> For sure, but just what has been gotten by "opening up" Iraq? Iraq has a lot
> of oil and wants to sell it, and has always wanted to sell it. If the U.S.
> had left Saddam in power and lifted the sanctions, Iraq would have sold its
> oil and developed its now-damaged fields with foreign assistance, including
> U.S. oil companies. After the latest auctions, China has a piece of the oil
> action in Iraq, U.S. firms have a relatively small piece of the action - and
> all the foreign oil companies are on service contracts, not
> production-sharing arrangements. For that we're spending $3-5 trillion? And
> doubling down on Afghanistan now too?
>
> I'm perfectly willing to believe that there's nothing rational about this,
> and U.S. policy has been driven by some atavistic lust for real estate. But
> trying to make rational sense out of these adventures may be going too far.
>
> Doug
=============
RE Iraq, the elephant in the room is Saudi Arabia -- remember one of OBL's demands -- and US elite angst with respect to the intergenerational transfer of power/wealth with all potential for destabilization, intrigue etc.
But yeah ex post rationalizations of what was/is clearly a stupid policy is not a minefield worth navigating. Kakistocracies are almost completely impervious/inscrutable to the quest for narrative coherence written by outsiders.
Ian