Officer refuses to go to Iraq

If debatable, I would disagree that the motivation for what is being done in Iraq has anything at all to do with benefitting the Iraqi people. Benefits might well be side effects but they never informed the motivation - except in so far as they assisted and enabled expression of the motivation.The core motivation? Security of your nations (and by extension mine) desire for a secure oil supply. Secure oil supplies mean world economic stability.Someone has to have a grip on the balance of power in the region. It might as well be the U.S.

Those prices would pale into insignificance compared to what would happen were there some implosion in a volatile middle east. The lesser of two economic evils I imagine the thinking to beAs for you take on the art of Geopolitics. Whilst Bushes way might involve lying and deceit it did allow the job to get done. Such honesty as you require of him does not for effective politics make.Like, if your going to get a media-influenced world opinion to swallow a bitter pill its better to file off the square edges first.

My own understanding of the strategic importance of oil to the worlds economy leads me to thinking that lying and deceit are only the tip of the iceberg of what has and is going on.Neither do I suppose that the President of the United States is the man making all the decisions here. He has a veritable nest of vipers to contend with both inside and outside his team.Its Mr President... not Fuhrher.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Is this not a bit too simplistic? Taking limited action to eliminate a risk of destabilising oil supplies (Saddam) is something which is politically possible. Others may huff and puff about it and be a little pissed at the US getting the jump in terms of regional influence..Taking over the worlds oil supply is a different matter altogether. Politically and militarily it would be suicide.