Be careful when you hear Democratic candidates talk about bringing home our troops immediately. And be careful about Republicans who say we’ll be in Iraq for decades.

First, remember they’re campaigning for their party’s nomination. Once the two nominees begin running for the White House, the platforms on Iraq will change. And who knows what will happen in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that will change the American sentiment and the politicians’ stands.

Second, despite the Bush Administration’s claims – that are either false or idealistic – we’re not in the Middle East to spread democracy. If we were, we wouldn’t tolerate the monarchies and dictators in the majority of countries we call allies.

We’re there for the oil. We’re there to protect the production, delivery, and refinement of oil that runs our economy. Whoever denies this doesn’t understand the economy or they’re taking money from the oil industry.

Third, we didn’t go into Iraq to oust Saddam for weapons of mass destruction. We didn’t necessarily take him out because he was a dictator. To be honest, he was a great check on Iran’s power. In reality, toppling Saddam created even more reasons for us to stay in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

But there is a reason for War in Iraq that has slapped me on the forehead for two years. But you’ll never hear it in the mainstream media – or the majority of the new media.

In fact, I’ve only heard this theory from one source. It comes from a report by George Friedman of Stratfor, a subscription-based intelligence and reporting service. I try to read them on a consistent basis. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their comprehensive reports.

Furthermore, there is no way to confirm the veracity of this reason for war. We won’t know for years, maybe decades, if it’s true. All I know is that despite my research efforts – reading and interviewing folks in the know – nothing has yet to diminish the legitimacy of this causis belli.

I should further note that this reason does little to find any moral justification for the Bush Administration. It might explain their incompetence in the aftermath of Iraqi invasion. But it will certainly raise ethical issues about causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis for our American national security reasons.

OK, so here’s what could be the underlying reason of why we really went into Iraq in 2003 and we’re still there.

It was for faster gathering of intelligence on Islamic terrorism.

A war in Iraq would be a magnet for all jihadists. That way we would have a laboratory, a confined pile of sorts, to study and gather information on these terrorists.

We clearly lacked intelligence on these groups and their leaders in the months and years leading up to September 11, 2001. The intelligence services of our supposed Middle Eastern allies were either blind sided too or failed to share with us. Either way, the leaders of these countries are frightened targets, too. By creating a war and ultimately a jihadi Petri dish, all the allied services could have files and files of intelligence all in one place. Plus, it wouldn’t look like we were working directly on covert operations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

It made sense. Sickos like Abu Musab al Zarkawi swarmed to Iraq. All of a sudden, there was an organization called al Qaeda in Iraq. The more he and his virus-like group expanded, the better chance of eliminating him, which happened thanks to a guided bomb and good intelligence.

Plus, look at the apparent success of the surge. Military operations could pinpoint the jihadists in a smaller area. In addition, it’s no surprise that our efforts to engage various tribes who would betray the foreign terrorists coincided with the plans to enact the surge.

The other hint was the continuous line delivered by President Bush in 2004 and 2005: it’s better to fight them over there rather than over here.

Reprinted from January 13, 2008