But the broader goal of US strategic control over the world supply of oil seems to be achieved at this point.
...
Doug responded:
We've been here before, but just what does that get the U.S.? Are the Bushies operating on some antique model of empire, in which control over land and resources confers some economic advantage? Just what would that advantage be? They're not going to cut off Japan or France, are they? If they wanted to, they could just blockade them anyway.
======================================================
Perhaps it's time to admit that no one really knows why this invasion occured.
It may even be the case that the administration, despite its bluster and telegenic confidence (weakening of late) is working at cross purposes within itself regarding the objectives of this aggression.
I have read, in various forms and from a variety of authors, the following arguments:
1.) Direct control of oil
2.) Control of oil flows
3.) Heading off the conversion of petro-dollars to petro-euros.
4.) Ability to deny friends and foes alike access to oil should the need arise.
5.) Eliminating what's perceived as the remaining coherent, ideological threat to marketism (or whatver descriptive you want to use).
6.) The *vision* of re-shaping the Middle East so its peaceful, friendly to the West and so on.
7.) And, oh yes, the Alexander Cockburn-esque one, because Israel said so.
There are surely others I've forgotten or have yet to see.
It might be a useful exercise to present our favorite (so to speak) theories and do a compare and contrast against what we actually know. The truth may be a jumble of the considered opinion of various observers.
DRM