraqis and a new totalitarian government later, we know that this was not the purpose of the war.

So none of that fits. Then there are the reasons that we ASSUME we went to Iraq for:

1. Oil. Take the Iraqi oil fields, make some money, pressure the Saudis to lower their prices. The price of oil has skyrocketed, and the Iraqi people haven't seen any money. Meanwhile, the US is gearing up for a recession. I don't think oil was the primary objective.

2. Business. Take Halliburton and the slew of other contractors who have all bathed in piles of cash as a result of the war and you see that Bush owed a lot of people a lot of favors. Why take the former CEO of Halliburton as VP instead of another candidate? This one makes sense, and is at least part of the reason why we are there. Follow the money and it's hard to say otherwise.

3. Iran. A stronghold in Iraq keeps Iran in check. Saddam kept the Iranians in check. Now there is no one to do it. Iran had little to do with it.

Then I saw the above-mentioned stories, and it all became clear.

The goal of the Iraq war isn't money, or security, or aid. It was power.

Here is my prediction: in the coming years, congress will continue to approve Iraq funding. It will become increasingly quiet as the number of American troops begins to dwindle, and it will ultimately end up being tucked away in the presidential budget for the world to ignore.

This money will fund the upkeep and security for the US military bases now being built and established in Iraq. This goes well beyond the Green Zone and the new embassy. We're talking about a PERMANENT American presence in Iraq.

This will be done for two reasons. One is to provide security for the countless contractors operated by the businesses standing to gain the most from US influence over Iraq. The other is the one I want to focus on.

Our leaders wish to shape the middle east into a functioning western society and economy, and one way in which they plan to do it is to keep US troops on the ground at all times, and liasons continuously pressuring the new corrupt Iraqi government.

A war on terror is not a war against one country. It is an endless crusade (like the war on drugs). When we have finished with Iraq, we will move on to the next country most easily percieved as a threat. Up until recently, this would have been Iran. I'm not convinced that it isn't anymore.

Thus, Iraq is just a foothold into the middle east as a whole, and the war on terror is a war on every middle eastern government that is harboring terrorists and is generally bad for the world economy, and especially the US economy.

I believe that our current congress and most of the candidates currently running for president now understand that fact, and have come to see it as a viable solution to the mess in Iraq. No one is fighting to get the troops out anymore because they will never all be out.

Suffice it to say that historically, US involvement in the middle east has led to nothing but trouble down the line. Let's keep in mind that it was the US government who toppled democratically elected governments to install Saddam and the Shah (ultimately the Ayatollah, but mostly by accident) to keep each other in check. This, of course, has not worked out well for us or for them.

So. What do you think? Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Does this vindicate Bush, or justify his means?

You already know what I think. Let me know what you think.