[Paleopsych] Iraq

[jrende]

I wonder if there is another dynamic at play which makes the idea of troop
withdrawal a moot point. When I spoke with a Former US Ambassador to Saudi
Arabia this past May, he indicated that we will know within the next 3 years
whether Saudi Arabia will become a failed state. The 7000 current Saudi
Princes have already done a nice job draining the state treasury with their
lavish life style. By the end of the decade, there will be nearly 30,000
such princes on the pay roll. 

According to the Energy Economist at the Fed in Dallas, if the Saudi Regime
falls, the price of a barrel of oil shoots to over $100 and sends the US
into a devastating recession...unless the US secures access to another
comparably large reserve of oil...like Iraq. Forget the rationale of weapons
of mass destruction. We are in Iraq to secure the second largest oil reserve
in the world for our economic stability. We just did not figure on the pesky
insurgency. 

With the halfway point of total estimated recoverable oil approaching
between 2007 and 2013, and with China and India increasing their demand for
oil, our appetite for the stuff will become painfully constrained as prices
steadily rise. 

Our special forces are operating in over 100 countries...in addition to
executing the war on terrorism, they are either guarding oil pipelines or
training other forces to do so.    

I fear that as long as we are addicted to oil and don't make dramatic
progress in creating alternative energy sources to power our nation, we will
be in Iraq until the twilight of the fossil fuel age.

-----Original Message-----
From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org
[mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Steve Hovland
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:41 PM
To: 'The new improved paleopsych list'
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Iraq

I forget the exact time and place, but there
was an time during the British rule in
India when they decided to withdraw from
some area.  The Indians killed them all
as they tried to escape.  

We need to avoid getting into that kind of 
situation in Iraq.  And we need to remember 
the chaotic last days of our presence in Nam.

Right now we have thousands of troops tied
up in Samarra, who will be there until the
Iraqi's can replace them.  Until then, our
troops are embedded in a sea of hostiles.
The same would hold true if we "retake" other 
cities.

What price will the world pay to keep this 
unnatural state together?  If in the end we
can't prevent a civil war, or least a partition,
why not let it happen sooner rather than later?


-----Original Message-----
From:	Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent:	Monday, October 04, 2004 11:48 AM
To:	paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject:	[Paleopsych] Iraq


>>I think that what Kerry cannot say, even though 
it's true, is that we have lost, just as we did in
Vietnam.<<

--It won't really help to say "we lost, sorry" and
leave Iraq to deal with its own problems. In a vacuum,
a fundamentalist, anti-American regime is almost sure
to rule, with civil war and terrorism making life hell
for Iraqis. There isn't much choice but to bring the
world to agreement on a plan and implement it, with
the US pulling out troops as an alternate force is
brought in to stabilize the cities. The US should
focus on precision strikes against terrorists, since
its credibility is near zero when it comes to policing
Arab neighborhoods. 

Whatever the best possible outcome, the US can't just
pull out and let Iraqis deal with it, because they
don't have the ability to prevent civil war on their
own. 

Michael




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych