If they want an inefficient socialist oil industry - that is their business not ours.
Again, we aren't rolling tanks up to the president and oil minister and making them sign. The whole issue is possible agreements that are being negotiated.
As to the rest of your post, we have been making a lot of progress in Iraq. Most particularly against Al Qaeda but also against violent Shia extremists. At this point the progress isn't so stable as to not be at risk of being lost if we pulled out. Afghanistan is worse and more important than Iraq at this time largely because of the progress we made in Iraq. To the extent Afghanistan is a problem that needs more resources, it still wouldn't be a good idea to revitalize a similar problem somewhere else.
And yes people argue that Al Qaeda wasn't a problem in Iraq until we invaded. Well even if you don't argue against that point and you ignore other issues besides Al Qaeda, the point is we DID invade, and we can't "uninvade". Al Qaeda was a severe problem in Iraq, and its still a potential problem although that potential is declining. When it declines more, and when the problem with the radical Shia also declines, then we will be in a better position to pull at least most (and some would argue for all, or at least almost all) of our forces out of Iraq. Some of them could go to Afghanistan (trying to put them all in Afghanistan would be a mistake for several reasons).
Also while there are some current problems in Afghanistan, and while we could use a higher force level there, its not like the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Things aren't good but things haven't been good there for a long time. Its not like our position there is falling apart, its just that the enemy is more active now than they had been in the past. That's bad because it causes more death and destruction, but OTOH that includes death on destruction on the other side. The more active they get the more they risk serious harm to themselves. |
