So it's been all about oil, right? Ever since George W. Bush began his war bombast against Iraq, the reason for the US President's decision to "free" the Iraqi people was plain and simple to every one. Everyone except perhaps Bush. You should be knowing it by now: Bush's primary goal for going after Saddam is to seize control of Iraq's oil resources. As the argument goes, not only will the US have a stronger grip on access to oil, it will also be able to determine more efficiently how much of is available to other countries, thereby firmly establishing itself as the undisputed king of the universe.

If Bush does achieve that objective, one would have to put him on a pedestal few have found him worthy of. But then again if the President is really the genius the oil theory makes him out to be, the recent events in his own backyard on the contrary rubbish that likelihood and point to a man who's lost control of the reins of an economy that's rapidly sinking into trouble. If the war in Iraq was supposed to provide the kickstart the flagging US economy needed, well it isn't coming three weeks into the conflict. Not yet. Not even at a time when the US military juggernaut has apparently destroyed some of Saddam's palaces and looks good to end the war in another couple of weeks.

To be sure, at the time of writing, the US economy appears precariously perched at the precipice of a double-dip recession. Just when the first recession that began in March 2001 was being consigned to history, aided by a recovery of sorts, Bush's high-jinks in Iraq are threatening to put paid to the feeble hopes that existed of an economic revival. The figures aren't for the faint-hearted: In March some 1.8 lakh jobs were lost This comes on the back of another 3.57 lakh jobs that were slashed in February. What's got the economists jittery is that the combined job losses of these two months aren't much away from the figure of the January and February of 1991. That's when the US economy was mired in a full-blown recession. Other indicators too fit in with the doomsday picture. The manufacturing and services sectors are shrinking, shipments have reduced, and consumers are spending less.

So should Bush worry? Of course he should. The President may eventually succeed in proving his superiority on the battlefield-virtually single-handedly, without the most of Europe-but there's no reason whatsoever to logically presume it should extend to continued economic dominance. The unbridled stockmarket boom of the nineties (which interestingly coincided pretty much with the end of the Gulf war of 1991) is over, and the likelihood of a similar (speculative?) bull run happening all over are remote. Even in today's bear market, stocks are looking overvalued. It's amply clear that the US economy isn't the well-oiled wealth-creating engine that it was a decade ago. With the US economy unlikely to rebound any time soon, the dollar will soon begin losing against the euro and other currencies that matter.

The hope that post-war reconstruction-and yes, control over more oil-could provide the US economy with that badly-needed shot in the arm might well be factored into Bush's decision to go to war. But what about the fundamental problems that plague the US market: Poor consumer demand, excess industrial capacity, and rising employment. Waging a lone (long) war also means that the US will have to bear the huge cost single-handedly, and that's not going to do the already soaring budget deficit any favours. And if the movement to boycott US products gathers steam across the globe, US trade could get hit. Clearly, "freeing" the Iraqi people involves a cost, and comes at a price.