Just over a week ago George Bu$h stuck another finger in the eyes of the 75% of Americans who want to see an end to the occupation of Iraq.

WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agreed Monday to hold formal talks next year to decide the future of US forces in Iraq and other thorny issues, the White House said. Washington hopes to complete those negotiations -- meant to institutionalize a long-term political, economic and military partnership between the United States and Iraq -- by July, the US "war czar" told reporters.

"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said at a White House briefing.

A puzzled man might ask why it is necessary to plan to continue the occupation past 2008 if the Iraqis are in fact more and more able to stand on their own two feet. And why shouldn’t it stand alone if it is in fact a sovereign nation? We did have all those purple fingers, after all.

Lute said issues like how many US soldiers would stay in Iraq and for how long, and whether there will be permanent US bases, would be decided in next year's negotiations.

"The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, US presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States," the general said.

Monday's announcement means that the Bush administration and Iraq will work out the future of US forces in Iraq in the shadow of the November 2008 US presidential election and despite sky-high US public opposition to the war.

Any resulting agreement could limit the ability of Bush's successor to break with the current US strategy, as Democratic candidates have promised to do amid increasingly vocal calls for a US withdrawal.

Faced with a cratering public opinion of the republican Party it becomes more and more important for Mr Bu$h and his criminal cronies to tie the hands of a Democratic successor in as many ways as possible. The dearth of humanoid candidates for President among the republican Party makes it more likely the next occupant of our White House will be a war fan like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, both of whom are on record supporting and opposing the Iraqi occupation, depending on the day of the week and the wind direction.

The entire Beltway zoo parade seems to think it’s vital to keep Americans occupying Middle Eastern countries from now until Tish'ah B’Av. Apparently the recent NIE finding that Iran really isn’t seeking nuclear weapons, or if it is there will be a five to ten year lead time until that happens, is merely a threshold to be stepped over.

That 75% by the way, includes 58% of US military families who have had George Bu$h’s ego-war right up to their last nerve.

WASHINGTON -- Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.
…
[A]mong those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."

Obviously Ms Datta doesn’t understand the importance of keeping enduring forces in Iraq for the next four or five decades, or until the oil is finally exhausted.

A recent announcement indicates that Big Oil is about to complete the first phase of their Oil Grab of Iraq’s wealth. Ben Lando “Mr Oil” of the UPI, has the details:

Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector.

Iraq's proven oil reserves are only smaller than those in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and the country is only about 30 percent explored.

Iraq produces about 2.4 million barrels per day, a recent increase from the 2 million bpd post-invasion average, but far below what its reserves could handle. Its oil sector is suffering from decades of Saddam Hussein-era mismanagement, U.N. sanctions and the effects of the current war.

A couple of notes in front: the “Saddam Hussein-era mismanagement” is a code phrase for “ a lot skimmed off the top.” The normally squint-eyed oil professionals understand there will still be a rake-off, but now it will be going to a new pack of wolves in Iraq. The new contracts will be placed despite the lack of a national oil law regularizing the rape of Iraq’s future wealth. They will be placed only for technical assistance and production advice for presently-producing oil fields, and only with the large companies (Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips, and probably ExxonMobil.)

The decision of how to develop a resource that provides for nearly the entire federal budget is political and controversial. To each side's alarm, the national government will rely on a Saddam-era law and Iraq's Kurdish region is signing deals on its own.

A September NY Times article noted the Department of State viewed a contract between the Kurdish Regional Government and the Hunt Oil Company of Texas as being “at cross purposes with the stated United States foreign policy of strengthening the country’s central government.” Apparently now that the Central Government has decided to pay ball too, the Hunt agreement is more acceptable.

Knowledgeable observers note that Mr Ray Hunt, President and CEO of Hunt Oil, is described as “a close political ally of President Bush and serves on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,” in case anyone was concerned about apparent improprieties of undercutting the Central government.

MarketWatch reports executives from BP and Shell were to meet with Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani following Wednesday's meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Abu Dhabi. The global energy information firm Platts reports top ministry and company officials are to meet in Amman this week.

Shahristani himself dropped hints to United Press International in a recent interview. He said he's moving forward with oil deals despite the lack of a new national oil law, a draft of which has been stalled in negotiations for more than a year.

"This has nothing to do with the national oil law. There is no timeline. Whenever we finish our discussions we'll just sign the contracts," he told UPI on the sidelines of the OPEC heads of state summit last month.

"This is basically technical-support contracts," he said, adding the contracts will not be the result of a bidding process. "Selected companies will offer us technical support that we need to develop our producing fields."

So, who gets what?

Shell – Kirkuk
BP - Rumaila
Shell and BHP Billiton – Missan
ExxonMobil – Southern Zubair field
Conoco-Phillips – West Qurna
Dome and Anadarko Petroleun – Sabha and Luhais
Chevron + Total – Majnoon

These fields are all described as “super giants” with at least 5 billion barrels in established reserves. There are other fields not included in the current negotiations that might reach the 5 billion barrel figure.

Mr Lando notes rather blandly that,

Oil company officials met with U.S. officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, prior to the war and since, to discuss contracts for Iraq's oil. Former top officials of the companies were tasked by the U.S.-led occupation with advising the Oil Ministry.

Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst for Global Insight, adds, "This means that it is pay-off time for the majors that have been running training courses for Oil Ministry personnel, reservoir surveys, drawn up work-plans and given general advice during the past years[.] It is clever."