We can start with some hard numbers first. A recent study by ORB, a British polling agency, states that 1.2 million Iraqis—about 4.4 percent of the population—have been violently killed as a result of the occupation. If this were the case in the U.S., it would mean 13.2 million violent deaths. In Baghdad, almost half the people questioned had lost a family member due to violence. It is estimated that 4.4 million people, or 16 percent of the population, have been displaced. Interestingly, the further away from occupied areas, the more peaceful it was. Overall, the living conditions are awful: in general, people have two hours or less of electricity a day, lack adequate drinking water, proper sanitation, medical equipment and supplies, security, employment, and nearly everything else. All of this while the U.S. builds an extravagant, self-sustaining embassy right before their eyes.

The war up to this point has cost about $453 billion, with a final cost prediction in the trillions. Funny thing is we had no issues with coming up with the money, but if it’s a social issue requiring a fraction of this sum, it is too expensive or the money isn’t available. Also, some of the money could have been invested in energy independence research and implementation, among other things, instead of trying to steal Iraq’s oil.

It doesn’t take much research, let alone critical thinking, to figure out oil was the prime motivating factor. Early on, securing oil objectives was the priority, while little attention was paid to munitions stockpiles, general security, or anything else. Then there is the oil law, which privatizes the oil and purportedly allows foreign (read as U.S.) companies to reap up to 75 percent of the revenue. Also, a company is not required to reinvest the money in Iraq, hire or train Iraqi workers, partner with an Iraqi company, or share technology—something that is just considered good business these days. Luckily, though, the Iraqi government has been unwilling to accept it.

On a similar note, contractors seem to only be benefitting themselves. Halliburton charges $100 to do a load of laundry and runs empty trucks back and forth through Iraq since the more money spent means more money earned. Instead of providing new equipment, contractors painted old equipment and said it was new. One contractor sent the military broken vehicles because the contract did not explicitly state the vehicles had to be new. Another one did such a terrible job constructing a building that sewage was leaking onto lower floors. These are a few examples; the entire list is overwhelming and disturbing but the government just looks the other way.

Al-Qaida and Iran in Iraq are non-issues as they have very little to do with anything there. Al-Qaida showed up after the U.S. and it will be kicked out when the U.S. is expelled. In the big picture, they are hardly a force to be reckoned with and barely tolerated by the Iraqis as an ally against the occupiers. There is no concrete proof that Iran is doing anything significant in Iraq. All evidence is highly circumstantial, non-existent, and/or twisted around by those, primarily neo-conservatives, hellbent on building support for an invasion of Iran. It is eerily similar to the lead-up of the Iraq war.

As of February 2006, a poll showed that 80 percent of Iraqis wanted the U.S. out immediately, but their opinion obviously doesn’t matter. The attacks against the U.S. presense are hardly terrorist or Iranian attacks, they are simply the Iraqi people trying to defend themselves and expel an occupying force. Think about it—a country occupies our country for four years; 13.2 million killed under its watch with a humanitarian crisis at hand, and one of your family members is killed. Are you going to continually wait it out, defend yourself and country from the occupiers, or flee?

Nathan Russell