Stunned stupid, is more like it.

Screw the Americans and the benchmarks you rode in on.

I grieve for the soldiers and sailors who serve this Nation, and have been lead to thier Stalingrad. Will we ever learn from history?

I go with Taters “mind boggling”.

1991 Gulf War I 1 in 60 contractors; 2003 1 in 3 contractors. I understand it is close to a 1 to 1 or better currently.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

NY Times

Shit, all we’re missing is a new strongman and a trillion bucks.

How do/can we know? All this is done behind the gauze of Cheney’s unitary executive screen.

Similarly, the political goals which the Surge was supposed to enable might as well be on the Moon. The decrease in casualties is like the star shells sent up by Sixth Army in the distance. No matter how hard our soldiers fight they ain’t going to the Moon, and they know it.

Does include the Hunt Oil contract? It is still not clear that the Kurds will play ball with the Iraq central government. Might Turkey have say?

“Delivery of services remains more forte of the militia than the government.”

We have seen Hezbollah use this same strategy with good results in Lebanon. There appears to be little motivation to “bite the hand that feeds you” in the middle of a civil war.

“, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.” ( NYT from link above)

Money works wonders but does not produce loyalty. What happens when the green backs leave?

Production Sharing Agreements. Under such agreements, the oil is still ostensibly owned by the country of Iraq, but a share of the profits from the oil go to the international corporations that invest in the infrastructure necessary to build and operate the wells and refineries. According to British oil industry watchdog group Platform, the return for foreign investors under the proposed terms would be between 42 and 162 percent, far higher than the usual industry minimum of 12 percent.

This is unusual for a number of reasons. First, no other major Middle Eastern oil-producing country has ever entered into such an agreement, instead opting for a completely state-owned oil industry. Second, PSAs are usually used in countries where oil reserves might be small or difficult to access. Governments sign into these deals offering high-profit rates to investors because the return is uncertain. Iraq’s oil reserves, however, are proven plentiful and easy to access. These agreements are notoriously hard to renegotiate, and this could lock the country into an agreement for up to the next 30 years.

Why would Iraq accept such onerous terms? Remaining debt from Hussein’s regime and a crippled, war-torn economy mean that Iraq must start collecting revenue as soon as possible, and the government rightly sees oil revenue, even after the profit gouging from foreign investors, as necessary for the country’s survival.