Search blog.co.uk

Iraq: The Endgame

by Pick1 @ 2008-07-14 - 23:03:50

As Obama and McCain slog it out over who plans to withdraw when, while Al Qaeda exhorts wavering Jihadis to launch one last fanatical push and StWC gathers a diminishing band of trots to denounce Bush and Blair, the situation in Iraq is quietly and quickly starting to outflank everyone.

In Iraq today three Baghdadi policemen were killed by a grenade attack, an off-duty policeman in Mosul was shot dead and seven dumped bodies were discovered across the country. Since 1st July two US soldiers have been Killed in Action; easily the lowest death rate for US troops since 2003. Each death represents a terrible individual tragedy yet the statistics illustrate that the violence has abated from the murderous levels of the last four years. Like a dying tempest the terrible violence has begun to blow itself out. The shootings and the IEDs will continue, perhaps for years, but it is no longer at a level that threatens the elected Government or the civilian population has a whole.

Some time soon the US Marines will hand over security responsibilities for Anbar Province, the very birthplace of the insurgency, to the resurgent Iraqi Army. British generals have advised that their troops will mostly be out of Iraq by spring 2009. A forthcoming Pentagon report will recommend that the US Army pulls out of Iraq even faster than even Obama has dared to suggest, with perhaps 50,000 troops left in Iraq by next spring.

Al Qaeda has been virtually defeated. It is cooped up in Mosul and limited to the murder of off-duty policemen and Sunni Awakening members. It no longer has the capacity to decimate the Shias with suicide bombings or terrorise the Sunnis with beheadings. Similarly the Iraqi Army has routed the Mahdi Army in its own backyard and installed the rule of law and Government. Iraq remains a powder keg and the future could easily herald a resurgent Al Qaeda, a dominant Mahdi Army or the return of civil war; yet there are reasons to feel cheerful about Iraq’s future for the first time since 2003.

Sunni Arab states are starting to talk about installing ambassadors and writing off Iraq’s enormous debts. Nouri Maliki suddenly seems like an assured statesman and in recent weeks he has been seen walking the streets and distributing thousands of dinars to needy Iraqis. The security situation hindered American development plans for years but with a newly pacified society and the price of oil at an all-time record high there is a chance for the desperately needed reconstruction efforts to take place. Iraq’s estimated oil revenues will be an enormous $70 billion this year; $100 million has been ear-marked to rebuild Sadr City, $100 million for Basra, $100 million for Amarah and $80 million to help re-settle refugees. Of course oil wealth can often curse 2nd and 3rd world countries through the temptations of corruption, nepotism and dictatorship. Maliki himself stated that “Money is not a problem, but we must put it in honest hands to spend."

Much can go wrong and predicting the future is a mug’s game but with the help of the US Army, Western technical knowledge and the institution of democracy one can hope that Iraq’s immense oil wealth may filter through to the people who need it most. Before 1990 Iraq was the most secular of all the Arab states and it used to have the strongest and best educated middle class in the region. The US will protect Iraq’s democracy, it has invested too much to do otherwise, and the Iraqi Government is now strong enough to contain the wretched insurgency. Iraq may limp on as a corrupt, petro-state with a low-level insurgency and ethnic tensions for years to come; equally it may become a beacon of what democracy and education can achieve for the people of the region. This outcome may displease many who had hoped against it but I suspect that, if their nightmare ends, the Iraqis won’t care.


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-14 @ 23:12

Iraq won't get the benefit from most of the oil. Some of it yes, but the bulk of the proceeds will be flowing into the coffers of those who illegally invaded Iraq based on lies.

Tom.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-15 @ 21:36

Really? Are you sure? If you have any evidence to support this caim I would be genuinely interested to see it. The oil industry has been nationalised by Iraq's Government and no US company has drilling rights in Iraq, nor does the US have access to Iraq's budget. Why has Bush given control of the oil fields to the Iraqi Government? Why do you think he is incapable of altruism?

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-15 @ 21:50

This deals with a few of the issues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7485685.stm

The discussions are by no means over yet.

I love your wording of this question:

"Why has Bush given control of the oil fields to the Iraqi Government?"

That's like asking why I have given you your car.

Tom.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-15 @ 22:19

But if Bush invaded in order to steal Iraq's oil why would he allow Iraq to nationalise its oil industry - why not install a puupet reginme and start stealing the oil in 2003?

The Iraqi Govt alone has the right to licence oil exploration and that is how it should be. It is physically impossible to extract the oil without using the expertise of oil companies.

The bottom line is that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz have absolutely no say on what Iraq does with its oil which pretty much destroys any conspiracy theories. I only hope that the immense walth is used quickly and wisely to help the Iraqi people.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-15 @ 22:33

Shall we wait and see?

It will be nice if your hope comes true, but I bet it doesn't.

Tom.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-16 @ 12:48

Precisely. Let's not label people as thieves until we can provide evidence/convictions.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-16 @ 13:07

You're the only one that has used the word "thieves" here. External profit-making will be done perfectly legally and according to capitalist principles. It's already started, as that BBC article makes clear. What interests me is how much further it will go.

Tom.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-16 @ 17:03

Privatisation vs Nationalisation. That's a mattter for the democratically elected Government to decide upon.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-16 @ 21:43

Have you considered a comedy act?

Tom.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-16 @ 22:26

Yeah I'll be the straight guy, you can tell the jokes.

SeasideManSeasideMan pro
2008-07-16 @ 22:39

No, seriously, you're funny! But there's more:

I own a bridge in central London - would you be interested in buying it?

T.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-16 @ 22:56

Unfortunately you attempted to make a cheap shot at me rather than answer my point.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who attempts to make personal insults in a debate.

This discussion is now terminated.

MelroseMelrose [Member]
2008-07-15 @ 09:46

I think your right, Pick1, there do seem to be grounds for guarded optimism. My guess would be that the US (the Pentagon at least) would like to have some substantial bases in Iraq for years to come to make it easier to flex their muscles in the region in the future. Whether US public opinion and Mr al Maliki will stand for that remains to be seen.

As far as the oil is concerned, I'm sure that some of the oil money will get into the wrong hands. Foreigners are bound to want a high premium for investing there to begin with but if things improve the Iraqi government should be able to tell them where to go. Oil producers usually seem to be effective at curbing oil majors (over time).

Melrose

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-15 @ 21:45

I'm sure the US will want to stay in Iraq - indeed I'm sure the insurgency will rumble on for several years to come. But America has bases in nearly every counry in the world from Briatin to Japan; personally if I was Iraqi I'd like to have the world's most powerful army supporting my Government.

For me the two biggest worries about Iraq are a re-emergence of the insuregency and corruption caused by oil wealth. A nationalised industry inevitaly leads to corruption, ineficiency and lack of investment - Saudi Aramco is one of the most inefficient oil producers in the world. The UK has done pretty well out of privatised North Sea drilling - I only wish the Iraqis would learn from this. Privatisation, however, would be political suicide for al Maliki.

Paulus82 [Visitor]
http://touchingfromadistance.blog.co.uk
2008-07-17 @ 11:07

Seems like pro-Iraq War guilt to me. None of this makes up for invasion leading to the deaths of tens of thousands (or is it hundreds??) of deaths in Iraq and millions killed, and for what? The oil-industry to be in the hands of Maliki's government? From one corrupt leader to another I say. It may be nationalised, and maybe slightly more transparent than the Saddam days, but I very much doubt teh Iraqi people will see any of the revenues any time soon.

Btw, Seasideman, a BBC Website article isn't exactly going to be the media expose of the century. Just pictures and brief stories for lazy people. Still, shouldn't knock it.

Paulus82 [Visitor]

2008-07-17 @ 11:10

Editor's notes" Sorry that should be 'millions exiled' not 'millions killed', and should of been 'post-war', not 'pro-Iraq War'.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-17 @ 12:24

Good thing you edited that because I do not agree with decision to invade, for what it's worth. But this isn't a debate about whether it was right or wrong - the post is really about reasons for guarded optimism about the future. Although, as a US general said, 'We are not at the irreversable stage yet'

Re the the future of Iraq's oil. This is an interesting subject. In my post I stated

"Of course oil wealth can often curse 2nd and 3rd world countries through the temptations of corruption, nepotism and dictatorship."

I am aware of the dangers of corruption. Yet Iraq's oil reserves are probably bigger than Saudi's. The Saudi Govt controls oil production and it is massively corrupt - though there is still enormous amounts of money left over to spend on the people.

Iran's Govt also runs the national oil company. Oil money is lost through corruption or spent on Hamas, Hezbollah, Mahdi Army, Revolutionary Guards and nuclear weapons - very little gets through to the people. Also the company is so badly run that Iran has to import all its petrol!!! It doesn't posess a single oil refinery yet it has the worlds 3rd biggest reserves.

In my opinion it is not a Government's job to be drilling for oil - that is the road to serfdom as Hayek put it. No Government should control that monopoly.

The UK oil fields are drilled by private companies. They buy licenses from the Govt and pay substantial taxes. This is the best system.

I don't know which way Iraq will go but I know that they cannot dig out the oil with out the expertise of private companies. I ask what is better that the oil sits in the ground benefiting no-one or that BP drills for oil sells it on and pays the GOvt enormous revenues in taxes and licences. Don't forget Iraq has more oil wealth than they could even hope to spend - look at the amount of money Saudi has that is all from oil.

Iraq is at least a democracy with an independent judiciary - the Iraqi people are, perhaps, better placed than the Saudis or the Iranians to benfit from the enormous oil wealth under their feet.

Paulus82 [Visitor]
http://suburbanmusings.blog.co.uk
2008-07-17 @ 16:23

Actually, the Iranians and Saudis have a similar GDP per capita, and the population of Iran is much larger, so harder to redistribute, and still produces a lot less oil than Saudi. Saudi Arabia is also very poor in areas, the major cities of Jeddah and Riyadh get the brunt of the oil money, the oil-producing region which is populated by Shias see evry little, as does the rest of the country. The corruption there is on a much larger scale than Iran, with the 1,000s of Saudi Princes and their cronies getting the most money. Plus Iran relies more on manufacturing and services than oil, and the impossibility of refining oil on a mass scale. Anyways, American is the 3rd largest oil producer but imports oil, as does Norway, who's nationalised oil industry at the time lead to a vast rise in living standards.

The people of Iran may be living under a dictatorship, and be devoid of democracy, but at least they're not subject to a continued bloody civil war, and can walk down the street without fear of being kidnapped and shot by death squads. I don't really think comparing Iran to Iraq in that aspect is a good idea untill the security system greatly improves, particularly as Britain and the US were partly to blame for opening pandoras box, and now there are threats of bombing Iran. One step at a time.

Plus, you have stated that Iran are spending money on nuclear weapons. Where's the evidence? What happened to your thinking of being innocent before being proved guilty, which to be honest, is as dodgy a case as the Weapons of Mass Destruction arguement for the Iraq War.

Iran is importing oil so obviously needs energy, i think that is probally what the nuclear reactors are for. Prove me wrong though...

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-17 @ 18:21

Iran imports petrol, not oil because it does have the technical expertise to refine rude oil,Iran's economy is in a horrendous state with massive inflation and umemployment. 90% of Saudi's income comes from oil and 60% of the population is under 16. They are gonna be in serious trouble when the oil runs out.
Re nuclear weapons

Crude oil and Iran's enormous gas reserves can provide all its energy needs much more cheaply than nuclear power.

The west are happy for Iran to have nuclear power and have offered to help it build nuclear power stations. Iran though has continued to enrich uranium which has no use for a nuclear power stations. Enriched uranium is crucial in the manufacture of a nuclear warhead.

Iran has had proven contacts with N Korea and the AQ Khan network.

Iranian dissidents have produced documentary evidence of Iran's nuclear programe and Iran has openly admitted to enriching uranium.

Why do you think Israel is planning an enormously risky atack on Iran? They wouldn't do it if they didn't need to.

On Iraq I don't really care if Iraq's oil companies are national or private as long as its getting pumped out of the desert. I am fairly optimistic about the future and everyone should be happy to see the country get back on its feet.

Paulus82 [Visitor]

2008-07-23 @ 17:43

Right finally got round to answering this...

Well, Israel are the masters of overreaction... two soldiers get kidnapped, bomb and kill over 1000 Lebanese (mostly civilians). Rockets are aimed at a village, a blockade and airstrikes against the world's biggest refugee camp. They are a paranoid state due to the hawks in their government. They have the protection of the US government, so apart from a few rag tag terrorists or people driving bulldozers, no country will attack them. Ahmedinijad is just about rhetoric, their economy is in tatters, but the one wild card he does have is to shout his mouth out about Great Satan and Israel to distract the people. And before you say anything, yes they supply weapons to countries which attack Israel, but again that is simply to distract his people again, make himself seem like a regional power and push his credibilities with Lebanese shia.

The Israelis could of coarse pull the rug under the extremists in the Middle East and close down the settlements, stop the wall, open the checkpoints (or at least ease them) and finally give Palestinians a nation state, but that would of coarse anger the religious right-wing nutters in their own country, who by the way make equally inflamitry remarks about Arabs.

And the worst thing the Iraqis could do is privatise the oil industry... it would put money into the hands of big business rather than teh Iraqi state, would be the perfect propoganda token for the 'America invaded for oil' brigade, and look at the disaster with North Sea Oil.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-23 @ 22:21

Woah woah woah I hope that is a joke. Where did the hatred for Israel come from man?

First of all Hezbollah launched an unprovoked attack on Israel killed six of its soldiers and kidnapped two others; furthermore Hezbollah presented a clear threat to national security. I don't agree with the decision to go to war but how would any other country in the world react to that event? I strongly disagree with their tactics but call them the 'masters of overraction' whilst ignoring indiscriminate Hezbollah rocket attacks does smell of bias.

Also should Israel ignore daily rocket attacks against its citizens simply because they land in a village? Would you expect that of any other country? Those rocket attacks were daily, indiscriminate and deadly. Israel has never responded with indiscriminate firepower, how many other countries would do the same? Why should it not carry out airstrikes against terrorists planning to murder Israeli citizens? Israel has continued to supply electricity and food to Gaza even after the Gazans voted for a Government committed to its destruction, did we supply food to Germany in the war? Why do Gazans murder Israeli citizens who deliver fuel to them? Israeli raids stopped as soon as Hamas rockets stopped. Will anyone now praise Israel for supplying Gaza with electricity free of charge with electricity generated in Israel? I don't agree with the Government's tactics but you can't just blame oneside and exonerate the other.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are hugely powerful terrorist organisations which probably have rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Both are comitted to destroying Israel. Syria is a terrorst suporting state with proven links to WMD projects, it also wants to destroy Israel. Iran is a powerful military power with rockets that can reach Tel Aviv - it also wants to destroy Israel. Al Qaeda is the world's most powerful terrorist organisation - it too wants to destroy Israel. Let's not forget the other Palestinian terrorist organisations and the many people who hate Israelis and Jews. I think Israel is right to feel threatened.

Also a raid against Iran is hugely risky for Israel. It probably wouldn't work, they would loose many pilots as hostages or fatalities, and they would face immediate and massive retalitiaton from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and possibly Syria. They would only consider doing it if they were truly desperate and sure that they were under threat.

Is Shimon Peres a hawk? Is the Hamas Government full of doves?

Let's not pretend that this is or ever has been a black and white issue. Both sides have suffered, neither side is blameless and the solution needs sacrifices from both sides. Please don't give in to hatred.

Re oil - like I said I don't care as long as the money is used for reconstruction.

Paulus82 [Visitor]

2008-07-25 @ 13:29

How on earth am I giving into hatred. I'm highlighting the fact that their are religious fundamentalists who influence in the government, just as there is in Palestine and Iran, something you never mention.

And how is calling for a Palestinian state in the occupied territories anger towards Israel.

Of coarse both are wrong, but I don't agree with the Cohenites views that Israel is beyond criticism.

Pick1Pick1 [Member]
2008-07-25 @ 15:39

Cohen has never said that Israel is above crticism and I have always said that both sides are to blame, which I reitarated above.

All I am saying is that you laid into Israel whilst talking about a completely unrelated topic; I think you should reconsider your statements about it being a 'paranoid state', 'masters of over reaction', 'two soldiers get kidnapped, bomb and kill over 1000 Lebanese (mostly civilians).', 'Rockets are aimed at a village, a blockade and airstrikes against the world's biggest refugee camp'

'The Israelis could of coarse pull the rug under the extremists in the Middle East and close down the settlements, stop the wall, open the checkpoints (or at least ease them) and finally give Palestinians a nation state, but that would of coarse anger the religious right-wing nutters in their own country, who by the way make equally inflamitry remarks about Arabs.'

With no context or explanation of events and no criticism of the other side that could be taken as being vehemently and Israeli and assigning blame to Israel alone for the failure of peace. I don't know where that has come from and I know you are better than that.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Recent Posts

  1. Desert Island Discs
    by Pick1 on 2008-11-30
  2. Justice From Above
    by Pick1 on 2008-11-27
  3. Obama's In-Tray
    by Pick1 on 2008-11-19
  4. The Great War: 1914 - 1945
    by Pick1 on 2008-11-16
  5. Thoughts On The US Elections
    by Pick1 on 2008-11-01
  6. Human Rights And Human Wrongs
    by Pick1 on 2008-10-23
  7. And For My Next Trick . . .
    by Pick1 on 2008-10-20
  8. Talking To The Taliban
    by Pick1 on 2008-10-18
  9. Engineering Consent
    by Pick1 on 2008-10-14
  10. The Price Of Progress
    by Pick1 on 2008-10-12

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.