POLJUNK

Last week Salon linked to Professor Bainbridge who asked, “So, what was the point?” http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2007/07/and-the-point-w.html#comments I couldn’t resist jumping into the fray. The following is the commentary that I posted. It is worth reading through the other comments on Bainbridge’s site on this topic to get a feel for just how radically varied some ideas are as to what the point might have been.

So, what was the point?
Sometimes I have to wonder if Iraq isn't turning out exactly as planned. When in doubt, follow the money.
The Republicans have been telling us for years that we need to privatize virtually every last facet of government because private industry can accomplish things faster and cheaper and that would be a plus for the taxpayer. Be that as it may, it also shifts the focus of the now-privatized services from providing a public service to making a profit. In some instances, profit motive and public service can be polar opposites. If airport security is provided by a private firm, then profits come first. This means that labor costs need to be kept at a minimum. This is done by paying security personnel as little as possible, with the byproduct of ensuring that talented candidates accept jobs elsewhere. Costs are also kept down by providing an absolute minimum of training and providing the cheapest equipment. Security personnel must also take care not to be excessively disruptive of airport operations because passenger inconvenience is bad for business. (If we had real airport security on 9/11, perhaps we would be talking about a crazy plot that was foiled back in 2001 versus the bitter memories that we have today, but I suppose that could be a whole separate discussion...)
Now apply the same principles to the Iraq war. Contractors are involved in such tasks as operating mess halls, laundry facilities, security, and logistics. These are things that used to be handled by military personnel. Supposedly, contractors are more efficient and less costly. However, it is in the contractors' best interests that the war not end because that would be the end of their gravy train. Remember, their primary purpose, as with any private industry, is to make money. When I consider the cozy ties between Bush and Cheney and contractors like Halliburton, I have to ask whether they indeed did plan for an insurgency; if they could maintain a sort of low boil going in Iraq while literally banking on Americans' patriotic sentiments, the money would flow virtually non-stop from taxpayers into contractors' coffers.
I have recently read the suggestion that, at this point, the military is really acting as a sort of cheap security force for the contractors (who are, ostensibly, supporting the military).
I hate to say it, but at least this scenario makes sense in a very cynical, twisted way. The point is money. Halliburton's profits are up something like 800% since 2001. This war has been very kind to a select few. Also, bear in mind that Bush has said repeatedly that Iraq will be up to the next (poor bastard) president to resolve.
Any other scenario can only lead me to believe that this administration is unquestionably and criminally incompetent and stupid.
Any ideas as to what Cheney's Energy Task Force was talking about behind closed doors in the days before 9/11?