Completing the Mission in Iraq

by: T.J. Buonomo

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 00:06:02 AM EST


( - promoted by Chris LeJeune)

As the U.S. military prepares to begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq in substantial numbers following the upcoming national elections, many questions remain concerning the political, economic and security status of the country.

Politically, Iraq remains significantly divided on the issue of Sunni integration into the government and military as well as how much autonomy the Kurds should have, particularly in the area of energy investment and export policies. Kirkuk stands out as the most obvious potential fault line for conflict but the complexities of the situation extend far beyond this contested territory.

Economically, Iraq remains beholden to foreign debtors and, according to most accounts, will need to depend on foreign investors for the technological expertise needed to increase its energy production capacity to optimum levels.  Among Iraqis however, the idea of international oil companies returning to Iraq is widely greeted with deep suspicion and in some circles with militant hostility given the companies' history of exploitation.  

International oil companies can play a positive role in bringing stability to the country by increasing revenue that can be used for economic development.  Without proper oversight from interested governments however, Iraq is likely to end up in a similar situation as Nigeria, where official corruption and environmental impunity on the part of international oil companies has resulted in an insurgency that has succeeded in cutting up to 25% of oil production in the country.

U.S. officials and their counterparts in Europe, Russia, China and Japan should be pressed to support greater transparency and parliamentary oversight of the contract negotiations.  Oil comprises over 90% of the Iraqi national budget and therefore it cannot be left to a small handful of cabinet officials, largely insulated from the Iraqi public, to sign contracts with foreign companies without oversight from the legislature.  The current contest of wills between officials in the two branches of government will set an important precedent for the future.  

Ultimately, pressure from the citizens of foreign nations including the United States will be critical to ensuring that a positive example is set rather than a policy of expedience in the area of energy investments.  Given the great sacrifices they have made to bring security and stability to Iraq, and given the great suffering of the Iraqi people over the past 7 years of military occupation, veterans have a stake, a right, and a duty to ensure  that the sacrifices of all are honored by the businessmen who are now seeking to enter Iraq's opening markets.  

For historical reference and current information visit:

http://sovereigniraq.wordpress...
T.J. Buonomo :: Completing the Mission in Iraq
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Completing the Mission in Iraq | 33 comments
Well, Halliburton Cheney, Chevron Condi, Hunt,yada Bush even with (4.00 / 1)
their buddy Chalabi as Oil Minister never got the PSA signed, the Kirkuk Question settled, or a drop of Iraqi oil.

First oil bid went to BP-Brits and CNPC-China with China getting the biggest share.  Lukoil-Russia has contracts. I see the latest contract has been awarded to Angola's Sonagol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/843...

Looks like the US has very, very little influence in the area  of energy investments. How much influence will 50,000 non-combat troops staying after this year have?  I am curious if Obama really meant that all US troops would come out of Iraq in the SOTU speech tonight or if it was a slip of the tongue.

My thoughts are that the best we can hope for is one, that Iraqis are hired to do the work and don't get pushed aside for imported labor. And second, that the gauges on the pipelines are accurate and secure so that the Iraqis get paid for every bit of crude that is pumped.

AMEN!! (0.00 / 0)
Well said!

But no matter, and I hope I'm wrong, what happens forward the next year or so we destroyed that Pandora's box and without the regional, which the previous admin should have done after they royally screwed up by even invading it, help coming together honestly, there will be strife for the coming years until the world powers once again force, as they did with Saddam, another dangerous dictator in.

I have minimal faith the region nor the Iraqi's will come together, we helped create way to many more hatreds, but like I said, I Hope I'm Wrong!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

[ Parent ]
State and Private War Contractors: Iraq (0.00 / 0)
State following previous admins failed oversite of In-Country Private Contractors but have caught some problems getting reimbursements and are adding the numbers to do better oversite needed.

Audit faults State for failing to monitor Iraq contract

The State Department failed to adequately oversee a massive contract for training the Iraqi police force, putting the award at risk of waste and fraud, according to an audit released on Monday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Initially, State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) designated just one in-country contracting officer representative to monitor the $2.5 billion deal, the report stated. That official approved every invoice submitted by the primary contractor, DynCorp International Inc. of Falls Church, Va., without questioning the accuracy, auditors found.

"As a result, INL has no confidence in the accuracy of payments of more than $1 billion to DynCorp and is reconciling 100 percent of DynCorp's historical invoices related to Iraq," the IG stated. "However, personnel shortages, high error rates on invoices, and poor or missing support documentation have delayed the reconciliation process."

Snip

Johnson argued that more than 19 percent of invoices the contractor submitted have been rejected, saving taxpayers nearly $9 million.

Snip

By November 2009, there were three contract monitors in Iraq for the police training work; State said it soon plans to boost that figure to 11.........>>>>>

Didn't see anything about the actual loss of Billions, still not found, but hey the report is 42 pages long. But I'm sure the researcher would have mentioned that in a written report on.

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

Excellent diary (0.00 / 0)
Looking at the political make up of Iraq (every political party currently serving in the Iraqi government originated in Iran) I fully expect them to nationalize their oil just like every other country in that region has done.  The top 17 biggest "oil companies" are nation-states.  PM Maliki and Ahmadinejad are close friends with a long history together.  If you want to see what Iraq's next energy move is going to be, watch Iran.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
I think you are overestimating Iran's influence. (0.00 / 0)
Granted, we largely have ourselves to blame for Iran's influence in Iraq. During the Iraqi election cycle, Iran was pumping upwards of 11 million a month into their candidates and we did absolutely nothing.

We have also failed to support the Shia on numerous occasions which in turn pushes them closer to Iran.

Of course, Iran-Iraq also waged quite a nasty little war against one another back in the 80s and I can assure you that that war is still fresh in the minds of many Iraqis. The Iranians also happen to be Persians and most of the Iraqi Shia are Arabs. The Iraqi Sunnis clearly don't like the Iranians and I don't think the Kurds are that thrilled with them either.

Having said all of that, the ultimate loser in all of this is likely to be Saudi Arabia, which would be a good thing except for the fact that many in DC are clinging to ridiculous notions that Saudi influence is preferable to Iranian influence. Who was it that attacked the US homeland again? Besides, put Sunni Islamism on the canvas and Iran might, just might start losing a lot of influence in the region.  


[ Parent ]
I think you are underestimating Iran's influence. (0.00 / 0)
And yes, most of the Iraqis do blame America for Iran's expanded influence there.  Not only did we fail to support the Iraqi Shia, we actively worked against them.  And though many of the Iraqis do remember the Iran-Iraq conflict quite well, those who are currently serving in the Iraqi government remember it from the opposite point of view. Maliki and most of the UIA were in Iran at the time.  Also remember that the largest Sunni political party in Iraq doesn't like us very much and probably wouldn't be willing to work with us much on oil deals.

Like I said, if you want to see what Iraq is going to do next, just watch Iran.    

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
I could be (0.00 / 0)
But given the nature of Arab politics, I am inclined to think that Iran's influence is somewhat overestimated. Were the mutual interests of Iran and Iraq to start disappearing, I think the dynamics of their relationship would change drastically. For that matter, I could see the same thing happening with Iran and Syria.

Only time will tell.

[ Parent ]
Here ya' go Chris (0.00 / 0)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/b...

http://www.worldbulletin.net/n...

http://english.aljazeera.net/n...

Just a note on Dutch Royal Shell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

And a little bit about Putin, Medvedev, and GAZPROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

The PSA, Production Sharing Agreements are going forward while the Iraq Constitution is considered vague on the issue. Both the North and the South are the oil rich areas creating a Shi'ite-Kurd conflict on this issue.

It is my understanding that the question is do the revenues go directly to the central government with redistribution, hopefully equitably. to the provinces or does it go first to the oil rich provinces who then support the central government. Are the Kurds and the Iraq Oil Ministry issuing PSAs independently?
Perhaps, T.J. could discuss the status of these negotiations.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

And for the record, I'm looking for some protection from Too-big-to-fail Banks, Big Oil, Big PhRMA,Big Insurance, Big Business Lobbyists, BigYadas, Big Energy with some reasonable regulations right here in the good ole USA.

;

No (0.00 / 0)
U.S. officials and their counterparts in Europe, Russia, China and Japan should be pressed to support greater transparency and parliamentary oversight of the contract negotiations.  Oil comprises over 90% of the Iraqi national budget and therefore it cannot be left to a small handful of cabinet officials, largely insulated from the Iraqi public, to sign contracts with foreign companies without oversight from the legislature.  The current contest of wills between officials in the two branches of government will set an important precedent for the future.  

We should push ahead with the oil deals. It will take years for all of the corruption in the Iraqi government to get straightened out, if it happens at all. At the same end, the idea of getting Russia and China to support greater transparency is not exactly feasibly. The Russians and Chinese are going to push ahead for their own interests whether we like it or not. Delaying our pursuit of interests is likely to accomplish nothing, save ensure that the Russians and Chinese achieve more of their aims while we achieve less of ours.

Besides, tapping into Iraq's oil reserves would likely diminish Saudi Arabia's influence in the world and could put us in a better position to deal with the Saudi problem. Why would we want to delay that?

Besides, the sooner


Continuation of above (0.00 / 0)
Besides, the sooner the Saudi problem is dealt with, the easier it will be to actually engage in the reconstruction of Iraq. I mean the Saudis did more than anyone else to sabotage Iraqi reconstruction and I see no reason why they will not continue to engage in such behavior.  
[ Parent ]
I agree with you, Fred (0.00 / 0)

It will take years for all of the corruption in the Iraqi government to get straightened out, if it happens at all.

I think what we have now is as good as it's going to get, but it may get worse.  At the same time, the Iraqi government sees any private company that provides the same services as the government as stealing.  So, in their mind, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. would be stealing from them since they already have a government drilling program in place.  If we push forward with oil deals as they are (without regard to private companies) we will be seeing rewards much faster than if we waited and tried to get our cake and eat it too.

And Russia has beaten us to the punch on most of these deals, especially cement, concrete, gravel, and other such programs.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Chris, Iraq has ALREADY had open bidding from "private" foreign contractors for (0.00 / 0)
access to Iraqi Oil Fields. Many of the contracts are already signed, sealed and delivered. The first contracts were bid in 09Aug. [see my comment with links above]

The Iraqis keep 'ownership of the oil', but contractors bid for the right to 'drill, baby, drill'. These contractors receive a specific amount per barrel from the sale of the crude.

The question that T.J. has brought up is the transparency of the bidding process for these contracts.

""""""'
Just a footnote for Fred. The oil fields are in the Kurdish and Shi'ite regions of Iraq, leaving the Sunni's as the poor relatives dependent on revenue sharing.

From my understanding, the way that the revenue is handled splits the Kurds and Shi'ites.

Chris, you might find googling "Hunt Oil Kurdistan" interesting.

[ Parent ]
Right, private contractors have been given the license to drill (0.00 / 0)
But only to drill.  The oil itself is still nationalized.  Also, the Iraqi workforce that is doing the actual work is employed by the Iraqi government.  The Russian cement contracts and Iranian power substation contracts went the same way.  The only point that I'm trying to make is that this is probably going to be as good as it gets.  The transparent bidding process, fair profit sharing among private companies, and a free market oil enterprise in Iraq will all be delivered by the Easter Bunny.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Somewhat related (0.00 / 0)
Good article, TJ, on the many challenges in wrapping up Iraq.  I won't get into the oil aspect, but here's another issue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Can this person be serious?  With two fronts of active fighting going on, a military stretched thin, and OPSTEMPO in the red, can this curmudgeon come back to Planet Earth?  Does anyone agree that military spending should be frozen?

This applies to the meat of the article -- it's going to take a significant amount of funding to finish stabilizing Iraq, not to mention our introduction of more troops in AFGH.

I completely agree (4.00 / 1)
There is still a lot of work just related to leaving Iraq that has not been funded.  In addition to that, we don't even know what challenges lay ahead in Afghanistan.  Our own intelligence sources have stated that.  And aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, we also have rising issues in the Niger Delta, Djibouti, and targeted costs of maintaining our airbase in Kyrgyzstan.  To freeze defense spending would be insane.  But I don't think that was what Pelosi was requesting.

FTA:


But the Speaker drew a sharp line between support for the troops, and support for military contractors. She said men and women in uniform should not be subject to a freeze, but that "I don't think that we have to protect military contractors."

"And I want to make that distinction very clearly," Pelosi continued. "I do not think the entire defense budget should be exempted."

"We want them to have everything they need," Pelosi said of military forces abroad and their families. "But we do not support an entitlement program for overruns in defense contracting," she quickly added, noting millions could be saved if lawmakers ensured Defense contracts did not overshoot spending targets.  



"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Quickie reply... (0.00 / 0)
Again, I don't think she's talking about freezing the defense budget - just finding ways we can be more efficient.

Maybe, maybe not.  But your point about "efficiency" is spot-on.  There's too damn much overlap, miscommunication, and waste still going on!  But in a big organization like the DOD, perhaps it's an unsolvable problem.

[ Parent ]
I thought she was very specific about separating "military contractors" (0.00 / 0)
and their cost over-runs from the budget for the Troops.

I also recall the scrapping of the F-22 and new helicopters for Obama from the 09 Defense Budget.

Maybe we don't need to be paying for R&D for robotic mules, when real mules would be cheaper, available and have many advantages. Hopefully, we didn't buy ADE-651s from ATSC and will get more high quality food to the dogs we are using in Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
From the same article: (0.00 / 0)

A March 2009 GAO report found that the Pentagon's 96 largest weapon acquisition programs had cost overruns of $296 billion and were on average 22 months behind schedule. Those cost overruns exceed the salaries and health care costs for the entire military for the two full years.

Again, I don't think she's talking about freezing the defense budget - just finding ways we can be more efficient.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
deMeme, thanks for the Hunt Oil tip, interesting indeed (4.00 / 1)

#
A Congressional committee concluded in early July, 2008, that Hunt Oil, an oil company with close ties to President Bush, was encouraged by the State Department to sign deals with the government of Kurdistan, despite strong opposition from Iraq's central government. Hunt Oil was the first company to sign a deal with Kurdistan, and did so before a comprehensive oil plan for Iraq had been decided upon in Baghdad.The New York Times: Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal (July 3, 2008)2
#
Hunt Oil's Deal
According to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Henry Waxman, the Bush administration allowed the oil deal to proceed despite concerns that it could undermine efforts by the Iraqi government to craft a comprehensive oil resources plan for the struggling nation.The New York Times: Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal (July 3, 2008)2 Ray L. Hunt, Hunt Oil's chief executive, is a member of President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a key fundraiser for the Republican Party.The Washington Post: Bush Officials Condoned Regional Iraqi Oil Deal (July 3, 2008)1


"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
Risking TMI, I thought you might find these two articles of interest about (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
transparency and parliamentary oversight of the oil negotiations (4.00 / 1)
The main focus of my blog was on transparency and parliamentary oversight of the oil negotiations as well as on why veterans should support this.  

I agree that it would be difficult to get China and Russia to support diplomatic initiatives in this direction but I think such initiatives are still important, worthy and ultimately in America's self-interest.  

I say this because Iraqis expect U.S. officials to pursue the same short-sighted foreign economic policies that the British empire pursued when Iraq was under its control.  The resentment this has bred, examining the historical record, is not in America's self-interest to provoke.  All it can lead to is further political instability and repeated outside intervention, with the great price in blood and resources which that will entail.

We as a country and most especially you as combat veterans have sacrificed too much to settle for an inherently unstable political situation in which a handful of elites are able to siphon off profits from the contracts they sign with international oil companies, with no real oversight or accountability.  

Chinese and Russian officials may be cynical enough to engage in such short-sighted collaboration with Iraqi elites but I'd like to think that we would have enough foresight and understanding of history to be willing to experiment with a new direction in policy.  If it failed then we would have to bow to the current realities of international politics but why not at least attempt to refine the rules of the game first?  

There is reason to expect that we would be rewarded for doing so.  The Iraqi judiciary is currently reviewing a legal challenge put forward by a member of the legislature claiming that the executive branch has no authority to sign contracts without parliamentary approval.  While I don't think it is reasonable for the legislature to approve all contracts given the immediate need for economic growth, there should be some measure of parliamentary oversight in general, with perhaps an increasing degree of authority over contracts which are longer term in nature and which would allow foreign control over production levels and pricing.  

If U.S. diplomats signaled their support for greater parliamentary oversight of contracts of this nature it would certainly be welcomed by the Iraqi public and would contribute to the gradual establishment of trust and goodwill between the U.S. and Iraq as our military forces transition out over the next 18 months.  

You all have a stake in this.  We're not Russia or China.  We do have vital strategic interests in the Middle East but the affirmation and practice of democratic principles in our foreign conduct furthers the national interest and is critical to  our successful investment in foreign energy markets.  


foreign investment in Iraq and current constitutional debate (0.00 / 0)
For a brief background on the history of foreign investment in Iraq's oil and the current constitutional debate over who has the power to approve contracts, please see the links below:

http://sovereigniraq.wordpress...

http://sovereigniraq.wordpress...


[ Parent ]
Problem with Russia and China (0.00 / 0)
is that it is not in the interests of Russia and China to encourage transparency and democratic values regarding Iraq's oil. At the same end, we don't have any real diplomatic leverage with regards to China and Russia. If anything, China has the leverage on us.

In theory, encouraging transparency would make sense. In practice, encouraging transparency and democratic values would lead to delay, delay that would not stop Russia and China from beating us to the punch. If Russia and China beat us to the punch, it would be even harder to push for democratic values and transparency later. For that matter, Iran could easily get even more involved.

That and if we don't deal with Iraqi elites now, it means we have to deal with Saudi elites that much longer. The Saudis elites are far nastier and exploitiative than the Iraqi elites and pose a serious threat to our national security.

Lastly, we are not the British. We do not intend to colonize Iraq nor do we have the history of Imperialism that the British do. Besides, the true economic exploiters of the Arabs are the Arabs themselves.


[ Parent ]
changing the rules of the game vis a vis rival states (0.00 / 0)
We don't necessarily need direct diplomatic leverage with Russia or China to strengthen transparency in Iraq.  It's more important to set the example with the Iraqis and thereby exert indirect political pressure on rival nations to play the game by a cleaner set of rules.  

Your implicit assumption is that the Iraqi elites currently in power (Maliki, Sharistani, etc.) have control over the oil industry but this is not at all clear.  The unions exert a powerful influence and they are in favor of parliamentary oversight and whatever other mechanisms are necessary to safeguard Iraqi national assets, oil in particular.  And although I don't have the intelligence sources to claim to be an authority on the Iraqi military, I have studied enough of Iraqi history to know that it traditionally has been a bastion of nationalist sentiment despite the attempts of outside powers to maintain influence over it.  

Maliki is in fact fairly vulnerable on this issue and it would not be wise to side with advocates of unchecked executive power in the area of foreign economic affairs.

If China and Russia want to play a dirty game with Iraqi elites their oil workers and businessmen are going to be the target of insurgent attacks the same way ours have been over the past seven years.  

In response to your last point, the British did not colonize Iraq for the same reasons that we are not colonizing it: it is unnecessary (why rule the country yourself when you can set up local elites to do it?); it would be too costly, both militarily and in terms of domestic politics; and it is too difficult in the modern era, especially to a nation which has already been colonized and which is in the 21st century much more educated and therefore politically formidable.

America, as Niall Ferguson (an advocate of empire) says, is an empire in denial.  I recommend Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Kinzer, et al. for more on that subject.  

Finally, Arab exploitation of their fellow Arabs is no excuse for American conduct of the same nature.  Let's be true to our values or self-acknowledged imperialists, but not self-deluded hypocrites.  

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
the British propped up the minority Sunnis in Iraq. As things are now, we have democracy in action in Iraq. Far from perfect democracy, but what do we expect in a region that his little or no history of democratic values?

That and it would be rather difficult to argue that we propped up the current government, due to the facts that the majority(Shia, Kurds) are well represented in the current Iraqi government. At the same end, most of the Shiite bloc appears to be closer to Iran than the US at the moment, which would be highly unlikely if they were our hand picked elites. In fact, I would say we went out of our way not to have what could be classified as US hand picked elites, a decision which led to Iran having vastly increased influence in Iraq.

If China and Russia want to play a dirty game with Iraqi elites their oil workers and businessmen are going to be the target of insurgent attacks the same way ours have been over the past seven years.  

I doubt that. The overwhelming majority of attacks on Iraqi infrastructure, aid workers, and businessmen were perpetrated by Baathists, AQI, criminal gangs, and foreign entities which are hardly motivated by nationalism. I mean the quickest way to sabotage a democracy is through the creation of chaos, fear, and engaging in economic sabotage, and  it was not in the interests of the Baathists, Sunni Islamists, or Iraq's neighbors to have a semi-democratic, reasonably stable Iraq.

Besides, the Arabs understand brute force very well and know that neither China nor Russia will hesitate to use such force if their interests are attacked. That and for indirect pressure to encourage Russia and China to play by cleaner rules, I would think that Russia and China would have to actually understand what clean rules are. Judging from the way business is done in Russia and China, I am inclined to say that they do not, which would effectively make inderect pressure ineffective.

Finally, Arab exploitation of their fellow Arabs is no excuse for American conduct of the same nature.  Let's be true to our values or self-acknowledged imperialists, but not self-deluded hypocrites.  

How would we be doing that? We would simply be buying the oil and the Iraqi government would be doing what they will with the money. The alternative that you are proposing could easily be construed as meddling in internal Iraqi government affairs.

Besides, I think TE Lawrence put it best:  

Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly

The Iraqis are going to have to figure this one out for themselves.


[ Parent ]
a limited historical review of the past seven years (0.00 / 0)
The Bush administration certainly did attempt to handpick it's elites but were essentially forced to bow to pragmatism after discovering that Ahmed Chalabi and company did not command the respect and authority they seem to have convinced their PNAC/AEI co-conspirators of.  Attempting to force the issue would likely have resulted in the loss of Sistani's support and the whole thing would have unravelled even worse than it did by 2006.  

Granted, they did try to ensure a more representative government but nevertheless, Iraqi suspicions of the Bush administration's motives were in general well-founded.  (Paul Bremer's economic decrees, which turned an already dysfunctional but workable Iraqi economy into a giant sucking wound, is perhaps the best case in point.)  These mixed motives, combined with the unnecessarily rushed manner in which the administration invaded Iraq, have resulted in an unnecessary level of American and Iraqi casualties and an exacerbation of hostilities between the U.S. and the Arab-Muslim world.  

Is your assertion regarding the motives of insurgent attacks on foreign business interests backed by intelligence?  The question of motive is a very interesting and important one which was generally dismissed or cynically distorted by such notable figures as then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (in a very 18th century British sort of way).  

Certainly, significant elements of the insurgency are (or were) comprised of former Ba'athists but their political association does not necessarily dictate loyalty to Saddam Hussein as a motive for fighting.  Labeling someone a Ba'athist was, for the administration, more convenient than acknowledging it's criminal incompetence and the socioeconomic devastation it caused.  (Wouldn't we be bombing Chinese military and economic targets if they did the same thing to our country?)

Concerning Al Qaeda, it is widely understood that it made up a very small, albeit significant part of the insurgency.  

Your statement that, "the Arabs understand brute force very well" is amusing despite it's somewhat racist undertones.  Who doesn't understand brute force?  If America ever goes under economically for any great length of time we will also internalize a culture of brute force.  There is nothing culturally deterministic about it; we have just had the good fortune of being able to maintain a relatively stable society.  

Lastly, there is nothing necessarily wrong with meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations so long as it is done judiciously, with a realistic expectation of successful outcome, and with the right motive.  The Bush administration unfortunately did not fulfill the first two criteria and the historical record related to the third is mixed.

 

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
For starters, no one would deny that major mistakes were made in Iraq. Failing to pull the trigger on Zarqawi's camp in 02 and DeBaathification are the two which come to my mind. Of course regime change in Iraq can hardly be chalked up to a Neocon conspiracy, as regime change in Iraq was a goal under the Clinton Administration as well. Although I am inclined to doubt that any picking of elites revolved around economic exploitation. It probably had more to do with the fact that instant Democracy does not work so well in the Arab world.

Is your assertion regarding the motives of insurgent attacks on foreign business interests backed by intelligence?  The question of motive is a very interesting and important one which was generally dismissed or cynically distorted by such notable figures as then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (in a very 18th century British sort of way).  

Yes. Tahwid wal Jihad was notorious for kidnapping Western contractors and aid workers, then slaughtering them in an effort to scare them away from the country. They were also involved in numerous attacks on the UN and various other NGOs. It would be nearly impossible to determine if like minded groups were behind every single attack, but they certainly were behind their fair share of attacks. They also routinely killed any Iraqis whom actually took jobs.  At the same end, it was not and is not in Iraq's neighbors' interests to see a semi-democratic, stable Iraq led by a Shiites majority. Thus far I'd say that the intelligence backs my theory.

Certainly, significant elements of the insurgency are (or were) comprised of former Ba'athists but their political association does not necessarily dictate loyalty to Saddam Hussein as a motive for fighting.

Yeah. We knew that already. Many of them had no real loyalty to Saddam. They were simply fighting to reestablish a dominant position which they enjoyed under Saddam. In fact, I'd be inclined to say they would have been more than happy w/o Saddam so long as they regained power. Granted, the drying up of the Baath party funding led some of them into AQI, as the funding void was filled by certain Gulf States that were much more inclined to financially support Sunni Islamist movements vice an insurgency that was secular in nature.

Your statement that, "the Arabs understand brute force very well" is amusing despite it's somewhat racist undertones.  Who doesn't understand brute force?

The current situation in the Middle East makes my point loud and clear. No racist undertones there. How did Saddam maintain order in Iraq? How does Assad maintain order in Syria? How do the House of Saud maintain power in Saudi Arabia? Given AQ's utter hatred of all of the Arab tyrannies and their desire to overthrow them, why have there been many, many more AQ attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan vice Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc? Not that AQ attacks never happen in those countries, but they are pretty rare. For that matter, why did the Russians not experience the same problems with kidnapping that many other nations did in Lebanon back in the 80s? Probably because brute force has a history of getting results in the Arab world, whereas rule of law and democratic values do not have a history of success in the Arab world.

Lastly, there is nothing necessarily wrong with meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations so long as it is done judiciously, with a realistic expectation of successful outcome, and with the right motive.

And we have a realistic expectation for success regarding pushing for democratic reforms and transparency through the use of soft power in the Middle East? I don't think so.


[ Parent ]
economic exploitation and instant democracy (0.00 / 0)
You wrote: "I am inclined to doubt that any picking of elites revolved around economic exploitation.  It probably had more to do with the fact that instant Democracy does not work so well in the Arab world."

That economic exploitation did not occur is not due to an absence of motive but rather a recognition of the political and military costs of attempting to pursue such policies.  Not that the administration didn't try.  The Iraqis the CPA appointed to the provisional government simply wouldn't comply, out of a mixture of national pride and sense of self-preservation.  Agreeing to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, which in practice would have meant handing it over to foreign companies given the exodus of Iraqi oil experts from the country, would have incited even greater political instability.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of the occupying power, where does instant democracy work?  Certainly not in the wake of a haphazardly planned military occupation.

 

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
That economic exploitation did not occur is not due to an absence of motive but rather a recognition of the political and military costs of attempting to pursue such policies.

Assuming that there was such a motive, the real question would be why. I am not convinced that the motive was necessarily a bad thing. If the motive was to curb our dependence on the Saudis and damage their standing in the World's oil market, then I would say that such a move would not be a bad thing at all. Of course it could be construed as exploitave, but given the nefarious influence of the Saudis as well as the threat they pose to our national security, I can't say I would disagree with such a decision.Granted the exploitation argument could be made, but I would be inclined to say that the average Iraqi's life would be better under such an agreement than was life under the UN sanctions.  Besides, I think the positives of getting out of bed with the Saudis would outweigh any negatives from such a policy. Saudi Arabia is the financial and ideological hub of al Qaida and getting out of our relationship with them would surely make us more popular with the Shia.

Of course such a thing never happened, which leaves what I just wrote a theory and nothing more.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of the occupying power, where does instant democracy work?  Certainly not in the wake of a haphazardly planned military occupation.

I don't think instant democracy would have worked in Iraq, with or without military action.

Granted, Iraq is 60-65 percent Shia and 15-20 percent Kurdish. At the same end, a large percentage of Iraq's Sunnis tend to be of the more secular variety. So in a way, it was highly unlikely that any attempt at importing democracy into Iraq would have been a complete failure.

Now were we to try importing democracy into Syria at this point, I am inclined to think that we would end up with something much, much worse than what we ended up with in Iraq.


[ Parent ]
theory and reality (0.00 / 0)
Assuming that there was such a motive, the real question would be why. I am not convinced that the motive was necessarily a bad thing. If the motive was to curb our dependence on the Saudis and damage their standing in the World's oil market, then I would say that such a move would not be a bad thing at all. Of course it could be construed as exploitave, but given the nefarious influence of the Saudis as well as the threat they pose to our national security, I can't say I would disagree with such a decision.

Greg Palast et al have reported extensively on the efforts of Pentagon officials to move Iraq policy in this direction in 2002-2003.  Their theory was that it would place the U.S. and its allies- namely Israel -in a more advantageous strategic position vis a vis OPEC but it proved disastrous in its attempted execution.  For one thing, the policy couldn't be concealed, and its discovery by the Iraqis and neighboring states eliminated any incentive to cooperate and provided every incentive to undermine U.S. stabilization efforts in Iraq.  

More fundamentally, the belief that an Iraq falling within the orbit of U.S. influence should be used to undermine OPEC by disregarding production quotas is a dangerous and arguably irresponsible one because the socioeconomic and political disruptions this would cause throughout the Middle East would result in even greater problems for the U.S.  

Better to pursue a patient and gradual policy of support for political and economic reform throughout the wider region, stop playing ridiculous diplomatic games with the Israelis, and narrow the scope of the sanctions to tighten the screws on Saddam while alleviating the burden on his people.  The necessary legal criteria for invasion were not fulfilled and therefore it shouldn't have taken place without Security Council approval or un-politicized intelligence to support a preemptive strike.  The Bush doctrine of preventive war was of all things the most serious threat to our national security.

Granted the exploitation argument could be made, but I would be inclined to say that the average Iraqi's life would be better under such an agreement than was life under the UN sanctions.  Besides, I think the positives of getting out of bed with the Saudis would outweigh any negatives from such a policy.

Your assumption is that a reversion back to foreign economic domination would be acceptable to the Iraqis.  History demonstrates, rather, that it would only result in another era of political instability and further socioeconomic retardation as a result.  Better to have pursued a more targeted sanctions regime and given Saddam enough rope to hang himself.  Instead, Bush and company saw their chance after September 11th and pounced on it, disregarding all warnings of the consequences.  The word 'poise' comes to mind.

[ Parent ]
What would be (0.00 / 0)
wrong with ending up in a better position to deal with OPEC? The Saudis are the kingpins of OPEC and being in a better position to deal with Saudi Arabia is hardly a bad thing. For that matter, undermining them is a good thing IMO.

Of course things didn't happen that way, but there were other motives for Iraq's neighbors to sabotage democracy efforts. Besides economic issues, the last thing the Saudis wanted was a democracy where the Shiites were emboldened. At the same end, I doubt the rest of the Arab world was just thrilled at the prospects of a successful democracy in their neighborhood.

That and I am not sure that instability and economic retardation through the undermining of OPEC would be a bad thing at all. The Saudis would have the most to lose from such a thing and instability + economic downturn in Saudi Arabia would be a good thing, as it would probably mean that Saudi Arabia ends up with less money to fund AQ and Co, Taliban, etc. as well as less money to build mosques and Islamic centers around the world.

As for the sanctions, I do not see where they accomplished anything, save strengthening Saddam and benefiting various criminal elements. The only thing they did for the US was increase resentment in that part of the world, as well as reduce our chance of having the support of the Iraqis should going in become necessary. Well they probably benefited the Saudis too, which can hardly be construed as a good thing.

Of course the prior Administration did a very poor job of carrying out the Iraq policy. But given the overall lack of ideas for dealing with the Saudis post 9/11, something had to be done.


[ Parent ]
unpredictable consequences (0.00 / 0)
I am not sure that instability and economic retardation through the undermining of OPEC would be a bad thing at all. The Saudis would have the most to lose from such a thing and instability + economic downturn in Saudi Arabia would be a good thing, as it would probably mean that Saudi Arabia ends up with less money to fund AQ and Co, Taliban, etc. as well as less money to build mosques and Islamic centers around the world.

Undermining an entire regime or cartel in this manner was not the most judicious way to go about it and shouldn't have been considered except as a last resort.  All it has done is drawn more people into the conflict.  

The strategic objective should be to minimize the independent radical actors involved.  Instead, the administration calculated that it would teach the Arab-Muslim world a lesson and Iraq was the most attractive target of opportunity.  

They may have succeeded in instilling fear but along with that they have instilled greater hatred and resentment and reinforced negative perceptions of the U.S., attracting more recruits to Al Qaeda.  

A more precise way to go about it would be to work with more progressive Saudi officials to neutralize the radicals within their government and society and push for greater economic and political reforms.  Violence can certainly be a useful tool but only if it is used in a limited and precise fashion.  Big Army is not the way to go with this problem.

As for the sanctions, I do not see where they accomplished anything, save strengthening Saddam and benefiting various criminal elements. The only thing they did for the US was increase resentment in that part of the world, as well as reduce our chance of having the support of the Iraqis should going in become necessary.

Agreed.  See my remarks on the sanctions in my previous comment.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
A more precise way to go about it would be to work with more progressive Saudi officials to neutralize the radicals within their government and society and push for greater economic and political reforms.

There aren't any real progressive Saudis in positions to actually do anything. The religious establishment is as radical as it always has been and there have been no major reforms as far as I can tell. The only reason the Saudis ever crackdown on AQ is when AQ begins to pose a threat to their status as top dog. They do not crackdown on AQ out of a difference in religious ideology or goals. Both of them want to Islamicize the world. Besides, we have no diplomatic leverage with the Saudis. Now were we to knock their status in the oil market down and get off of our Saudi oil dependency, we might have something. As it stands however, we have nothing in the way of soft power.

They may have succeeded in instilling fear but along with that they have instilled greater hatred and resentment and reinforced negative perceptions of the U.S., attracting more recruits to Al Qaeda.  

I don't think we succeeded in instilling fear in AQ overall and in the short term, Iraq did lead to more recruits for AQ and Co. However, the big winners from Iraq look to be the Shia. Emboldened Shia could end up being the Sunni Islamists worst nightmare. Of course the Shia have their share of Islamists and radicals as well, but given the choice of dealing with Shia Islamists and Sunni Islamists, I think any rational discussion will lead to the conclusion that the Shia are the much preferred option.

As for the sanctions, I am convinced that they were a failed policy that could not be fixed by an adjustment. We needed a new direction there.


[ Parent ]
Completing the Mission in Iraq | 33 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox