From a recent editorial in the very influential bourgeois newspaper, "The Washington Post":
"Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is 'the central front' for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable."
Translation: "The 'global war on terror is just a front. It's all about oil."
oil yes but why?
Seems to me that the last thing that you would expect from the big oil backers of Bush is that they would selflessly promote a policy that would, if successful, bring down the price of their own special commodity.
But to push an intervention that would cause enough death, confusion and destruction to limit supply and push up the price?
Could they really be that evil?
Whats the betting for war with Iran? (Actually I do not think it very high as they left their move to late but interesting tosee where the pressure was coming from.)