The Boston Globe published this letter on Sunday.
Will US military ever leave Iraq?
July 31, 2005
THAT THE Iraqi people are fussing over the allocation of their natural resouces should not come as a surprise (''The constitution and the Kurds," op ed, July 25). The interim constitution that Ambassador Paul Bremer shoved down their throats made it quite clear that the American occupation was directed toward achieving what the United States had failed to get out of Saddam Hussein, preferential access to Iraq's natural resources (land, water, minerals, and oil).
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a socialist state, and most natural and capital assets belonged to the state. In theory, this should have made it easy for American corporate interests to acquire exclusive long-term leases and buy up Iraq's resources cheaply. In theory, it also should have made it easy for the United States to negotiate the construction of the military bases we wanted to have there in order to assert our dominance over the Indian Ocean basin. But Saddam resisted. That's why he had to be removed.
Easy access to Iraqi oil is nice, but we really don't need it. Much more important to military bases in the desert are water and electricity to keep the troops cool and replicate all the comforts of home.
Senator John Kerry has challenged the administration to declare that the United States has no interest in the permanent bases we are now building. A permanent American military presence in the region has been the Pentagon's goal for several decades. Fat chance they will give up that dream now without a fight.
MONICA SMITH
Durham, N.H.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.