"We must not have a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They are depending on us for protection." I hear this argument - as at a recent conference in this city - and I am disturbed at its assurance. It says we're stuck now. What else can we do?

I have one suggestion. We can be clear about our intentions. We can renounce any effort to achieve de facto control of the oil reserves in Iraq.

We hear a lot about the proposed "oil law" whose purpose is to distribute revenue equitably among the regions. What we hear is a lie. Three ambiguous sentences out of some 35 pages refer to the distribution of oil revenues.

The purpose of the proposed law is to allow Western oil companies a controlling investment in some 80 percent of Iraqi oil reserves (see Dennis Kucinich's May 23 address to the House).

The Iraqi national oil company would continue in charge of presently producing fields, which constitute 17 percent of known reserves. The remainder would be opened for drilling by Western oil companies. An appointed committee, not answerable to Parliament, would award the contracts. Its subcommittee for review of contracts would include foreign nationals representing the oil majors. The model contract is a Production Sharing Agreement, a 30-year contract granting foreign companies 75 percent of profits until infrastructure costs are recovered and 20 percent of profits after that.

No other country in the Middle East offers Production Sharing Agreements. They all own and operate a national oil company, letting out short-term contracts for particular services. Iraq had a fine national oil company, until we invaded. And they still don't need foreign investment capital, because they have lots of easily accessible oil.

If our government should succeed in privatizing the national oil industry of Iraq - with an abundance of potential bribes, while we maintain control in force of arms - the collaboration will never have legitimacy in the Islamic world. Certainly not with the common people.

Revenues that should have gone to the Iraqi people will be transferred to the coffers of what are already the wealthiest corporations in the West. And a large military force will be permanently stationed to defend their production facilities.

The Islamic world is struggling to come to terms with modernity (read Reza Aslan). One side in the struggle would see modernization as compatible with Islam. The other sees the modernized West as "the great Satan" and an offense to the Islamic faith. Which of these two sides will seem to speak the greater truth?

Some in this country will argue that we should use military force to achieve our "self-interest" in foreign lands, especially with regard to the world's remaining oil supplies. This should be debated openly.

But consider this. If our invasion of Iraq leads to a de facto control of their oil reserves, we will have lost any grounds for claiming it is a "just war." We will be a devouring culture, engaged in a war of aggression.

I think the majority of Americans have an honest heart, but we've been fed many lies. If we don't wake up, we could get 100 years of war, which we can never win because we do not have justice on our side.

Roger Dodds was a contributor to the conference, "9/11 - A Theological Response," recently co-sponsored by the Theologian-in-Residence program of John XXIII Parish, Vital Theology magazine and the Colorado State University Philosophy Department.