When it comes to the real reason for the Iraq war, we’ve pretty much heard it all: First it was WMD, then it was about the war on terror and removing Saddam Hussein, then it was about spreading democracy. But it was never about the oil.

Now, as Bill Moyers reported on PBS: “…one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be … the bottom line. It is about oil.”

More than 5 years after the start of the war, the U.S. has lost more than 4,100 troops, tens of thousands more are wounded for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, millions more are displaced, and the U-S taxpayer is stuck with a bill that could top trillions of dollars. And, what about the oil? Well, it hit a new record high today of more than $143 a barrel. Gas prices are up almost 38% from a year ago.

The New York Times reports that the Bush administration played a key role in drawing up no-bid contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq. Critics accuse the administration of making sure Western companies get this access in the country that holds the third-largest oil reserves in the world. For example, Russian companies with experience in Iraq were hoping for contracts, but they’re still waiting.

The White House denies steering the Iraqis toward any decisions. A State Department official says its advice was “not binding.”

Here’s my question to you: Do you believe the Iraq war was about oil all along?

1. Why is the U.S. in Iraq?
We are not in Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction (there are none) or to fight terrorism (al-Qaeda is located primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan). We are in Iraq because President Bush wanted to demonstrate U.S. military power and to establish a pro-American government to protect our interests in the region.

2. Can the U.S. achieve victory?
That depends on how victory is defined. If we define victory as toppling Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime and showing that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, we can declare victory now. If we define victory as establishing a stable democratic government that can stop the horrific level of violence, recent progress in reducing violence indicates that we should implement plans for significant withdrawal now.

3. How many casualties is the U.S. willing to accept?
That depends on how long we pursue a victory that is unlikely to be successful. The longer we fruitlessly pursue our current objectives, the less acceptable will be our casualties. If we recognize that Bush's war has not reduced the threat of terrorism and has not been successful in establishing a democratic government, despite recent reductions in violence, then it is morally unacceptable to allow American deaths to continue to climb above the more than 4,000 men and women who have already died.

4. Can U.S. troops leave safely?
It is unlikely that U.S. casualties will increase during a reasonable period of withdrawal. It is more likely that casualties will be reduced as we move our troops out of harm's way.

5. Will civil war break out after the U.S. has withdrawn?
Civil war already exists between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, between Shiite militias and Iraqi forces, and among the various Shiite militias themselves. It is only made worse by our presence, which is perceived as an occupation by all groups.

6. Will Iraq become a safe haven for al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group run by Sunnis. The Shiite majority in Iraq is unlikely to tolerate their presence after the U.S. leaves. Iraq would not be as safe a haven for al-Qaeda as their present camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

7. Will the Shiite majority commit genocide against the Sunnis?
Shiites are already killing Sunnis now that the Shiites are in power, just as Sunnis killed Shiites when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. It is unclear whether ethnic cleansing will increase or decrease after we leave.

8. Can our strategic interests in the Middle East be protected if we leave Iraq?
Our supply of oil has decreased and its cost has increased because of our presence in Iraq. The situation is unlikely to worsen due to our departure. It is also widely acknowledged that we need to become much less dependent on oil whether we stay in Iraq or leave. As for our interest in protecting ourselves from terrorism, that fight can be carried out more effectively in Afghanistan where the most extreme anti-American terrorists are located.

9. Can we leave Iraq now with honor?
Admitting our mistake and withdrawing from Iraq is more honorable than continuing the war with the attendant unconscionable loss of thousands of more lives. Just as people can, countries can gain respect by honestly admitting their mistakes and correcting their course of action. We should do the right thing instead of trying to save face by pressing on. And recent progress in reducing violence justifies the need for fewer of our troops in Iraq.

DOES THIS MEAN THE U.S. SHOULD MAINTAIN ITS FORCES IN IRAQ AT CURRENT LEVELS TO SUPPORT AND ENHANCE THESE RECENT GAINS? OR, IS IT NOW TIME TO BEGIN SIGNIFICANT WITHDRAWALS OF U.S. TROOPS?

Because government forces are unable to defeat the militias, the interests of these groups must be accommodated and compromises must be made to give them a share of power. The U.S. policy of treating all opposition groups as gangs that must be defeated by Iraqi and U.S. forces is not working. If the U.S. military, which is widely perceived as an occupying army, begins significant withdrawals, the current Iraqi government will gain legitimacy in the eyes of estranged Shiite groups. At the same time, the shrinking support of the U.S. army will weaken the military strength of the government to defeat the outsiders. Both of these factors will encourage the government to give opposition parties a legitimate share of power, thus reducing the fighting. Until a greater sharing of power is established, peace is unlikely. The presence of the U.S. military only encourages the Shiite militias to continue the fighting.

Private Hicks sacrificed half a century of his potential life on earth to help win the war in Iraq. We should all recognize his sacrifice and commemorate his service to the U.S., just as all the other dead should be recognized and commemorated.

We salute you Pvt. Hicks.