Fact of the matter is in post-Saddam Iraq oil production has not been able to achieve anything greater than the pre-2003 invasion...

This is the true failure of the neo-conservative strategists. It wouldn't matter to policy makers if all this "sectarian strife", IED, suicide bombing bloodbath was going on as long as oil production at least increased (in fact, I always assumed that talk of a "calm Iraq" was bullshit--these guys knew that, they put it up as another one in a series of window dressings to moo the cattle along--the "American people".) Actually to revise that, it doesn't seem to matter that this bloodbath is going on and oil production is down and doesn't seem to be rising. La de da, policing fundamentalists who've been living under a fascist for decades, who we "supported" for a long amount of time--the neocons own point! Funny thing, is then the same criticism arises, for a different era--this time instead of from the right, from the far left, a 1980s version of the same condemnation, except the neocons only focus the 90s.

Anyway, after we get into in Iraq, we disband the Sunni army... I mean: come on, from the looks of it they specifically sent Bremer over there to fuck shit up worse... That had to be their thinking, imho. If we can't have the honey pot, we'll make damn sure no one else will die trying. This only goes to strengthen my initial argument. Want another irony? I got it straight out of this month's foreign affairs. Wolfy testifies to congress in '03 that General Shinseki is wrong, we don't need more troops. At the time, the military was not particularly happy with the war (attempting to follow the Powell doctrine to avoid another Vietnam). And, come to think of this, they still are pretty upset. The absurd irony is now the military wants troop reductions from the Iraq War--as, get this--the White House goes for a "surge". These civilians (our fearless leaders) are just playing a game, I'm convinced, even if a deadly serious one.

Of course, we all know that oil is the primary driver (not sole reason, but primary driver) of the war in Iraq. Put hardcore conservatives in charge of our type of economy and culture, and you get this type of behavior. However, now that I think about it the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did this same type of thing, with even hazier strategic thinking (I know, I know, hard to imagine! The democrats are lousy two-faced wussies--who would of thought they were capable of starting their own disastrous wars?) The Nixonites took it over, and we know that story. Elements from the Nixon/Ford administrations created this foreign policy. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons ideological children, Wolfy, Perle ad naseum.

Point of the matter is these guys know the 70s, know how finance works--they're all ex-corporate academic types, dominant backgrounds in transnational integrated oil companies, or oil services companies (big H/KBR in the "house".) They know energy, and Iraq was/is all about energy--and the fact of matter is that oil production there has not risen in the last 4-1/2 years.

And this is because the country is a wreck! People that talk about increasing Iraqi oil production are in denial how badly this war is going. They simply don't know the history of the country, the situation on the ground, etc. I am continually astounded that 40% of the military still thinks this war is going fine and Dubya is actually doing a good job... These soldiers are goddamn Spartans, that's for sure. That's intense... My hat is off to them since they're simply taking orders from incompetent civilian strategists.

To summarize:

I'd love to hear a Pollyanna scenario for Iraqi oil production, but I'm afraid anyone indulging it would quickly enter fantasy which would simply result in me ridiculing them. But I am open to thoughts. A brutal adaptation of Goldilocks is the more likely story here, but we humans can't control where our fairy tales go very well, now can we?