December 12, 2003 - "It's very simple. Our people risk their lives. Coalition, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that." was the President's succinct comment when he tried to explain the Wolfowitz policy on profit opportunities in Iraq . Inadvertently he provided a succinct answer to Country Joe's Vietnam Era question. "1 - 2 - 3, what are we fighting for?" That has been a question that has been troubling the Administration since it started beating the war drums against Iraq in August of 2002. Its answer has evolved through "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; through "Threat to his neighbors"; "Support for Terrorism"; through "Liberation of the Iraqi People"; to "War Crimes Trials". All of them have been less than satisfying justifications for risking British and American lives and spending American dollars.

Economist Paul Krugman was the first to publicly highlight the ominous words in Secretary Wolfowitz' published rationale for his contracting policy. "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts . [and] should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members." With all due respect to Dr. Krugman's analysis, I think that he missed the major point of the statement. Yes, there is an element of a power grab for the Defense Department by the PNAC wing of the Republican Party, That has been going on since well before January 20 th 2001 . The Rumsfeldites have been trying to put Colin Powell in his place since his appointment was announced. It is not new.

What is new is that in language more appropriate to the boardroom of multinational corporation discussion of marketing strategies than the councils of government deliberating the amelioration of the ravages of war, Secretary Wolfowitz gave public validation to the proposition that many of us had already concluded: that the Bush policy of unilateral preemptive war is really a policy of perpetual conflict in the pursuit of economic advantage - a return to 17 th Century Imperial Mercantilism. If as Calvin Coolidge is supposed to have said, "The business of government is business", then the Bush corollary is ". and business is the business of war." This administration is introducing a new concept to the milieu of international relations - war as a marketing tool.

So, Country Joe, the 21 st Century answer to your old question is: Profits. But there is another and older question that the President and his minions should ponder. What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?