www.forbes.com Reuters, 03.20.03, 12:04 PM ET

QUITO, Ecuador, March 20 (Reuters) - After receiving high prices for its crude in the first quarter of 2003, Ecuador has a $100 million cushion should oil prices fall following war in Iraq, the Central Bank said on Thursday.

Central Bank president Mauricio Yepez told reporters the oil-dependent nation has secured an average of $29 per barrel of crude so far this year, well above the $18-per-barrel price forecast in the central government's $6.7 billion budget.

These high oil prices -- which were stoked by tensions in Iraq and unrest in Venezuela -- should inject $100 million into a government stabilization fund by the end of March, providing an ample cushion should crude prices fall, he said.

"Nearly three months have passed in this fiscal year and the average price we've been selling our crude at is $29 (a barrel). This gives us a rather large cushion," Yepez said. "Even if oil prices fall below $18 per barrel, we won't have any difficulties in executing the (economic) program."

Oil prices tumbled to three-month lows on Thursday after the United States began bombing Iraq and dealers bet on a swift U.S. victory with little disruption to Middle East supply.

Ecuador is relying on oil -- its biggest export-- for about 22 percent of the central government budget this year.

The country stores additional revenues in a stabilization fund to bolster the budget should prices fall. But if prices exceeded the per-barrel price forecast for the year, excess revenues would be earmarked for local agencies and institutions.

Yepez added he hoped the International Monetary Fund's executive board would approve a vital $200 million loan backing the cash-strapped nation's economic program on Friday.

US braces for possible sabotage of Iraqi oil fields

www.sfgate.comBRUCE STANLEY, AP Business Writer Thursday, March 20, 2003
(03-20) 08:55 PST LONDON (AP) --

Iraqi troops needed just a few days and some plastic explosives to destroy more than 700 wellheads and turn Kuwait's oil fields into a desert inferno.

Fears are growing that Saddam Hussein might have organized a much more meticulous sabotage of Iraq's own oil fields, in a scorched-earth tactic that could cripple Iraqi production.

The oil industry has buzzed with rumors in recent weeks that Iraqis are rigging their wells with explosives in the hope of slowing a U.S.-led attack and making the country's oil wealth worthless for any new government. A loss of oil from Iraq -- home to the world's second-largest oil reserves -- could crimp supplies for importing countries, including the United States, which depends on Iraq for 2 percent of its imported crude.

Oil exports are also a major source of the money that would be needed to pay for Iraq's reconstruction after a war. Due to their strategic importance, the U.S. Defense Department says it would try to secure Iraq's oil fields quickly to prevent forces loyal to the Iraqi president from damaging them.

"We can confirm reports that (Saddam) has taken measures to booby trap oil wells by wiring the wells so that one person can blow them up," said Defense Department spokeswoman Megan Fox.

"If the worst happens and he does detonate something that causes the oil wells to catch fire, we'll do everything we can. Those assets belong to the Iraqi people, and as much as possible we'd like to keep them intact," she said.

Already, those fears may have become reality. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that three or four Iraqi oil wells may already have been set afire in southern Iraq. Witnesses in Kuwait heard explosions and saw orange flames in the sky across the border.

Conventional explosives attached to wellheads and other vital facilities could halt production at any of Iraq's 1,685 wells. With more than twice as many oil wells as Kuwait, Iraq could suffer an even greater economic and environmental disaster.

When Iraqi troops retreated from Kuwait in February 1991, they attached plastic explosives to wellheads -- clusters of pipes and valves protruding from underground wells -- and piled sandbags against them to direct the force of the explosions for maximum effect.

The result was Dante-esque geysers of burning crude at 603 wells and serious damage at more than 100 others. Teams of firefighters from the United States, Canada and eight other countries worked from April until November of that year to douse the last flames.

Most of the teams used seawater pumped through Kuwait's empty oil pipelines to battle the fires. The heat was so intense, at more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius), that water sometimes continued bubbling on the ground for two days afterward, said Mark Badick of Safety Boss, Inc.

"We've had fire helmets melt on our heads," said Badick, whose Calgary-based firm put out 180 of the Kuwaiti well fires.

Firefighters from Hungary had a different technique, using two jet engines mounted horizontally on a tank chassis -- a homemade vehicle they called "Big Wind" -- to blast flame-retardant foam.

It took Kuwait more than two years and $50 billion to restore its oil output to pre-Gulf War levels. Iraq, if it sabotaged its oil fields, could take longer and cost much more.

Iraq's fields and pipelines are badly run-down after 12 years of U.N. economic sanctions. Its fields are also much farther from the ocean than those in Kuwait, so firefighters might be unable to pump seawater to tackle burning wells there.

Destruction could be especially bad if Iraqis set off explosives underground, deep within the well shafts themselves. If that happened, firefighters would have to drill a new "relief well" and pump a mixture of sand, gel and mud into each damaged shaft to try to plug it up and stop the blowout.

"It's a long, arduous process," Badick said. Whereas he and his crews put out as many as five fires a day in Kuwait, cleaning up after a single underground explosion can take two months.

Manouchehr Takin, an analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies, said he doubts that Saddam would go so far as to place explosives 100 meters (yards) into well shafts.

"I'm not sure there are enough engineers and rig operators in Iraq to do this kind of work," he said.

Even if the Iraqis did booby-trap their oil fields, Takin argued that Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other OPEC member countries could ramp up their production to offset Iraq's 2 million barrels a day in exports.

Saudi Arabia, which has the world's largest crude reserves, has indicated repeatedly that it would boost its output to keep supplies flowing. Also, the United States and other oil importing nations could tap into their 4 billion barrels in strategic petroleum reserves, if necessary, to cover a shortfall.

Brown & Root Services of Houston has drawn up a plan for the U.S. Defense Department for containing and assessing any damage to Iraqi oil installations. The Pentagon has invited companies to express interest in this possible work but has yet to award any contracts.

The challenge for such companies would multiply if Iraq used chemical, biological or radioactive material to sabotage its oil fields.

"That's a whole new ball game," said Peter Gignoux, head of the oil desk at Salomon Smith Barney.

Such a nightmare scenario gives pause even to well-fire veterans like Badick.

Special suits designed to protect a wearer against biological or chemical agents would disintegrate in the heat of a burning well. Firefighters might have no choice but to wait until the fires burn themselves out.

WAR IN IRAQ: High Stakes--The aftershocks of war in Iraq will reach every corner of the globe: The U.S. and world economies, big-power relations, and domestic politics

MARCH 20, 2003

Around the White House, George W. Bush is known as a soul of punctuality, a clockwork manager whose aides are met with a stern glare for being late to a meeting. So it should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all Saddam Hussein, that at roughly 9:30 p.m. on Mar. 19 -- just 90 minutes after his 48-hour "leave, or else" ultimatum expired, the President initiated a series of attacks that he termed the "opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign" to topple "an outlaw regime." He ordered a pinpoint bomb and cruise-missile strike on Iraqi leadership sites in Baghdad. Anti-aircraft batteries ringing the Iraqi capital opened fire, and the skies briefly lit up with explosions. Then, all fell eerily silent.

Appearing on national TV less than an hour later, President Bush vowed "we will prevail." With full-scale bombing and a land invasion to follow, thus began the nation's second Iraq war in a little over a decade, a conflict that has sent tremors throughout the Middle East and put the entire world on edge.

In all, 300,000 U.S., British, and Australian troops, 1,000 warplanes, and five carrier battle groups were set to join the campaign to oust Saddam. That has led to predictions that it would be a matter of weeks, not months, before the battle would be over. But despite this awesome array of firepower, the world doesn't view this conflict with universal optimism.

MANY FUTURES IN DOUBT. Instead, there's gloom in many capitals over the wide ripples the intervention could cause. Because the U.S. and Britain had to mount a preemptive strike without U.N. support, relations with France, Germany, Russia, and other nations have soured, and a wave of anti-Americanism swept the world. That has put the future of the U.N., NATO, and other multilateral institutions in question and raised doubts about America's role as a superpower.

The stakes are equally large for the world economy. Months of debate over the war have paralyzed U.S. business. The result is a malaise that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan terms a "soft spot" and that less sanguine economists believe has left the country vulnerable to a second dip into recession. With Japan and many of Europe's economic locomotives losing steam, a strong U.S. rebound is essential to kick-start global growth. But until it's clear that the President's Iraq intervention is a success and that it will not draw America into a costly quagmire, both the U.S. and the global economy are hostages.

Also at stake is Bush's political future. The Texan "hasn't done a compelling job of convincing people this is the right thing to do," says Thomas J. Corcoran Jr., CEO of FelCor Lodging Trust (FCH ) in Irving, Tex. Yet Bush is risking more than his own fate. If his strategy succeeds, it could pave the way for a GOP juggernaut in 2004. If it fails -- because the war drags on, terrorists strike, or the economy sinks -- Bush and his party could face the voters' wrath.

PERKIER BUCK. Still, for all the unknowns, a sense of relief ran through the markets as it became clear that the onset of war was at hand. For six successive sessions leading up to Bush's Mar. 19 "Get out of Dodge" deadline, the stock market advanced, as investors bet on a short war that would be followed by a return to growth. And while the minutes on the 48-hour deadline ticked off, the rally broadened, and the dollar perked up.

More important for Bush, his popularity shot up in tandem. His job approval rating hit 64% in a Mar. 17 CBS News poll, up from 54% a month earlier. And despite earlier misgivings about going to war without U.N. backing, popular support for removal of Saddam by force hit 71% in a Mar. 17 Washington Post/ABC News Poll, an all-time high. Bush's wartime standing could quickly soar even higher, at least initially. "Once the first shot is fired, the country unites strongly behind the President and military," observes Henry A. McKinnell Jr., CEO of Pfizer (PFE ).

The question, of course, is how long the rah-rah mood will last. Administration officials insist that when the smoke clears, pessimists who predict Vietnam-style entanglements will be proved wrong. But even Bush partisans concede that the President has bet the ranch on proving the skeptics wrong. Here's how the intervention could cast a long shadow over the U.S. and world economy, big-power diplomacy, and domestic politics:

• The Economy. The key to the U.S. economic outlook, say many executives, is a short, decisive war. That could provide relief from higher oil prices, which have risen from $25 per barrel last November to a peak of $38 earlier this month. War jitters drove consumer sentiment in the Conference Board's February survey to its lowest level in nearly a decade.

Triumph on the battlefield could pierce this gloom. Indeed, even before the troops moved into Iraq, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose 8.5% on Mar. 12-19, while oil prices fell 27%, to $29.88. "We have the preconditions for a [postwar] surge in economic activity," says Steve Grossman, CEO of MassEnvelopePlus in Boston.

Most execs agree. "If we could get this war thing off our shoulders," says Stephen P. Wolfe, chief financial officer of Toro Co. in Bloomington, Minn., "we'd be poised for a breakout."

Yet, together with the underlying threat of new terrorist attacks, the price of oil is one of the big unknowns for the economy. If Saddam knocks out key oil fields, the resulting shock could trigger a slump. Saudi Arabia has promised to boost capacity to offset a temporary price jump. But because global stockpiles are short and instability is roiling the oil-producing states of Venezuela and Nigeria, that may not be enough. "The U.S. and world economy are extremely fragile," says Allen Sinai, chief global economist of Decision Economics Inc. consultants. "A prolonged war would likely trigger a full-fledged global recession."

Certainly, some industries will be hit harder than others, notably the airlines. Many are already canceling flights and bracing for the worst. Bankrupt UAL Corp. (UAL ), parent of United Airlines, could even face liquidation. "I would be surprised if no one else went into bankruptcy as a result of this war," says J. George Mikelsons, CEO of ATA Airlines (ATAH ), a carrier based in Indianapolis. Adds Thomas J. Pritzker, CEO of Hyatt: "If the first Gulf War is any indication, the hospitality industry will be damaged for some time."

And it isn't only travel-dependent executives who are fearful. Some techies have the blues, too. "As soon as [the shooting starts], customers may freeze," says Phillip Merrick, CEO of webMethods (WEBM ), a software company based in Northern Virginia.

While execs debate how strongly the economy may rebound, one thing seems likely: President Bush's economic plan may be an early casualty of the conflict. As worries have grown about a war and reconstruction tab that could exceed $100 billion, so has the feeling that the Administration's $1.45 trillion package of tax cuts should be sharply trimmed. It's now "a real uphill battle" for Bush's tax cuts, says a top GOP lobbyist.

Facing budget pressures, Bush may be forced to accept a scaled-back program that moves up scheduled 2004 and 2006 personal-rate cuts and provides modest investment incentives for business. Says Bruce L. Downey, CEO of drugmaker Barr Laboratories (BRL ) in Pomona, N.Y.: "I'm a big fan of eliminating double taxation. But realistically, a package that large will be deferred because of the cost of the war."

The ability of the world economy to weather Iraq-shock depends on how smartly America snaps back postwar. With Japan in a funk, Germany skirting recession, and much of the euro zone in the doldrums, U.S. growth of 3% to 3.5% is needed to spark a global recovery. But that may not be realistic in light of Bush's mounting war obligations.

• International Relations. In the messy runup to war, just about everything that could go wrong in the Administration's star-crossed drive to build support for "regime change" did go wrong. The Bush team's unilateralism left a trail of wreckage at the U.N. and within NATO. As France, Germany, and Russia blocked Bush's and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to win Security Council approval for war, a U.N. that has tried to keep the peace for a generation seemed to come unglued. One GOP foreign-policy guru says that Bush's ham-handed diplomacy has "left fissures that won't heal easily."

Now, Bush officials are weighing ways to undo the damage. Overtures are being made to France, Germany, and Russia as U.S. diplomats look for areas of agreement. One way to smooth differences will be to offer trade concessions and a stake in Iraqi reconstruction for some of the war holdouts. Administration officials "clearly don't want to make [rebuilding] a unilateral effort," says Richard H. Solomon, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

What's still unclear, though, is how accommodating Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and other hawks will be to such a warmup. Hard-liners have repeatedly warned of "consequences" for the refusenik countries when it comes to doling out postwar rebuilding contracts.

A punitive approach could worsen trade relations between the U.S. and European trading partners. And that, in turn, might set back a U.S.-led drive for a major market liberalization, with potentially huge costs for the global economy.

That's why U.S. companies with overseas interests will be at the forefront of reconciliation. "I'm very hopeful that nations will get together and stop acting childish," says James D. Sinegal, CEO of Costco Wholesale (COST ) in Issaquah, Wash. "Costco sells a lot of goods to foreign countries."

If the war is neither quick nor easy, inter-Alliance tensions will boil. Blair could face further rebellion in Labour Party ranks, vilification of America could intensify, and U.S. moral leadership on other looming crises -- such as North Korea's nuclear weapons push -- could be strained. The danger is that current global resentment of American "hyper-power" could isolate the U.S.

• Political Fallout. White House strategists concede that, despite a wave of war support at the moment, Bush will need to turn quickly to the economy. If he can oust Saddam on his terms, the Texan will acquire some muscle for his stalled domestic priorities. Says Republican consultant Scott W. Reed: "If he wins a swift victory, he'll be able to pave the streets with whatever policies he desires." For the White House, that means brushing aside deficit qualms to win a hefty tax cut from Congress.

Convinced that Democrats have been stridently antiwar and have let liberals such as Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) define the opposition, GOP strategists dream of a replay of the 2002 midterm elections. "The theme of the next election is: 'It's national security, stupid,"' says GOP pollster William D. McInturff.

Indeed, a Mar. 3-8 bipartisan poll by McInturff and Democrat Stanley B. Greenberg found that Republicans had opened huge leads over Democrats on a wide array of defense-related issues. White House strategist Karl Rove hopes he can fashion that advantage into an issue that trumps concerns about Bush's handling of the economy.

But if history is any guide, a President can coast only so far on his war record. And in an age of unconventional wars and terror threats, clear victories are hard to come by. True, Bush has an opening to transform the political landscape in his favor if America's Iraqi adventure goes well. But more likely, his future will be decided by a battle closer to home. That means reviving an economy mired in a post-boom funk and meeting America's mountain of new commitments with a budget that's awash in red ink.

Doable? For sure. But it could be tougher than consigning Saddam to the ash heap of history.

By Lee Walczak, Richard S. Dunham, Stan Crock, and Howard Gleckman in Washington, with Michael Arndt in Chicago, William C. Symonds in Boston, Stephanie Anderson Forest in Dallas, and bureau reports

www.sunherald.com Posted on Thu, Mar. 20, 2003
BRUCE STANLEY Associated Press

LONDON - Saddam Hussein may have organized a meticulous plan for sabotaging Iraq's oil fields in a scorched-earth tactic designed to cripple Iraqi production.

The oil industry has buzzed with reports in recent weeks that Iraqis are rigging their wells with explosives, hoping to slow a U.S.-led attack and making the country's oil wealth worthless for any new government.

"We can confirm reports that (Saddam) has taken measures to booby trap oil wells by wiring the wells so that one person can blow them up," said U.S. Defense Department spokeswoman Megan Fox.

"If the worst happens and he does detonate something that causes the oil wells to catch fire, we'll do everything we can. Those assets belong to the Iraqi people, and as much as possible we'd like to keep them intact," she said.

Already, those fears may have become reality. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that three or four Iraqi oil wells may already have been set afire in southern Iraq. Witnesses in Kuwait heard explosions and saw orange flames in the sky across the border.

In 1991, Iraqi troops needed just a few days and some plastic explosives to destroy more than 700 well heads and turn Kuwait's occupied oil fields into a desert inferno.

A loss of oil from Iraq - home to the world's second-largest oil reserves - could crimp supplies for importing countries, including the United States, which depends on Iraq for 2 percent of all the crude it consumes.

However, both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have pledged to keep the oil flowing in wartime.

Oil exports are also a major source of the money that would be needed to pay for Iraq's reconstruction after a war. Because of their strategic importance, the Defense Department says it will try to secure Iraq's oil fields quickly to prevent Iraqi forces from damaging the country's 1,685 wells.

When Iraqi troops retreated from Kuwait in February 1991, they attached plastic explosives to well heads and piled sandbags against them to direct the force of the explosions for maximum effect.

The result was geysers of burning crude at 603 wells, serious damage at more than 100 others and widespread environmental degradation. Teams of firefighters from the United States, Canada and eight other countries worked from April until November to put out the fires.

Most of the teams used sea water pumped through Kuwait's empty oil pipelines to battle the fires. The heat was so intense, at more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, that water sometimes continued boiling on the ground for two days afterward, said Mark Badick of Safety Boss, Inc.

"We've had fire helmets melt on our heads," said Badick, whose Calgary-based firm put out 180 of the Kuwaiti well fires.

Firefighters from Hungary had a different technique, using two jet engines mounted horizontally on a tank chassis - a homemade vehicle they called "Big Wind" - to blast flame-retardant foam at the fires.

It took Kuwait more than two years and $50 billion to restore its oil output to prewar levels. If Iraq sabotaged its oil fields, any cleanup could take far longer and cost much more.

Iraq's fields and pipelines are badly run-down after 12 years of U.N. economic sanctions. Its fields are also much farther from the sea than those in Kuwait, meaning a ready source of water might not be so easily available.

Destruction could be especially bad if Iraqis set off explosives underground, deep within the well shafts themselves. If that happened, firefighters would have to drill a new "relief well" and pump a mixture of sand, gel and mud into each damaged shaft to try to plug it up and stop the blowout.

"It's a long, arduous process," Badick said. Whereas he and his crews put out as many as five fires a day in Kuwait, cleaning up after a single underground explosion can take two months.

Even if the Iraqis did booby-trap their oil fields, Manouchehr Takin, an analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies, said Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other OPEC member countries could increase production to offset Iraq's 2 million barrels a day in exports.

Saudi Arabia, which has the world's largest crude reserves, repeatedly has suggested it would boost its output to keep supplies flowing. Also, the United States and other oil importing nations could tap their 4 billion barrels in strategic petroleum reserves, if necessary, to cover a shortfall.

Brown & Root Services of Houston has drawn up a plan for the Defense Department for containing and assessing any damage to Iraqi oil installations, but the Pentagon so far has awarded no contracts.

The challenge for such companies would multiply if Iraq used chemical, biological or radioactive material to sabotage its oil fields.

Special suits designed to protect a wearer against biological or chemical agents would disintegrate in the heat of a burning well. Firefighters might have no choice but to wait until the fires burn themselves out.

"That's a whole new ball game," said Peter Gignoux, head of the oil desk at Salomon Smith Barney.

OPINION: Myths And Facts -This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy. This war is not a pre-emptive war. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. This war is not about terrorism. This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

www.outlookindia.com RAHUL MAHAJAN, ROBERT JENSEN

Last night, our president announced a war to the nation and the world. Let us be clear about what this war is and what it is not.

This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy. This war is not a pre-emptive war. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. This war is not about terrorism. This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Diplomacy: Nations typically engage in diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, numerous attempts at diplomacy were made by France, the Soviet Union, and the Arab League. They all foundered, primarily on the intransigence of the first Bush administration. In this case, the second Bush administration tried to use "diplomacy" to create a war out of whole cloth, making no attempt to negotiate with Iraq. In fact, as Iraq made concession after concession -- as it became increasingly clear that whatever pitiful arsenal Iraq had could be found and dismantled if inspections were allowed to continue -- U.S. attempts to strong-arm other countries into supporting the war became increasingly crude and coercive. Although those attempts mostly failed, they were hardly aimed at preventing the war.

Pre-emption: In order to pre-empt a threat with war, there must be some credible reason to believe that the threat exists and that no other strategies will address it. A threat involves capability and intent. In this case, the Bush administration was not able to show that Iraq has the capability, and no attempt was made to show that it had the intent to attack.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: As time passed, the administration's lies, half-truths, and distortions became increasingly ridiculous. From scare stories about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" that turned out to be a glider held together with spit and baling wire, to forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, nothing has held water. Claims of mobile biological laboratories were refuted by weapons inspectors, as were claims that Iraq had or was about to get nuclear weapons. And, of course, ongoing inspections would have ensured that no arsenal could be built.

Terrorism: This claim is even more absurd. The best the Bush administration could come up with was a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a member of Ansar al-Islam whose ties to either al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are completely unsubstantiated. A recent British intelligence assessment concluded that there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Liberation: The United States does not care about true democracy for Iraq. In 1991, when a popular uprising after the Gulf War threatened to oust Hussein's government, the United States intervened to keep Hussein in power. The reason, as officials explained later, was that the United States wanted a military coup to preserve what Richard Haas of the National Security Council called "Saddam's regime without Saddam." Since 9/11, the Bush administration has funded a coup attempt in Venezuela, installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan, and cracked down on basic democratic protections in the United States. It would be ironic if the administration wanted democracy for Iraqis but not for Americans. U.S. plans for Iraq clearly involve establishing yet another puppet regime

So, what is this war? It is an act of premeditated aggression. It is part of an attempt to put the tremendous energy reserves of the Middle East more tightly under American control. It is the key stage in the building of a new empire. It is part of a long-term attempt to establish more clearly than ever the rule of force in international affairs and sweep away any role for international law or institutions beyond those in service to the empire.

Another fact we must remember: This war did not begin last night.

March 19, 2003, was simply the start of a new, more intense phase of the U.S. attack on Iraq that has been going on since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, through the harshest economic embargo in modern history and through more than four years of regular bombing.

Already, hundreds of thousands -- possibly more than a million -- innocent Iraqis have died in this ongoing assault. As we count the civilian casualties from this newest phase, they must be added to this roster of the dead so that the costs of the U.S. war will not be obscured.

This is crucial to understand, because when U.S. military forces topple the government of Saddam Hussein, we shouldn't be surprised if ordinary Iraqis cheer. Their celebrations will not be about only the demise of a dictator but about the hoped-for end of a regime of fear and deprivation imposed by the United States, in which parents have been forced to watch children die of malnutrition and disease caused by the enforced poverty created by the embargo.

And, finally: Just as the war against Iraq did not begin last night, the larger war for empire will not end with Iraq. Other nations, notably Iran, are already on the target list. Bush administration officials talk of remaking the map of the Middle East. Beyond that is the desire to counter the rising power of China.

The American takeover of Iraq likely cannot be stopped. But just as there has been a time for war, there can come a time for justice if we -- the citizens of the empire -- recognize that this battle may be lost, but there is still a world to win.

Rahul Mahajan's latest book is the forthcoming The U.S. War Against Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies. Robert Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Both are members of the Nowar Collective