Keith Devens .com

This isn't the official stance of the Bush governement. Afaik, the only reason (left) why they went to war with Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was a bad dictator.

Interesting analysis, but I think the comments at the linked article hint at some weak arguments in it:

1.) The water supply isn't such a crucial factor as the author might want to believe. And the waters of Iraq can't be used to cut the supply of other countries. If that would have been the case, why didn't it happen in the first Gulf War? The author argues that this was due to missing infrastructure like dams, reservoirs etc., but all Saddam had to do is to poison the rivers reaching into Iran. However, a quick look at a map of the ME answers why this point is bogus: The Zagros mountain range is a water shed, and it starts not far away from the Irag-Iran border. Further, no water flow goes from Iraq into the gulf states. What actually turns this point into a counter-argument is the fact that both Euphrates and Tigris springs are located in Turkey, Euphrates flows through Syria and Tigris through Kurdistan. So it looks much more as if the neighbouring countries of Iraq do control it's water ressources, not vice versa.

2.) It hasn't become clear to me why Iraq would make a good military base. It's a huge country, and occupying forces would be spread thin and exposed to risks of attacks by (call them insurgents/terrorists/fanatics/whatever). Is that really a good position for eventually controlling Saudi Arabias oil resources? I would say no, there are better locations. Look at Kuwait and Katar for example. US troops are already stationed in this country. And they are much closer to saudi oil fields, plus there are aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. These facts do support the construction of military bases in Katar rather than in Iraq, from my point of view. To compare that with similar situation, have a look at Gibraltar. The british empire only needed to secure the passageway for ships and didn't give a damn about Spain or Morocco.

3.) The author does not regard the issue of democratization of Iraq as a necessity. But that is what's happening now. Aren't elections scheduled for January? What if a referendum some years later passes that urges US troops to leave the country? Is the expected answer from the US ("No sorry, we'll stay, no matter what you want.") not a blatant disregard of how democracy works? Such a situation would put the US in an uncomfortable political position for explaining its motives, and could antagonize eventual allies in the region. Though the author does not seem to really care about this possibility, and the potential risks it includes.

4.) What really astonished me how easy this article could be used as a blueprint for arguing against an imperialistic US foreign policy. After the water resource argument doesn't work, what's left is the oil resources. Neither does the military base argument really convince me. And since the goal of democracy is downplayed, what's left is... oil. That borders much to closely for my liking to the utterly simplistic formula by the left "it's about the oil". In this regard, the author should have spent put some more effort to present some counter points for such an interpretation of his article.

What is your opinion Keith? Would you agree with the authors opinion about the importance of a democratic Iraq, and if so, doesn't that negate the theory of creating a role model country in the ME that would have positive effect on its neighbours?

I wasn't convinced by his argument about water resources. Even if we could control the surrounding region's water supply by controlling Iraq, what would we do about it? Stop the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates? Even if we could, it wouldn't be useful because it would hurt the people rather than the power structure.

I also disagree about the importance of establishing democracy in Iraq. I think that is our most important objective for the long-term, and will be the most significant force for peace in the region, not military bases. Though I do think having a military presence smack in the middle of Syria and Iran is extremely important, as well as is having the rogue regime gone. His point about being able to secure Saudi Arabia's oil resources in a pinch, should it come to that, was interesting, though I doubt it will ever come to that, and I'm not convinced it would be possible anyway.

I thought the article was good in that it reminds us that in addition to the defensive and humanitarian reasons for war, there is also an extremely important strategic case. When Kerry was saying that he wanted our troops out of Iraq within a year, or within four years (depending on when in the campaign it was) I was like "Why do you think we're there in the first place!?" I'm very glad Kerry didn't become president, because he clearly doesn't get it.