"No blood for oil!" No, no blood for oil. Too much blood, and expensive oil.

American casualites continue along there fairly steady downward trajectory, however.

Which is encouraging.

Ben, the numbers for April don't look very encouraging.

If it only were truly 'blood for oil', it would make sense for us to be there. Matter of fact, it's the only reason we should be there. It's about time we get something for our blood and money other than appearing noble and maintaining a presence in the region.

"Ben, the numbers for April don't look very encouraging." -obi juan

Only a slight spike.

"If it only were truly 'blood for oil', it would make sense for us to be there. Matter of fact, it's the only reason we should be there. It's about time we get something for our blood and money other than appearing noble and maintaining a presence in the region." -asdf

How about total strategic dominance of the Middle East?

Ben, please educate me. What does 'total strategic dominance of the Middle East' mean? And what does that entail? What responsibilities will we be taking on by gaining total strategic dominance?

Sounds like the reasons for this military ecursion have morphed yet again.

Total strategic dominance would entail that in the terms of realist theory of international relations, the United States holds control of the Balance of Power in that region.

Look at a map of the Middle East. Iraq is clearly the most strategically important location in the Middle East. It borders on six other countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, two major players in the region. Iraq has great oil wealth and a history of assertive regional military dominance.

The United States having a centrally located military position of strength in the Middle East has been central to Middle East strategy for many years. For a long time, that strength was located in Saudi Arabia. But, stemming from the strains on the Saudi-U.S. alliance that came about from 9/11, Saudi Arabia requested that the US military leave its soil.

With only a few coastal sheikhdoms, fearful of the ire of bigger, more major regional players, in which to keep troops located, the US would have no political power in the region. This would be disastrous both inside the context of the War on Terror, because the US having no reasonable influence over other countries in the region is bad for obvious reasons, when we are fighting a war central to that region. It would also be disastrous outside the context of the War on Terror, because without US strategic dominance of the Middle East, the path would be open for Russia
and China to move in. I don't think I need to make the case for why Russia and China having strategic dominance of the most important region on Earth would run counter to US national interest.

As for examples of US dominance thus far?

-Syria, famous even in that bloody region for it's mailed fist policies being forced to leave Lebanon alone on an American say so

-Saudi Arabia's opening of a war against Al Qaeda and it's supporters inside the Kingdom as a response to the invasion of Iraq

-Libya being forced to give up its WMD program

-Iran being forced to speed up its WMD program to the point where it plays directly into American hands.

Wow, we have our hands on a little Napolean here, don't we?

Ok. Understood. Good reasons all and maybe good enough. The problem I have is that occupations have a tendency to backfire. Sooner or later. And unlike us having bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq is a far more hostile place with essentially no government or social order. So, even though geographically it's great real estate, we couldn't have fallen into a worse place to settle.

Let me put it this way: if we're going to maintain a military and policy presence in Iraq, let's say so and be clear on what our mission of the month is. Ultimately, as part of any costs we incur with blood and money, if we’re going to be there and are going to maintain dominance over the region we should be deliberate and accept the fact that we will be hated no matter what we do. And that includes securing the benefits of as many barrels of oil at $50 per that we need.