I know that Halliburton is only one of many companies involved in Iraq, and it may well be the best for the roles it is undertaking. But, wouldn't that be for the Iraqi people to decide for themselves ? If memory serves Bremner tied all sorts of pre conditions into the formation of the Iraqi provisional government, for example widespread privatisation to an extent not even seen in the USA. Allowing foreign oil companies to manage Iraqi oil etc etc. My point is very simple. These decisions should have been taken by the Iraqi people themselves with no pre conditions attached

From Lincolns Gettysburg address:

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "

Now, thats a fine sentiment and one I agree with whole heartedly. But it seems to me that there is precious little of that in the way Iraqi affairs have been handled. When I see the Iraqi government being elected by the Iraqi people on a manifesto of privatisation, inviting foreign companies in to manage their industry etc then I'll believe thats what they want, until such times I'm inclined to believe thats what they've been given - not the same thing at all.

I've started reading through the USAID site, there's some interesting stuff in there and I'm going to stick with it, but I found the following noteworthy:

"USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State. Our Work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting:
economic growth, agriculture and trade;
global health; and,
democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.
We provide assistance in four regions of the world:"

So, what happens if US foreign policy objectives aren't the same thing as the objectives ,wants, or needs of the country they're in ?