Yeah, I'm kidding, but the White House isn't.  I posted an article today about "Bushes Economic Invasion of Iraq" in which the LA Times spells out the larger US goals for Iraq (privatization of previously government-owned industries), as well as a historical perspective on this sort of thing going back to World War I in my second addendum post today about "liberals vs. conservatives" which shows that even back then, the truth about WWI was not that we were saving Europe from a tyrant in Germany, but that England and France didn't want to share trading profits (read "markets") with Germany.  Queen Noor of Jordan once spoke in London in the mid-1990's about whether globalism will be culturally friendly or imposing - I think it's clear that in terms of the middle east, we know no other way than to shove our Big Macs down their throats whether they like it or not.  We'll start by imposing our values upon them and in the end, they will be fat and happy like the rest of us.  And why should they resent us for giving them what's good for them?  Right?  Yeah, wrong I know, but the business of this country is business, in ever-expanding markets.  Run out of markets and you're left with having to create markets.  War might be the end result of our economic system.  And then what?  Chasing ghosts?  At least with the cold war we knew who the enemy was.  Now what?  An invisible, intangible enemy in a war to last multiple generations.  Now that's some real thinking on someone's part!  Of course, they were belching on the hamburger they ate at lunch while coming up with this brilliant plan, but you get the point I hope.