Iraq open thread #4

I’m busy teaching through the end of this week. It’s intense but good. Carry on your conversations here, friends! I feel very out of touch…

54 thoughts on “Iraq open thread #4”

  2. “The initial goal of the Israeli assistance to the Kurds, the former officer said, was to allow them to do what American commando units had been unable to do


  3. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality

    If this were true, revolutions would never occur, feudalism would be the reigning system, computer software would have all the original bugs, and the Germ Theory of Disease would never have become popular. And pacifism would the worst idea in the universe.

  4. Status of Forces Agreement and Iraq
    “One of the key – if not the key – challenges for the new Iraqi government will be a US demand to negotiate a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), the agreement that stipulates the legal status of US garrisons. A cursory look at a world map will teach Iraqis to be extremely careful not to fall into a trap. There are insistent rumors in Baghdad that a SOFA will not be negotiated in 2005: the responsibility will fall to the permanent government that will be elected next December. This is one more indication of the irrelevance of the new elected government. The Pentagon anyway has already determined it will keep 120,000 troops in Iraq into at least 2007, even if a withdrawal is demanded tomorrow.” [Asia Times, Feb 2005]
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB11Ak02.html
    “In 1964, the signing of a SOFA agreement between the United States and Iran granting legal immunity to U.S. personnel and (unusually) their dependents, produced a harsh anti-American backlash. Incensed, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the agreement — acidly noting that the SOFA granted an American dog in Iran more rights than an Iranian citizen — and attacked the shah and the United States, leading to his exile to Iraq. This was a key event in Khomeini’s rise to prominence and power, which he frequently recalled following his return to Iran in 1979, and it is not hard to imagine some Iraqi ayatollah or populist politician likewise using the issue of immunities granted in a standard SOFA to discredit establishment politicians and gain political advantage.” [Washington Institute, Apr 2004]
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1742
    What happens if the U.S. does not get a SOFA with the Iraqi government?

  5. AJ
    “What happens if the U.S. does not get a SOFA with the Iraqi government?”
    Is Iraqi government call to agree or not? This is invasion, US forces there because what the poppet government say, is it a jock and undermining the readers what the reality is in Iraq?
    Its invasion I can not understand some one thinks otherwise! In same talk US presences in Afghanistan exactly the same, I can not believe it some one till now that US doing a great job?
    I think the US war in Iraq is similar in such way of creation of Israel, i.e. the west guilt against the Jaws turned and used to be the Arab suffering. For some of us who support the idea of Israel defend itself and what they did to the Palestine as a right thing, the Arab and Muslims never did some thing against Jaws like the west did to Jews.

  6. “Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don’t ever apologize for anything.”
    — Harry Truman
    We will never see the peace……

  7. The standard “pessimistic” view now holds that the U.S. military will be tied down in Iraq for many years to come. See, for example, Juan Cole’s May 25 piece, “Sometimes You Are Just Screwed.” My only problem with this pessimistic view is I think it’s too optimistic. It assumes that we are capable of sustaining a 10 or 15 year occupation. Everything I read about recruiting, reenlistment, supply chain, moral, and casualty rate suggests that another year or two of this will pretty much destroy the all volunteer military. I don’t think a draft is politically feasible – and obviously, neither does the Bush regime. The cost of fielding an army of mercenaries big enough to keep the lid on a highly charged, weapons rich environment like Iraq is not economically feasible, especially for a country that is already running a half-trillion dollar annual deficit. The whole thing is a house of cards, waiting for a strong wind.

  8. I have debated the issue with Juan Cole myself. He thinks the US will stay in Iraq as long as Sistani wants them, and no longer. But I think the US does not have the capability to hold onto what little bit of Iraq it has now for very much longer. For nearly a year now I’ve been thinking about the vulnerability of the occupation forces’ supply lines.
    I’d say that the thing to watch out for would be large-scale Sunni attacks on the infrastructure of the US forces in central Iraq.
    The US seems to have a very limited repetoire of reactions to the guerrilas. A big push by the opposition that cut enough routes and destroyed enough infrastructure would require the US to reestablish control with overwhelming force.
    Where would that come from?
    Sure the US could blow up whatever it likes, even the whole country, but anything more constructive would require resources that may not exist.

  9. I saw Lawrence Korb, a former Undersecretary of Defense, on C-Span at the end of March. The show was concerned with reinstating some kind of draft. (Korb was opposed to this.) In any case, his assessment was that the Iraq war is a placing a very severe strain on the US Army and Marines. Serious problems with their current deployments should start to show by 2006.
    Korb also mentioned that if you wanted to break the US Army, you would treat it the way Bush has.

  10. John C, your post sent me to Juan Cole’s article “Sometimes You Are Just Screwed”.
    I don’t think it is “optimistic” so much as converging with the US government line.
    Juan Cole has gradually painted himself into this corner. He has characterised (with assertions, not evidence) the resistance in a precise way that corresponds very well with the US official position. The resistance are Ba’athists, dispossessed Sunnis, et cetera, but not patriots, and the US must stay on a mission to prevent the factions fighting according to Cole.
    The atmosphere of opposition to the US government hangs around Cole but the content is long gone.
    I’m sorry Cole didn’t transcend his liberalism, but I’m not surprised. I always said he was lazy when it came to class politics. It’s always a bad sign.

  12. Dominic,
    I share much of your feelings toward Juan Cole’s recent entry. I’m upset by the fact that he keeps on saying that the resistance are ex-baathists and remnants of the former regime. I’ve just read the translation of a report issued in Al-Hayat and written by Mouchreq Abbas. He interviewed Yassine Saad (a professor of sociology at the University of Baghdad, who has studied the diversity of the Iraqi society for a long time). Yassine Saad says that it’s a rushed analysis, a gross simplification, to pretend that the bombings reflect inter-ethnic fights. Almost all these bombings have been revendicated and justified as a punishment against persons collaborating with the US occupation. He says, that one can disagree with the rationale behind these actions, but that one has to recognize their true goals and their nature.
    I’d add that the only way to solve a guerrilla problem is through political negotiation. But unless you recognize the guerilla for what it is, you can’t take the first steps toward real negotiations.
    The actual US government, apparently, doesn’t want these negotiations to take place. The introduction of ethnic quotas has completely marginalized the leftist, democratic and nationalist component, which could have acted as a cement between the different Iraqi ethnic components. So yes, I’m very pessimistic : the US will run in a wall. Unlike John C, I think it will last for at least a decade before the US realizes and withdraw, because she has too much at stake. It is particularly unjust for the Iraqis, because they are the ones paying the highest price, not the Americans.
    One could discuss the question of who is more pessimist : the ones foreseeing a US withdrawal/defeat shortly (in a 2-3 years), or the ones thinking it will take 10-15 years. IMO, the longer the war lasts the worse the situation for the Iraqis. We know how things are now, with the US occupation, how will it evolve if the US withdraw ? IMO, the earlier the US leaves, the easier the reconciliation between the different political and ethnic components will be.

  13. The other issue about length of stay has to do with the new bases the U.S. is building there, which gets back to the discussion of SOFA agreements. There’s withdrawl, and then there’s sort-of withdrawl.
    I do think, sort of along the lines of Korb, that if anyone is going to manage to damage the U.S.’ neo-imperial capacity, it’s Bush. Not just because of the problems with the military, but because of the economy as well.

  14. Christiane, just to take one point for discussion, what has the US got at stake, really?
    If they want the oil they can buy it. It’s not as if it’s ever going to be free, even if they own the wells themselves.
    Then the bases once built, become “facts on the ground” or “assets” that are painful to lose. Or are they? Who needs them? They will be enormously expensive to maintain.
    I think your mention of ethnic quotas is the key. The US always does this. It tries to smash all higher forms of human solidarity and reduce relations to the most sectarian, and this has become the sole remaining hope. Everything else has failed but they are still trying to divide the people of Iraq.
    I wonder if, as you say, the “leftist, democratic and nationalist” tendencies have gone or even been weakened. Otherwise what is the problem for the Yanks? Why are they still making such a big production of it all?
    You are right that the longer they stay the worse it is for the Iraqis, but what the Yanks want the Iraqis can’t give. The Yanks in the last analysis are playing mind-games, but the people they are trying to play with are adults.
    The Yanks must go home, that’s all.

  15. Then the bases once built, become “facts on the ground” or “assets” that are painful to lose. Or are they? Who needs them? They will be enormously expensive to maintain.
    The American powers that be presumably see the bases as key in providing a lock on the entire Middle East up through Central Asia in combination with the ones they already have. They’re critical in maintaining pressure on Iran, for example, according to this POV. Plus helping provide a presence for securing current and future pipelines, like the one they just opened that goes through some sensitive areas in Georgia.
    They’re expensive, but then there’s the restructuring going on with lots of base closings stateside, and cutting down the German and South Korean presence.
    Fundamentally, the neo-imperialists /neo-cons see the Middle East as the lynchpin of global domination — which is viewed in positive terms. Buying oil is not the issue; the issue is ensuring consistent supply to us, but also to our allies. Or being able to block supplies to other countries.
    It’s the updated version of the Great Game.

  16. I read Cole’s piece, and I would say we are really screwed, and Iraq more so by far, but the longer we stay the worse it will be for all of us. I have emailed Cole several times about this, the US just needs to get out of there, say they are sorry, and then pay Iraq for decades to come. Not going to happen.
    I find it amazing that Cole and the corporate media claim the “insurgents” are all ex-Baathists and foreign terrorists. This would mean that there are no Iraqis who are Shias, Turkomen, Kurds, etc who are angry at the US actions in their country. Impossible.
    A Tal Afar orphan, age 14, says she would like to kill Americans with her bare hands and drink their blood. I do not condone her statements, but since American troops killed her unarmed parents right in front of her, I can understand it. And if a 14 year old girl feels that way…..

  17. “I do think, sort of along the lines of Korb, that if anyone is going to manage to damage the U.S.’ neo-imperial capacity, it’s Bush. Not just because of the problems with the military, but because of the economy as well.”
    What do you mean, “if”?

  18. Vivion, I must say I do get impatient with the kind of post you made at 12:12 above. You are rationalising the US position for them. Why are you doing that unless you support the US position? None of it is fact, all of it is assertion.

  20. Dominic – you asked what the U.S. really has at stake in Iraq. Of course, I don’t know any more than you do, but IMHO it’s pretty much down to saving face at this point. All the grand schemes have failed. The problem is, the U.S. economy is a giant Ponzi scheme – a confidence game. With so much of the manufacturing base gone, and so much debt held by foreign governments, and such a spoiled population accustomed to living far beyond its means, we cannot afford to be humiliated militarily. I agree with the others who have pointed out that our Dear Leader’s policies are leading in precisely that direction, but he’s going to hold out as long as he can. Besides, there is no group of people in Iraq to whom the U.S. would be content to turn over real power. We’re driving a semi down a mountain road with the brakes out.

  21. On a related note, what do people here think of the new plan to encircle the entire city of Baghdad with 40,000 new Iraqi troops? It seems to me this will be very helpful to the insurgents, since it will tie down all the troops in a thin circle at fixed locations on the perimeter, where they can be attacked at whichever points are weakest at any given time.
    Tactical issues aside, for the new government to be laying seige to its own capital city is a rather stark acknowledgment that things are completely out of control, is it not?

  23. “new plan to encircle the entire city of Baghdad with 40,000 new Iraqi troops?”
    Yes Zarqawe now came to the capital Baghdad!!!!
    Let

  25. In answer to Dominic :
    “Christiane, just to take one point for discussion, what has the US got at stake, really?”
    1) First if would be quite a blow to their national pride, to the belief that the US military superpower is invincible. They wanted to show their muscle in Iraq, but instead, they are just showing their weakness. But it will take them pride to admit their limits and recognize that they need others states as well. That their fantasm of imperial dominance is limited by the facts.
    2) Then concerning the oil : the ressources are getting scarce, while the world demand is steadily increasing, in particular from China and India (whose economies are strongly growing). US, of course, agrees to pay for oil, but only at a very low price : here recently the oil was swinging between 1.54-1.57 Swiss francs a liter. Meanwhile in the US they were paying about 0.60 Swiss francs a liter. Even deducing the taxes perceived by our government, we are still paying twice as much as the US. So the US is looking for a continuous flood of cheap oil. The US oil companies are trying (or have already) signed long term contracts with Iraq. They want to be sure that if the oil prices are increasing, the benefits goes to the US companies (not others). Their best bet is to let the financing of the aging oil infrastructures to the Iraqis (with contracts for reconstruction to the US companies..) and to monopolize the redistribution of the oil.
    3) Then of course the US wants to keep permanent military bases in the region. With their bases, they are completely encircling the former USSR and Iran. They want to be present in Asia and Iraq + Afghanistan are their first advanced geostrategic posts. They won’t give up easily on these goals.
    4) After two years of war, I find that the American public is still supporting the operation at an incredible high level. There are only 48% thinking that the Iraq war was a wrong thing. So it will take a lot of time before the US public put enough pressure on the government to withdraw.

  26. Dominic,
    Sorry to have annoyed you; you asked what the U.S. has at stake, and I simply tried to explain what the powers that be are thinking — pretty much right out of a basic political science course on U.S. Middle East policy. Of course it is all assertion! Of course it is all part of a mindset that has been part of this country’s overt foreign policy for the last 50 – 69 years!
    The point is, that if the people with power think that this is what we have at stake, that’s how they’re going to act.
    What should irritate you is that your average conservative gung-ho Bush supporter here would see the explanation as a cynical, liberal, anti-Bush tirade, rather than an exposition I could have cribbed from my old notes.

  27. “what do people here think of the new plan to encircle the entire city of Baghdad with 40,000 new Iraqi troops?”
    I’m thinking of what Napoleon asked one of his generals who presented him with a deployment plan showing the French Army evenly distributed along the frontier: “What are you trying to do, stop smuggling?”

  28. All those hundreds of checkpoints will be hundreds of targets. Attacks on those targets will not only destroy the “Iraqi forces” but reduce Baghdad to chaos.
    My guess.

  29. Christiane, I suspect you are wrong on the oil. The US pays international prices for the oil it buys, except for some arrangement with the Saudis where the US paid one dollar less per barrel. The Saudis wanted to supply a meaningful part of the US demand, instead of the closer Venezuelan sources, in order to have political leverage over the US. The difference in price at the pump to consumers has nothing to do with the US paying less for crude.
    Second, a tiny fraction (about 3% I think) of the world oil is produced by multi-nationals (US, UK, french, dutch…) while the bulk is produced by the national producers like Saudi Aramco, Venezuela, and so on. They are the ones making a killing on the crude price runup.
    Third, if the war effort is costing more than 200 billion dollars, it would take decades to recoup that through either cheaper oil or just stealing it outright. Do the math. It would have been simpler to take 200 billion and subsidize half the price of petrol in the US for the next 20 years.
    The oil factor is there in the form of supply continuity going forward, but not as a direct short term cheaper oil motivation.
    David

  30. David
    “national producers like Saudi Aramco, Venezuela, and so on. They are the ones making a killing on the crude price runup.”
    What your evidences for this?
    This not right, Aramco Yes in Saudi Arabia but it not in the hand of Saudi as you think, you tried to convinced the readers, the fact is US control Aramco in such way!, the bigger international sellers of oil to the pumps are Mobile, Texaco, and few other US oil cartel of companies also Shell (UK, Dutch) you can dined this fact.
    In all of this you and other try to put the blame on the Arab countries with the charging the west and playing with the life of the western but THIS IS WRONG, I would like to clear some points about the oil from ME specially from Arab countries to the readers they hear again same story for decades about the oil
    1- the oil its a material for export, all the Arab countries exporting to the world to gain money that their right this is like other countries export the technology and other materials but the greediness and political factors in the west used to manipulated the public views and used this as key point to accused the Arab of irresponsible behaviour toward the west, which not right, normally when we talk to people like David , they recall 1973 oil crises in my view nothing wrong done at that time, like these days US use the sanctions by stopping exporting Aids, Military and Technology to some countries, US use this tool to put pressure on these countries to be in tune with US polices, so what and why its wrong from the Arab to use the only product they had to support their demands? In fact in the end of the day the oil went through to the west but you know what

  31. David notes
    “the war effort is costing more than 200 billion dollars, it would take decades to recoup that through either cheaper oil or just stealing it outright. Do the math”
    The US currently imports about 12 billion barrels of oil per year. This is roughly 60% of its consumption and the figure is increasing every year as demand continues to grow and domestic production gradually declines. At $50/barrel, the value of these imports is $600 billion/year.
    The Bush administration is not happy with this and has recently stated that it would like oil to be priced at $25/barrel. But how could that be achieved? The only way is by increasing production worldwide. Bush & company have consistently been pushing for an expansion of oil production, particularly in the Middle East. This is certainly what they they would like to see in Iraq.
    As Bush’s chief economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, told the WSJ in 2002, “When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.” He was way off the mark, but this was certainly part of the plan.

  32. David, Patrick
    “The US pays international prices for the oil it buys, except for some arrangement with the Saudis where the US paid one dollar less per barrel”
    “the war effort is costing more than 200 billion dollars, it would take decades to recoup that through either cheaper oil or just stealing it outright. Do the math”
    I keep saying for along time the Americans military bases in Saudi, Kuwaiti Qatar whatever cost paid by the hostile countries, just today the prove came in Alhayat Newspaper that the Kuwaitis government like to review the defence agreement with US signed after the 1991, one of the key point is FREE OIL SUPPLIES TO US TROOPS during Iraq Invasion! Not surprised me I knew and all the Arabs citizens knew.
    So I am convinced and totally rejected your calculations for the cost that US pay, if there is cost as you put believe me US tax payer will opposed and most of the politicians will objected any move and sent troops to ME, but the reality is the benefits to US it

  33. To bring up the unmentionable Nixon *had* to withdraw from SE Asia because of an increasingly demoralized militry. The left got him reelected with incredible margins despite Wallace taking the far right vote. Looking at people going to parades organized by Stalinist Answer etc. one again assumes that as in all things the left works to hold up the status quo by creating an absurd “opposition” (for example playing good massa to non whites while mocking “rednecks” and “crackers” to discourage unity along class lines) however the American people in this case represented by the military will imperfectly correct serious mistakes. Of course they pay the dues and the “idealists” take the credit. But the left in this country is a tool for elites.

  34. Dear Salah,
    I have no quarrel with your position. My remarks were directed at David who did not, in fact, appear to have done the math.
    The US government is particularly concerned about high oil prices. They would like to see them cut in half. There is considerable evidence to show that they hoped for Iraq to substantially increase its production following the overthrow of Saddam. This was one of the objectives of the war. It is clear now that they have failed in this regard.
    One of the first priorities of the Bush administration was to see world oil production increase in order to drive down the price and avoid shortages. This is obvious if one looks at internal documents like the Baker Institute Study #15 of April 2001 which was commissioned by the Bush administration in preparation of the National Energy Strategy of May 2001. I would be happy to send a pdf of this document to anyone who may be interested.

  35. “I find that the American public is still supporting the operation at an incredible high level.”
    yes, it is surprising that Americans have the stomach to keep their kids in harms way of people taught to believe that it is the work of the Lord to blow up Shiite mosques in Iraq or Pakistan, backpackers in Bali, commuters in Madrid, schoolchildren in Russia, firefighters in New York, girls schools in Afghanistan, behead foreign volunteer humanitarian aid workers in Baghdad, etc…

  36. Dear Patrick
    First I apologies if my words in such way was hard or some sort.
    The oil in ME is the long going battle, I knew very well what

  37. as John Tierney wrote in today’s New York Times…
    “Even before the war, American military costs in the Persian Gulf were much greater than the value of all the oil it was getting from the region.”

  38. “the value of all the oil it was getting from the region”
    Then Why are there? can he tell us?

  39. Patrick,
    The numbers don’t add up. If the US stole the entire pre-war (which was higher than post war) production, let’s say of 4MBO as you indicate, and assuming that the benefit of said theft would be about 20 per barrel (price-production costs) the US would be saving 4Million*20*365 dollars per year, that would be 29 billion dollars per year. A losing proposition. The US is spending way more than that in Iraq per year. You can tweak the assumptions around, you are still an order of magnitude from break even.
    David

  40. Salah,
    You can find many sources for the nationalized vs. multi-national production ratios and ownership of mineral rights. The ones I have consulted recently are papers published in the Foreign Affairs Journal (www.foreignaffairs.com) and the annual report of Chevron. Saudi Aramco is a Saudi company; it may do joint projects with the multinationals but the ownership of the resources is Saudi. Similarly in Venezuela where Chavez is even reneging on existing contracts and repricing the resources.
    The runup in oil prices is a boon for producers like Saudi Arabia and Iran at the expense of thirld world countries with no oil. For them it is a devastating tax. Paradoxically the only saving grace for small countries has been the devaluation of the American dollar mitigating a bit the impact of the oil rise when measured in their local currency.
    The cost of producing a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia was around 3 dollars, so the price increase was a major boost to their bottom line.
    Finally, you have seen the princes, sheiks, and mullahs get together in Vienna regularly as a cartel to agree on quotas and prices. Cartels are illegal in the US and most western economies, but somehow these clowns don’t get bad PR out of their price fixing anymore than they get from the prostitutes that entertain them in their European journeys, away from their Kohran’s and their four respective wives.
    David
    PS: The prostitution angle is not in the journals but was covered 18 months ago by National Public Radio.

  41. Some people will insist that oil drives American foreign policy in the face of all logic that oil is a commodity and it matters little in terms of price or supply whether it emanates from countries led by Saddam, Qadaffi, Chavez, Crown Prince Abdullah, Bondevik (Norway), the mullahs of Iran, Putin, whomever.

  42. David,
    As reported by the BBC on March 17, the US had “a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq’s oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq’s oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.”
    Oil is a fungible material with a worldwide market. That means that even if the US consumed zero ME oil, what it pays for oil is nevertheless profoundly affected by ME oil production. Creating a glut by adding a few million barrels per day of Iraqi oil to the market would greatly lower oil prices and have a major impact on the US because it imports such large volumes (12 billion barrels/year).
    The neocon plan was a crazy one and it has since been abandoned. For one thing, they did not reckon that it will take a long time to increase Iraqi oil production (it may never happen), and that consumption by Iraqis will also increase, leaving less to export.

  43. Sorry, I had my units mixed up. So a correction: the US imports about 4.4 billion barrels/year (about 12 million barrels/day). At $50/barrel this costs the US $220 billion/year. I believe it is the largest component of the US trade deficit.

  44. “Some people will insist that oil drives American foreign policy . . .”
    -wmpoole
    You know, it was not long ago at all that the U.S. was very up front about its “strategic” interests in the ME, which was clearly understood to mean keeping control of the oil supply in friendly hands. As I recall (maybe someone can help me with a quotation), Bush Sr. cited this strategic concern as a primary justification for Gulf War I. Only in the Orwellian administration of Bush Jr. – where anything that smacks of truth and reason must be suppressed – has this become a taboo subject.

  45. Patrick,
    Now we agree, the oil angle is a strategic and supply continuity reason, not a direct “get my hands on somebody else’s oil”. Your US imported consumption numbers were wrong, they exceeded even the total consumption (domestic+imported), but that is immaterial when at the time of the invasion the key parameters were limited Iraq capacity, and barrel around $30. The neocons maybe ruthless but they are not stupid nor novices in the oil industry.
    1) If the plan was secret, how come it was reported in the BBC?
    2) Didn’t they know the massive investment it takes to ratchet up Iraq’s production to a level that can break a cartel? Wouldn’t that take a decade or more? C. Rice knows this stuff.
    3) Didn’t they witness Venezuela lose a price war against the Saudis in the late 90s?
    4) If the benefit is a price reduction to the entire market it would take even longer to recoup the US cost of the war. Literally decades. Maybe this global benefit is why the Japanese are helping in Iraq with their 600 troops and their customary donation of Sony walkmans.
    I think John C. summarized this issue the best, and he is right in that it maybe simpler to put the cards on the table, both on the reasons for the US being there, and on the often veiled relationship with the Saudis.
    David

  46. David,
    Perhaps we can agree. Look the neocon plan made no sense – I agree with this. But there are very good reasons to believe that it existed. Of course, it’s not secret any more, but it was in 2003. The information was reveal to the BBC two years later by a former CIA energy analyst, Robert Ebel, who now works for CSIS in Washington. He apparently had first hand knowledge of these matters. The neocons also grossly miscalculated in a number of other matters, including on the cost of the war and the reception the US presence would enjoy in Iraq.
    Of course, there are the broader stategic considerations that John alludes to and these are undoubtedly more important in the long term. The US goal has always been to maintain its hegemony in the ME and to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon.

  47. Incidentally, where would the neocons get the idea the Iraqi oil production could be increased rapidly? They were told so in the April 2001 report commissioned from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute.
    The blue ribbon panel of experts stated “Like it or not, Iraqi (oil) reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.

  48. if tapping into the Iraqi oil reserves were so vital a strategic goal and the REAL reason for the Iraqi war, why wouldn’t China or India – whose consumption of oil is expanding at a far faster rate than America or Europe – be leading members of the Coalition of the Willing?
    reading some posts here reminds one that Marxism is not dead by a long shot.

  49. “be leading members of the Coalition of the Willing?
    reading some posts here reminds one that Marxism is not dead by a long shot.”
    They are not COWBOYS….

  50. I don’t think its meaningful to speak of a REAL reason for the war. There are long term and proximate objectives. The former are more important. They were to forcefully assert US hegemony in the ME. The neocons see domination of the ME as the lynchpin of US global domination.
    There were also short term objectives – like the complete privatisation of Iraq’s state owned industries and oil fields, increasing oil production, the things I mentioned above. Some of these objectives have been abandoned – they were pretty crazy. However, the goal of enforcing US hegemony in the ME has not been abandoned. Neither has the goal of permanent US military bases which is important for this purpose.
    The US foreign policy community is really worried that failure in Iraq will lead to a collapse of US power and influence in the region. This was evident in this LA Times OP-ED published from about a year ago:
    http://cfdev.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/isd/Board_Pickering_Keep_Iraq_Above_Politics.cfm
    “Disengagement from Iraq would also represent a monumental policy failure for the United States, with a attendant loss of US credibility, power and influence in the region and the world”

  51. Meanwhile, back at the war, things are not going well for the new Iraqi army. What a surprise. I must say, the sheer incompetence of the new “government” surpasses even my low expectations. Of course, one also has to question the thinking of U.S. military commanders who presumably signed off on this reckless plan to put all the new recruits in a big circle around Baghdad.
    What will they think of next???

  52. For me there is no suppresses what the new government outcome and US miserable plane and behaviour in managing Iraq after the war.
    lets take on example we all remember the 55 play card that represent US most wanted men, 33 of 55 are SHIA’A, US start up its plan by dividing the society most Iraqi pull their support(if in reality they had) from the invaders, but Bremer insisted to form his plan to play by divided Kurd, shia’a and Sunni, obviously its telling Iraqis US came in to play a bad game.
    The problem US not learning from their mistakes instead they carry on using massive power and using A Salvador style ugly civil war scenario.
    There is no doubt that US talks to the wrong people before the war and after.

  53. Thanks to all contributors for this open thread, it has developed in a very focused and useful way. I agree with your summary Patrick. wmpooles question about China and India support is another intruguing branch for this thread I venture to explore.
    Pre-war it would have been wise to declare Iraq in compliance and remove the sanctions regime as be the most expeditious way to increased oil production. Saddam’s previous partners (in terms of contracts) would naturally prefer this outcome as they would benefit doubly. The US would benefit through cheaper oil prices if it weren’t for the OPEC cartel curtailing production to negate the benefit of increased supplies. This route would have led to increased supplies, but similar or worse stability of suppliers.
    Post war some of the other players (China and India) would consider helping vs. standing on the side. Realistically, for most partners, their partcipation does not increase the chance of success, so they might as well let the US do the dirty work and stay out. India hid under the excuse of lack of domestic support for the mission, Spain used the election to run away from its token effort. I don’t think that China is ideologically prepared to do anything with the US other than stuffing the shelves of WalMarts with cheap stuff.
    In my humble opinion US politicians don’t realize that the job outsourcing phenomenon gives them great leverage to demand Indian help. It would be really simple to retort to Indian decision makers that unless they help, there is no domestic US support for a sustained model of US youngsters going to Iraq while American jobs go India. US politicians may not see this, or maybe their corporate agendas don’t let them do the right thing for they voters.
    David

  54. If “OIL” were the reason for the US invasion of Iraq , the US would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead. Saudi Arabia has more oil. Or perhaps Iran.
    Oil is involved. But you cannot seriously argue simply that the reason for the war is “Oil”, without further explanation.
    Oil money enables the Saudis to export Islam and live in ease. Oil money enables Iran to build nukes, support Hizbollah and spread their Islamic Revolution. Oil money enabled Saddam Hussein to build his military. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and Kuwait. It became clear that Saddam was using the oil money to build a military machine. Saddam had spent a lot of time and money on building nuclear weapons in previous decades. Saddam had to go, and war with the US was probably inevitable. Saddams military machine was not for deterrence, but for attack.
    Even you argue the war in Iraq is wrong, the reason for it was military, not economic. And it was not primarily an attempt to spread democracy by force, although if that works it will benefit the US by instituting a less war-like government.
    For most of the left, the argument that the invasion of Iraq was “For oil” is just a way of saying that the war was motivated by greed, and therefore wrong. It is a moral indictment and not an attempt at serious analysis. The left hates the US so much it will embrace fascism.
    A US departure now will give power to the insurgents who are murdering guest workers for being foreigners, blowing up mosques, funerals, and traffic jams. These are the insurgents who are simply murdering Iraqi doctors for being doctors. They are not patriots, do-gooders or pan-Arabists. The insurgents hate democracy and have deep ethnic and religious hostility to Shiites, Christians and Hindus. You can argue that the blame would lie with George Bush but the blame would also lie with a premature withdrawal and those who push for it.
    We do not know whether the number of people Saddam would have murdered had he been left in charge in Iraq would have been greater than the number killed in the current war plus the number to be killed by the new government. But we know the insurgency is increasing that death toll drastically by direct attack and by prolonging the combat phase of the regime change. The head-choppers and Zarqawis must not be allowed to destroy the democracy that is being created in Iraq. The blue-fingered Iraqis know this and bravely turned out in massive numbers to give themselves this chance. Only the left, in love with fascism, is clueless.

Comments are closed.