Who, the U.S.? Nah, they're not interested in Iraqi Oil.

A 2007 Global Policy Forum poll shows that a majority of Iraqi citizens believe that the U.S. is keeping them in the dark about its plans to control their oil resources.

That doesn't sound like the U.S. - American troops are in the country just to promote democracy and leave Iraqis with a stable and free government, right?

If this is true, and the U.S. has no interest in profiting from Iraqi oil, then why did President George W. Bush issue a signing statement last week rejecting a provision in the military funding authorization bill that prohibited any finds to be used "to exercise United Sates control of the oil resources of Iraq?" Such a move sounds like paving the way to control Iraqi oil to me.

What's more puzzling is why the President has decided to take this action now. He has signed the restriction against controlling Iraqi oil into law five times since 2006, but has issued 2 signing statements this year asserting that Congress cannot rein in his power to use the U.S. military to control these resources.

What's going on here? It seems obvious that the Bush administration has designs on Iraqi oil resources, but how is that to be reconciled with U.S. goals of stability, sovereignty, and freedom in Iraq? If the U.S. involves itself with Iraqi natural resources now, when will the country move closer to ending its military presence in Iraq?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook