no matter what world opinion says or is and without any regard for the *apparent* harm & damage to US long term.

If I am wrong will happily eat 'umble pie & say so.

I am convinced that Bush & advisors have information (think tank analysis on what-ifs to do with Islamic resurgence & control of Mecca in Saudi) that may indicate a coming change in the balance of power within ME countries that US needs to ensure a secure supply of oil. This could be something like an Iranian & anti-US style overthrow of the aging Sauds in Saudi. As with most similar revolutions, they take about 50 or so years to go full cycle (Russian Rev took 90 to burn out).

Bush's rational would be that Iraq is vulnerable in several ways, one because it is run by a dictator that US can demonise better than any other & that contol of Iraq oil would be almost as good as Saudi oil. 2 is that if there is a shift in power in ME then Saddam could be toppled by hostile forces (hostile to US).

It is possible that the Afghanistan takeover was a learning experience in much the same was that the US invasion of Grenada was later recognised as a practice invasion of Panama so America could regain influence over the Panama Canal (canal was due to be ceeded back to Panama in 2000 - US replaced Norriega with a pro US regime). In Afghanistan the same has happened - US has a pro US regime in place & my guess is the warlords have all been given the ok to run their fiefdoms as they wish providing they support the regime.

It is a sad reality that drug production curtailed under the Taliban has now reversed & opium, sanctioned smuggling & gun-running will again become the mainstay of the warlords. Remember that US in SE Asia had no compunction about funding covert CIA ops with drug money (Air America - Hollywood even made a comedy movie about it (as despicable a policy as it was)). Drug money directed through Thailand was also used to support Khymer Rouge against Hen Sen at the very time hollywood was making 'Killing Fields" (what an irony).

So my educated guess is that Bush & advisors are acting in America's longer term interests (what ever that means) to protect US oil fueled life style & by gaining control of Iraq will buffer against an imminent loss of Saudi Arabia as a regional base for ops. Afghanistan has shown that a country can be siezed and the regime changed into one that can be controlled. US can play the warlords off against each other to keep Afghanistan from ever unifying like had started to happen under the Taliban & under an anti US leadership.

One thing that has become very clear since 9/11 is that Osama Bin Laden was no mickey mouse terrorist - this was/is a man with a highly popular pan-islamic vision & who was putting in place the mechanisms to build his Andalusian style paradise in the 'stans & SE Asia. That region would have provided him and his minions with the oil wealth needed to fund his dream. He had effective control of Afghanistan, was almost in control of Pakistan (& its nukes - some say that is where OBL is now), was fermenting revolution in Kurdistan & Tajikistan & Uzbekistan. Taking islamic control of Indonesia's 250 million population would have been a 'cake-walk' and was already starting to happen & Malaysia would have fallen to them despite Mahatir's ability to keep Islamic militancy under control. OBL was one of the few men who could have rolled the Saudi royal family & taken control of Saudi Arabia as a popular leader - few people have any liking for the aging & despotic royals who are clearly in decline.

As a long shot - If OBL was ever *able* to sieze control of Saudi Arabia, he would then have been in a position to take on his old enemy Saddam Hussien & take Iraq into his pan-islamic empire & that means Kuwait & if that had all succeeded Iran being a muslim country would have come under pressure as would Egypt, Jordan & Algeria among others. Almost back to the old domino theory that applied to SE Asia in the 1950s & begat Vietnam, only instead of communism the threat is a groundswell of islamic resurgence led by a charismatic 'holy man' (as awful as it is to US westerners, that is how many Islamic people see OBL). In the west - the 9/11 deed has allowed us to paint OBL as the devil incarnate & Bush has been able to say to the world - that evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of 9/11 being an OBL inspired deed and hey world you is either agin terrorism or for it & we (US) won't accept fence sitting.

Methinks there is a lot more behind the scenes in regard to the events before & after 9/11 and as have already said. I am willing to bet that Bush will find a way to take control of Iraq & will use what ever means he & team can.

OBL, his vision & his actions were proably the real target & 9/11 was a pre-emptive strike by OBL that may have backfired (it certainly didn't get followed by massive antagonism between Christianity & Islam that had been predicted & appeard to be being fermented as in Ambon, Indonesia & now Pakistan).

We live in interesting times & right at this instant Pakistan may be the lynch-pin.

Doug Marker