Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Bob Wall, http://lieberman.senate.gov/ - Read the section why US must stay in Iraq.

I somehow find it unlikely this would have made your boys own gathering of cherry picked doom and gloom reports.

ed Hamish: the link 'timed out' for me Jay. I'm leaving it in case it's a temporary problem with the site, but please advise if it needs correcting.

Jay White: "As Senator Leiberman points out ...".

Could you possibly provide a link to the material you were using here? This would be the appropriate behaviour if using someone's words to support your position.

Also, do you have other source material on which you base your opinions? Links would be appreciated and also might help you avoid being accused of being selective.

It would be completely idiotic for Bush to withdraw troops now. Decisions of this nature should not be made on ups and downs in polls.

As Senator Leiberman points out it is ironic that as optimism for success grows in Iraq it goes in a opposite direction in the USA. They would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory leaving now.

There is plenty of time to for Bush to turn things around and I expect that with a concerted effort he will.

I just love the rewriting of history going on now on the other side of the park - the 'of course Saddam is a danger to both the Iraqi people and the world in general and has WMD's' has become 'of course Saddam was no danger to the Iraqi people and definately no threat to the world in general and had no WMD's'.

Look it up - you have Kerry doing so many twists that if he was in the Olympics, the scores for him would be in the hundreds. Ted Kennedy does even better (an impressive feat for a man of his stature). Half the other bleating Democrats, both inside and outside of politics.

Rewriting history is active, but only the winners will really get to do it. And if it is the Republicans, funnily enough the history and the reality will oddly match.

Well he has been to Iraq four times since the removal of Sadaam. He also can hardly be called a fan of Bush given he is in an opposition party and he attempted to run for Predident against him.

I find his views to be relevent and to carry a lot of weight in this particular situation.

Jay, thank you for the link. It did work.

However, I did ask if you had other material yet you supplied none. Is this because you have none? If you have more please provide them, one lone opinion is not the best basis for forming views.

Despite your accusations of cherry picking, I, and others, have provided a lot of material on Irises. In my case it must now be hundreds of articles, quite a few on the progress in Iraq. Certainly a lot more than one. So, unless you can provide a similar wealth of material, the accusation of cherry picking is misplaced.

Jay White, "Well he has been to Iraq four times ...".

Hardly addresses the point, does it? Just the one view presented. I have posted a response to Lieberman on Irises. Whether you agree with that view does not matter, it serves as a counter - one for one as such - and illustrates the need for a multiplicity of sources to be used in analysis.

Of course the Democrats who supported the Iraq invasion say they did so based on the information supplied by Bush. Now that some are changing their minds, they are in in a no-win situation according to those who are still fans of the war.

However nothing will change the fact that, as Kerryn Higgs points out in her piece, there were experts and those experienced in war who always predicted that Iraq would become the mess it is today. The promoters of the invasion are distinctive in that virtually none of them have ever been to war themselves, or conducted an invasion of any kind. This is amply demonstrated by Gulf War veteran Colin Powell's caution and eventually sidelining by Bush & Co and the Gulf War Commander of Armed Forces General Norman Schwarzkopf who was opposed to invading Iraq a second time and who said a war could not be won in the long run.

One would think he would know, particularly as it was he who advised the first Bush president not to continue with removing the evil Saddam as the vacuum would lead to what we now have.

This is aside from the bogus information about WMDs presented to us by Bush, Blair and Howard. Either it was deliberate lies or incompetance . What cannot change is that we were deceived, and now the same ones are arrogantly attempting to deceive us, about that deceit.

G'day Jay. You'd be surprised that I'd beg to differ with that view.

I believe defeat – or at least an at best unsavoury compromise – was "snatched from the jaws of victory" well before the arranged toppling of Saddam's statue. The planning for what would happen post "shock and awe' was – and remains – absolutely abysmal, not to say naïve. There were no shortage of those who warned of the danger – an anti-occupation insurgency – and the requirements to avoid/combat it. Most were ignored, many actively dismissed and General Shinseki asked for his resignation.

The entire idea was not so much as depose a dictator (that came later – sans WMD) as to go and remake the country in an image better suited to US geopolitical interests. Never of course forgetting the oil, that rather large side bar to the whole campaign. As Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.) writes in Foreign Policy in Focus:

Hence Iraq. Hence the war to depose Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. The moment the Iraqis figured out that the U.S. administration really was going to try to re-invent, not re-discover, Iraq is the moment that U.S. forces went from liberators to occupiers.

No country, least of all Iraq with its long history, is a tabula rasa. Its people fall into 27 traditional ethnic or sectarian divisions, each with its own leadership. In its re-invention, the U.S.-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority promptly collapsed these into 3, thereby effectively undercutting traditional Iraqi identity without presenting a viable alternative or web of alternatives. Such wrenching of the traditional basis of identity inevitably spilled into the myriad activities associated with rebuilding the country. This has been glaringly apparent in Iraqi politics where the central "power" offices--prime minister, president, speaker of the Assembly--have been effectively "Lebanized" by being "assigned" to each of the main blocs.

And I believe he's dead right. When they compounded the error by – necessarily – picking sides in the "sectarian" war and backing the Shiites (so as to stop that "sect" joining the insurgency) they entrenched the problems they now face. These problems are now political and of their own making. Put this way by Marina Ottaway Senior Associate, Endowment for International Peace:

A last-minute agreement reached just days before the October 15 referendum allowed for several months of discussion on constitutional amendments beginning after the December parliamentary elections. This agreement offers a narrow window of opportunity to avoid disaster, but only if negotiations focus on the few issues that are important now, not on those that appeared crucial until recently. The exact wording of articles concerning the role of sharia, political and human rights, and the position of women is of secondary importance now, because the system that has emerged from the negotiations is so highly decentralized and its center so weak that the federal constitution will not influence how such issues are addressed by the regions. For example, sharia will weigh heavily in a Shia region and much less so in Kurdistan. The new negotiations must focus on two issues. First, institutionally, they must clarify the rules by which the regions relate to each other and to the central government, including, explicitly, financially. Second, politically, they must make it possible for Sunnis to build their own region and thus accept the federal solution.

An agreement on these issues is imperative because it is becoming clear that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be reduced during 2006. The U.S. military has been declaring for months that the force of arms cannot solve Iraq’s problems.If a military solution is not possible with 140,000 or more U.S. troops in the country, it will be even less so as the number decreases. The U.S. public’s willingness to fight a costly war and to invest heavily in Iraq’s future is clearly waning. Antiwar sentiments are mounting within the United States, members of Congress are getting nervous about an open-ended commitment, approval ratings for President George W. Bush are at an alltime low, and U.S. mid-term elections are swiftly approaching. Most important, U.S. military commanders openly assert that they cannot provide a military solution to what is essentially a political crisis and send contradictory signals about the readiness of the new Iraqi army. President Bush’s protestations that the United States will stay the course and remain in Iraq until the country is stable sound increasingly hollow.

Hollow to all bar the "true believers" it might appear. The US will "leave" when it suits the US and its political cycle – the same driving force behind the timing of the second Fallujah offensive. That cycle will initially devolve to the mid-terms next year.

As to the idea that the "leaving" will come at a time when Iraqis can look to their own defence and security, who will be the judge of that? The American elector will. The gathering gale of plummeting opinion polling – approaching Katrina status – redolent with their voting intentions, is already buffeting an administration much given to the splitting of semantic hairs and presenting a view of the situation reminiscent of Greek seers divining the liver flukes of sacrificed sheep before battle.

That aside, given the fact that militias have infiltrated the Iraqi "security apparatus" (one need only look to the Shia run prisons where "sectarian" revenge is carried out), including the army, and the fact that it is certain (as much as anything is) that a Federal state will emerge with each "sect" or ethnic grouping running its own province (including its security). In effect each province will independently control its own security and defence. The Shia south is (through the al-Da'wa party and SCIRI) strongly tied to Iran – where its militias and clerics sheltered during the Hussein years. Marina Ottaway again:

The constitution approved over strong Sunni opposition has created an untenable
political situation. Kurdistan will remain as autonomous as it is now and will undoubtedly seek to control Kirkuk and its oil. Absent a major political shift, Shias will form their own region in the nine provinces where they dominate numerically and establish control of the southern oil fields. Both regions will have their own defense forces, as they are entitled to under the new constitution, which bans “militias” but allows them to continue existing under the guise of regional security forces.
Kurdistan will easily change its relatively united militia (pesh merga) into an official
defense force. The new Shia region will face a thornier problem, with a dangerously divided conglomeration of rival party militias vying for control of the regional security forces.

The central government—designed to be in charge of defense, foreign affairs, trade,
and financial policy—may be even weaker in practice than it looks on paper. It risks being starved of revenue and will control a national army whose loyalty and motivation are questionable and whose training is consequently making slow progress. Moreover, the army may lose personnel to the regional security forces once they are officially set up. The government may not even be able to formulate coherent foreign and trade policies, because each region is entitled to have its own separate
offices within Iraqi embassies.

Optimism for success in Iraq does indeed grow Jay. Most of that optimism resides within two places: the Bush administration and Iran. A third if you count the "true believers".

As to the idea that it "would be completely idiotic for Bush to withdraw troops now", well that's just the line run by the myopic administration isn't it? A plan for the withdrawal should be drawn up and announced, not a blanket "let's all up and leave at noon". I'll let the Carnegie Senior Associate make that cogent point:

By announcing a timetable for withdrawal, the United States would apply some leverage on Shias and Kurds to make the concessions needed to develop a viable Sunni region. The present Shia–Kurdish government can afford to be intransigent as long as it is assured of U.S. protection. If the prospects for U.S. withdrawal were clearly spelled out, Shias and Kurds would have a greater incentive to make concessions to achieve a political solution.

From a military point of view, announcing a timetable for withdrawal has substantial disadvantages. This is not, however, a traditional conflict but a struggle in which political and security goals are inextricably linked and in which political actions are at least as important as the use of force. Politically, a withdrawal timetable could help divide Sunnis and weaken the insurgency, particularly if it is accompanied by clear support for a viable Sunni region and a new policy on de-Baathification. Sunni politicians would be forced to develop a policy that goes beyond opposing U.S. occupation and to focus instead on how to find their place in the new, decentralized
Iraq. Former Baathists and many ordinary Sunnis who lean toward the insurgency
because they do not see a future for themselves in the new Iraq might also be enticed toward a more constructive, forward-looking position.

But then, to the "true believers", that would not be "staying the course", that would be portrayed as "cutting and running". Worse yet, "appeasement".

Has Joe Lieberman been to Iraq 4 times Jay White or was it just the Green Zone? Maybe you should catch up some of Robert Fisk's writings. I know he's hated by many but he is one of the very few journalists who even venture out into Bahgdad, let alone Iraq - but only for 20 minutes at a time as he says that's all it takes for a mobile phone call to summon your potential murderer.

You should ask the US media if they ever move out of their hotels where they have re-inforced their rooms and offices with double steel walls and floors. They rely on US military press releases.

I doubt Senator Lieberman even made it from the airport to the Green Zone by auto on the Highway Of Hell. They do say it is extremely calm and pleasant though in the Green Zone and like another reality. But it isn't Iraq.

I think you'll find Stuart, if you "look it up", that Ted Kennedy voted "NO" on the issue of the war in October 2002. I think you may also find he's been consistently against it.

And you're right: not bad for a bloke his age. Must have learned a few things in that time.

As to whether Republicans will write history, they're already doing it. The intelligence agencies did it. The belligerent git Cheney still rewrites reality with respect to Saddam's nuclear weapons and Iraq's connection to New York.

Donald Rumsfeld opens a new reality and announces a new history at each presser.

Agree with him or not, Senator Lieberman has spent a lot of time in Iraq and other parts of the Mid East (and no not just the Green Zone). I agree overall with his Wall St Journal piece, though I think he overstates the progress towards security and economic stability in Iraq. There's a long way to go, but we can't just leave until Iraqis are electing their own government and handling their own security. We busted Iraq and now we have to fix it.

One compromise may be to set up a situation where, say, NATO peacekeeping forces participate in maintaining security on the ground in areas where the US is particularly resented, such as the Sunni triangle, and to concentrate the Iraqi forces as they are trained and equipped in these areas as well. This would reduce friction and resentment, as well as removing the pretexts the Zarqawistas use for murdering Iraqis. US forces are perhaps better concentrated in Kurdish, Shiite, and border areas to maintain security, but stay where they can be deployed quickly if needed.

Some creative, non-ideological thinking needs to be applied to this situation.

Debate on Webdiary in this thread has already devolved into a bunfight about how many times Lieberman has been to Iraq. Show of (virtual) hands: how many have been to Iraq even once? I haven't.

Kerrin Higgs' piece has important insights, in particular in pointing out the difficulties the Democrats will have regaining majorities in the US House and Senate in the 2006 mid-term elections. "Gerrymandering" district boundaries is a longstanding, bipartisan, political practice (and not only in the US). The Democrats were expert at it as well, and the Republicans are now getting their own back. Business as usual.

I am a bit critical of Kerrin indulging herself in a bit of mind-reading: "It's worth remembering that the fate of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis is not uppermost in Murtha's or most other American minds."

It's not clear to me how she knows what's uppermost in anyone's mind, least of all that of Rep Murtha. It's well worth reading Rep Murtha's full statement on Iraq.

There is the possibility that when the US leaves Iraq we may see a uniting of middle eastern oil producers away from the US. Once they really see what has been done to Iraq by non believers they may turn to other markets for their oil. Those that did not support the US and could take up the US's consumption, would'nt be hard to find. After all China is a growing consumer and it would slow down its greatest rival, the US, whilst it grew stronger.

How much more can the muslim world take before they have to unite in one way or the other.

After all this time since the US victory in Iraq, the only thing that is really happening there is war.

Jay White, CP, Stuart Lord, Noelene, and anyone else who thought that invading Iraq was a great idea, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

The Americans are going to have to leave, the place will descend into chaos as it did in the 1930s & 1940s. A lot of innocent blood will now be shed unnecssarily, the United States enemies will now be emboldened and much more likely to thumb their noses at its authority, and the Middle East will turn into a basket case. Congratulations.

And before anyone accuses me of gloating, I'm not. What has happened is an utter tragedy of gigantic proportions, but one that could have been very easily avoided.

And if anyone is still prepared to toe the line of "progress is being made...we are defeating the terrorists...democracy is on the rise" or want to persist with the fantasy that the Iraqi Army is well on the way to self sufficiency and will soon be able to take over from the Americans, well, you are allowed to dream. But I believe that at this point in time, like the majority of the American population now does, it might be prudent to start viewing the situation in Iraq from a realistic point of view.

That is, the situation is an absolute shambles and there are now very few options for the Americans to exercise that will grant them an honourable exit from Iraq.

While on the rewriting of history, a trip back to that most slippery of all subjects, one not much heard about nor written about in this year of Iraqi violence and political turmoil, oil.

Prior to and subsequent upon the invasion, much was written about Iraqi oil being the prize the administration had its eyes on. Specifically, US/UK control of Iraqi oil reserves then and currently under Iraqi government control by way of "free market reform" and privatisation. The prediction was for the occupying powers to privatise – by way of abolishing the nationalisation of Iraqi oil which took place during 1961-1970 – the entire industry and open that industry up to the "ownership" of "big oil". The theory being that the Connocos, Chevrons and Exxon/Mobils would swoop and ensure the (relatively) cheap flow of oil to "the West" all the while garnering the US (by virtue of its privatised ownership of Iraqi production) a seat at the OPEC cartel's table.

The fly in this ointment was that "big oil" does not necessarily wish to "own" the oil. Businesses run businesses and like to do so with minimal risk. Whilst it might be nice to "own" what is currently in production, big oil is more interested in future production: that which will come from new, undeveloped fields. There are eighty known fields in Iraq of which, seventeen are currently "on line". Big oil has little interest the possible failures of these as they are developed – much better to leave the ownership (and problems) in Iraqi hands. But, how to lay hands on the possible profits? "Privatise" without the risk: PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements) the now preferred contractual method of oil development. From the Institute for Policy Studies publication Crude Designs: The Rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth:

The PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT (PSA) is a more complex system. In theory, the state has ultimate control over the oil, while a private company or consortium of companies extracts it under contract. In practice, however, the actions of the state are severely constrained by stipulations in the contract. In a PSA, the private company provides the capital investment, first in exploration, then drilling and the construction of infrastructure. The first proportion of oil extracted is then allocated to the company, which uses oil sales to recoup its costs and capital investment – the oil used for this purpose is termed ‘cost oil’. There is usually a limit on what proportion of oil production in any year can count as cost oil. Once costs have been recovered, the remaining ‘profit oil’ is divided between state and company in agreed proportions. The company is usually taxed on its profit oil. There may also be a royalty payable on all oil produced.

What are the benefits of such a contractual arrangement? Many-fold. First it leaves the ownership of the oil in the host country's hands. Secondly it (depending on the contractual terms) guarantees the oil company profits and the basis on which they are calculated for the period of the contract – twenty-five to forty years – as well as protecting the arrangement against any future government attempts to change it by law. Thirdly – and most importantly – it facilitates the "booking" of the oil reserves in the company's accounts. This should not be underestimated. Essentially the company has "privatised" the reserve (it is an asset in its ledger) without shelling (pardon the pun) out a cent. On that pun, Shell is an outstanding example of the importance of this:

Companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. The importance of this should not be underestimated for the oil majors. In 2004, when British/Dutch oil company Shell was found to have overstated the size of its ‘booked’ reserves by over 20%, it lost the faith of the financial markets: this impacted heavily on its share price and credit rating.

So we have big oil quietly behind the scenes directing US policy away from "privatisation" and towards their much preferred modus operandi: PSAs. This is the major reason the CPA and the Interim Iraqi government have been so "silent" on the future of Iraqi oil. The Exxon/Mobils will get what they desire without an unseemly buying war. This policy was being shaped throughout 2002/3 by a group called the "Oil and Energy working Group" of the US State Department’s Future of Iraq project. From Crude Designs:

The “Oil and Energy” working group met four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Although the full membership of the group has never been revealed, it is known that Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, the current Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member.34 The 15-strong oil working group concluded that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war” and that “the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources.”

The subgroup went on to recommend production sharing agreements (PSAs) as their favoured model for attracting foreign investment. Comments by the handpicked participants revealed that “many in the group favoured production-sharing agreements with oil companies.” Another representative commented, “Everybody keeps coming back to PSAs.”

The reasons for this choice were explained in the formal policy recommendations of the working group, published in April 2003: “Key attractions of production sharing agreements to private oil companies are that although the reserves are owned by the state, accounting procedures permit the companies to book the reserves in their accounts, but, other things being equal, the most important feature from the perspective of private oil companies is that the government take is defined in the terms of the [PSA] and the oil companies are therefore protected under a PSA from future adverse legislation.”

The group also made it clear that in order to maximize investments, the specific terms of the PSAs should be favourable to foreign investors: “PSAs can induce many billions of dollars of foreign direct investment into Iraq, but only with the right terms, conditions, regulatory framework, laws, oil industry structure and perceived attitude to foreign participation.”

Later, in 2003, Paul Bremmer appointed Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum as oil minister. Al Uloum promptly announced that plans to privatise Iraq's oil would be drawn up but that nothing would be done until after the scheduled 2005 elections. He then told the Financial Times that:

"The Iraqi oil sector needs privatisation, but it's a cultural issue," noting the difficulty of persuading the Iraqi people of such a policy. He then proceeded to announce that he personally supported: _ Production sharing agreements for upstream (i.e. extraction of crude oil) development; giving priority to US oil companies, “and European companies, probably.”

What actually has taken place is the Iyad Allawi, as interim Prime Minister, appointed one Thamir al-Ghadban, a "UK-trained petroleum engineer and former senior adviser to Bahr al-Uloum, who then announced that 2005 would be a year of dialogue on this issue – evidently leading up to the 2005 elections. All this time, the constitutional process proceeded, leaving the oil industry (like much of the document's wording) loose. As well, the writing of the Iraqi "Petroleum Law" is still a work in progress.

Meanwhile, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon’s former favourite to run Iraq, was appointed chair of the Energy Council, which replaced the Supreme Council for Oil Policy as the key overseer of energy and oil policy. Back in 2002 Chalabi had famously promised that “US companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.”

By June 2005, government sources reported that a Petroleum Law had been drafted, ready to be enacted after the December elections. According to the sources – although some details are still being debated – the draft of the Law specifies that while Iraq’s currently producing fields should be developed by INOC, new fields should be developed by private companies.

Under the auspices of Ahmed Chalabi, the dialogue has transformed into the energy Ministry encouraging contracts to be signed as quickly as possible Now why would that be? Crude Designs offers the following:

In so far as the decision rests with Baghdad, the Oil Ministry is keen to sign contracts as quickly as possible. According to officials in the Ministry, their aim is to begin signing long-term contracts with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006.54 In order to achieve this goal, officials wanted to start negotiations with oil
companies during the second half of 2005, before a legitimate Iraqi government is elected and in parallel with the writing of a Petroleum Law. This time frame means that contracts will be negotiated without public participation or debate, or proper legal framework

.

The cost of this to Iraq? Crude Designs estimates that it is enormous. Amongst its findings:

At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be
developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget. _ Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.

So as the re-writing of history continues apace with ever burgeoning altruistic platitudes of freedom and democracy thrown about with gay abandon, don't ever let it be said we didn’t go there for the oil. In the words of Greg Palast, we may not have gone there for the oil, but we sure aren't leaving without it.

I'd recommend a reading of the piece. The backgrounding on PSAs and – in particular why they are totally inappropriate for the Iraqi scenario – makes fascinating, if involved reading.

Michael Park, it makes the PPPs efforts of Greiner, Carr, Iemma et al look pretty puny.

If I was a senior Oil Ministry official I'd want to get my PPP (personal pension plan) sorted out before it was put at risk by an election. Nasty things, elections - it costs so much to get the right result. On the other hand, as a senior executive for Big Oil, can I screw a sufficient premium to compensate for the dodgy legal status and the risk of repudiation if the election doesn't go right? They are nasty, elections.

Nice work Michael Park.

Thanks Michael Coleman, and yes Mark it's not bad "super" should one be able to lay hands on it. Evidently the Iraqi people are benefiting from this exercise – not many mind you – just the significant few including, of course, that perennial "rubber ball" Chalabi. Just see what happens after you've had your offices raided and been charged with espionage?

The intriguing thing in this is just how the oil companies think. There are problems with "privatisation" in the classic sense: too much competition and the ability of the process to lock out certain foreign bidders (as Russia did to US companies during its privatisation in the early nineties) – all of which is not entirely palatable to US/UK IOCs (International Oil Companies). Their view? If you've gone to all the trouble of a war and then stuffed up the peace planning do not let the same people stuff up the profit planning.

Greg Palast in his Newsnight report of March this year summarises the situation:

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists"…

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by 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…

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision. Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatise would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

Evidently the IOCs were most disinterested in having Iraq's oil industry privatised in the traditional sense. When read in isolation it appears not to make terribly much sense. Everyone can see Cohen's apparent "no-brainer". When read in conjunction with link here Crude Designs, it becomes substantially clearer. The clue of course is in that phrase "State department pragmatists". Who were these "pragmatists? Most likely those not listened to by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in the rush to "shock and awe" the Middle East into democracy. With not a little help from The “Oil and Energy” working group mentioned below – the group that included oil industry executives and, of course, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum the subsequently CPA appointed oil minister. Greg Palast:

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Evidently the profit planning was not about to be left in the hands of the Pentagon and its civilian incompetent-in-charge Rumsfeld. The IOCs had their way. Iraqi would be "booked" as opposed to privatised. Those yet to be exploited reserves just as good as privatised as they will now show as assets in the IOCs' ledgers. Neatly done.

More interesting is a look at the "ministries" that are charged with the administration of Iraq at the present. Remember the Energy Ministry is pushing to sign PSAs with IOCs as quickly as possible – hopefully this side of the December fifteen elections but certainly before the period allowed for revision of the constitution is lapsed whilst the nation's institutions are in flux. Roger Cohen in the International Herald Tribune describes the picture (unfortunately, sub req'd):

'When you set up a very capable army and police force with a weak and inefficient government, you set the stage for a military takeover. That is not what we went to Iraq to help them establish."

The words are those of a senior U.S. military officer who is between assignments to Iraq. His frustration with the enduring corruption and ineptitude of Iraqi ministries is indicative of the tense backdrop to President George W. Bush's outline Wednesday of a national strategy for victory in Iraq…

Referring to the U.S. agency coordinating rebuilding efforts, he added: "The Iraqi Reconstruction and Management Office has to get people over to the ministries to help with the interagency process. Until we can provide the Iraqis with a basic level of services, with basic necessities, we're not going to broaden support."

The problem, of course, is that a Westerner trying to go over to an Iraqi ministry in Baghdad might end up seriously dead. Most of the U.S. reconstruction team (officials and contractors and others) is holed up in the Green Zone, the walled city within a city where the Americans reinventing Iraq live and work

These "ministries" act – almost it appears – in a vacuum with what amounts (in the modern world) to a ridiculous level of communication. It is well known that US personnel venture outside of the "green zone" only when it is absolutely unavoidable. So how is it that effective co-operation is maintained between Iraqi ministries, projects in the field (in Baghdad and elsewhere) and US and other reconstruction officials? Roger Cohen:

Often Western contractors are forced to rely on photographs brought to them by Iraqi employees when they want to assess progress on projects like schools or electrical facilities. In these circumstances, even with $18.4 billion in U.S. taxpayers' money allocated for Iraqi rebuilding, it's not easy to get a Ministry of Health that's responsive up and running, or an Oil Ministry that's efficient, or an electricity system reliable enough to support economic expansion.

Tends to explain a bit about how all those millions of dollars slated for reconstruction tend to lose contact with the actuarial GPS waypoints and set a course of their own doesn't it? It would appear that no real serious effort has been made to trace the money that's left the IRMO en route to a project via the relevant ministry but not made it past the "via" (or its friends) and we can see why. One can imagine reconstruction officials diligently pulling out files with "$21.2 million allocated this photo" attached. What results from such incompetent activity?

"This is not just a shooting war," the officer, who did not want to be identified on the eve of a sensitive new assignment to Iraq, said. "If you can't give people the sense that their government is capable of governing them, if you can't create a professional bureaucracy, the insurgency becomes a perpetual-motion machine."

As indeed it has. Rep Murtha in his now (in)famous speech was evidently echoing the feelings of this fellow – at least his frustrations with what he sees as the most important mission: reconstruction and putting Iraqis in control of their own country.

When listening to the rhetoric – revisionist or just plain removed from reality – it may well pay to remember what this fellow has to say "'When you set up a very capable army and police force with a weak and inefficient government, you set the stage for a military takeover. That is not what we went to Iraq to help them establish."

Indeed we did not. That thought becomes so much the more unsettling with the infiltration of the Iraqi security apparatus (army/police) by sectarian militias such as the Peshmerga, the Badr and Wolf Brigades and their like. The secret Shia run "detention facilities" so recently brought to light indicate where that path will take the new "democracy".

Kerrin notes, "I assume you would agree it’s fair to say that Murtha’s focus is US soldiers rather than Iraqi civilians."

Absolutely, but of course he is a US Congressman who must answer politically to his constituents, and like all Congressmen and women is almost certainly thinking about re-election next November.

It's interesting to note that the strongest calls for reinstatement of a draft in the US are coming from liberal Democrats like Rep Charles Rangel from New York. Rangel's complaint about the current volunteer military is that the risks of war fall disproportionately on the poor and minorities, especially African-Americans like him and many in his district. (Rangel himself is a Korean War veteran).

This week's Sunday New York Times had an essay from former Kennedy Administration officials Theodore Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger, on one approach to getting out of Iraq. See What Would JFK Have Done?. Something like what Sorensen and Schlesinger are talking about will have to be done.

Interesting. Who would have thought Washington would need Teheran's help to get its troops out of Iraq. The return of the realists! Like a bad smell they never completely go away. Nice to see the neo-cons on the wane. Realists are more prudent though, of course, no less violent. See Realists Tighten Grip as Talks Open with Iran by Jim Lobe.

Kerryn Higgs it would be the worst result possible for the US to up and leave Iraq at a moments notice irrespective of the situation. It would also be appalling and idiotic to give anything away in the form of a deadline.

Any person with even slight brain capacity would be able to quickly work at what would happen on a deadline being announced. I do not think Murtha is stupid so therefore I can only feel he is playing politics for his own selfish ends.

Whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq, it is a entirely different question to whether they should leave at the moment. I think there is only one answer to that question and I highly doubt any potential candidate for President would see it any other way.

I agree with Lieberman to leave now would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".

Hi Jay White – no question that the President has complete power over troop deployment and is in a position to order continuation of the occupation for as long as he likes, whatever the polls, the people or anyone else might say. Whether pulling out would be idiotic though is something else. What I think is the crucial question is whether this is a realistic option and there are many signs that, whatever posture Bush might adopt, the mess is in no way amenable to the “victory plan”.

The key questions here are: Can the US armed forces continue indefinitely and, if not, can the Iraqis replace them?

John Murtha, a conservative Democrat from “deer-hunter” country and on close terms with the generals trying to run the occupation, argues that, without a draft, the military has reached the limits of its capability. Murtha, no liberal, has a reputation as a “Democrat hawk” and fully supported the war at the beginning. Murtha is open to a draft but I doubt that Bush is. It seems that Murtha is acting as the mouthpiece for generals who find themselves unable to convince the President of the problem.

Soldiers have already been asked to perform their third year-long combat tour in Iraq and this will translate to a fourth and fifth within the next couple of years. This is an unreasonable call on these individuals. It also helps to account for deepening shortfalls in recruitment and stress trauma affecting up to 10% of the US military.
Yesterday, retired 3-star General Odom also called for immediate withdrawal link here , arguing that the occupation benefits al Qaeda and Iran, not US interests.

Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief (and an Australian) Michael Ware, was one of the first reporters to warn that the Iraq occupation was creating a “new Afghanistan where the new generation of al Qaeda is blooding themselves and returning out to the rest of the world to spread.” (extensive quotes from Ware on his return from the attack on Fallujah can be found in the last section of this piece link here – or full transcript and audio are here link here .

Ware was also embedded with the forces conducting the assault on Tal Afar recently, an example used by President Bush in the “Plan for Victory” speech: “This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces”.
But Ware told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night link here that the rosy picture of Iraqi leadership painted by the President was basically untrue.
“WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.”

Will Howard – fair point on the mind-reading matter, my claim was rather too rhetorical. Though I assume you would agree it’s fair to say that Murtha’s focus is US soldiers rather than Iraqi civilians. Thanks for the link to his statement.
Michael and Mark – as you indicate, oil is one huge factor at the heart of it all. Renowned oil analyst Ken Deffeyes by the way predicted the all-time production peak for petroleum, or "peak oil," would occur on or around this Thanksgiving. That was last week.

To expand on Kerryn's point on Murtha being a mouthpiece for the generals there is this:

The immense significance of Rep John Murtha's November 17 speech calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is that it signals mutiny in the US senior officer corps, seeing the institution they lead as "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth", to use the biting words of their spokesman, John Murtha, as he reiterated on December his denunciation of Bush's destruction of the Army.

A CounterPuncher with nearly 40 years experience working in and around the Pentagon told me this week that "The Four Star Generals picked Murtha to make this speech because he has maximum credibility." It's true. Even in the US Senate there's no one with quite Murtha's standing to deliver the message, except maybe for Byrd, but the venerable senator from West Virginia was a vehement opponent of the war from the outset , whereas Murtha voted for it and only recently has turned around.

So the Four-Star Generals briefed Murtha and gave him the state-of-the-art data which made his speech so deadly, stinging the White House into panic-stricken and foolish denunciations of Murtha as a clone of Michael Moore.

A few days ago I advised Jay that multiple sources are preferred when trying to make a case over just one. However, he seems to rely solely on Joe Lieberman for his source as to how things are going. I found this earlier today:

SCHIEFFER: ...because there's a lot of talk. Last night--over this weekend, I had four different people tell me that the White House is thinking if the secretary of Defense goes over the next year--and a lot of people think that he will, that the president is thinking of nominating Joe Lieberman to be secretary of Defense. If he did that, would you support Lieberman?

Sen. KERRY: Of course, I'd support Joe Lieberman. He's a friend and he's a very capable guy. But that's all inside Washington stuff, Bob. You know, what people really care about is how we're going to protect our country and get your troops home in a way that is successful. Now...

SCHIEFFER: Do you think Lieberman would do a better job than Rumsfeld?

Sen. KERRY: Well, right--I think a lot of people would do a better job than Secretary Rumsfeld. But let me come to the more important issue...

This raises speculation as to motives and should also be compared with one of Jay's reasons for finding Lieberman a sound source: "He also can hardly be called a fan of Bush given he is in an opposition party ...". It is, of course, not unknown for a president to appoint members of the other party to his cabinet. If anyone is unaware of this, do some research.

Will Howard, please point out where I said Lieberman was wrong? Try reading what I wrote and not put your spin on it.

Jay White, same applies to you as to Will. Also, for someone who has referred to the opinion of one person to accuse someone who has posted hundreds of articles as cherry picking is grotesque.

Also, you have ccontinued to accuse me of not answering your question. I did so yesterday morning. Whether you dislike my answer or cannot understand it is your problem. To accuse me of not answering is a lie - one you have kept repeating.

Bob Wall asks "why do people select Lieberman alone against all the opinions?" Fair enough question. I, for one, don't. But Lieberman is not the only one with this opinion. So I suppose the counter-counter question is: why do you select all those other opinions against Lieberman and other like-minded commentators?

And even if Lieberman were the only one holding the view he does, sometimes that one lone voice is the right one, against a huge weight of counter opinion. So how do you know Lieberman is wrong?

There is a wide range of opinion on the current situation in Iraq. Lieberman's is one of many, though I consider it worthy of at least being considered.

I ask again: how does the rumor about the SecDef appointment discredit Lieberman's assessment of the situation in Iraq? What do you think are Lieberman's "motives" for expressing this view, and how do his motives make his assessment suspect?

I'm calling for explicit engagement of Sen. Lieberman's position on its substantial merits, or lack thereof. Play the ball, not the man, Bob.

Will Howard the reply to yours truly from Bob Wall rates little consideration for thought. He sees things in black and white with goodies and badies everywhere. So Lieberman not echoing his preferred line of thought makes Lieberman a badie.

I wonder if Lieberman's opinion made it onto the pages of the Bob project. I lost interest sometime back in reading this mish mash of huddled together and cherry picked propaganda.

Although I am always interested in knowing what perspective a person is coming from in a debate. For example I know you voted Democrat which you feel no reason to hide and neither should you.

If you read the democracy thread you will find Bob's preferred politics is a deep dark and hidden secret. For all anyone knows Bob might be looking for an Iraqi oil contract.

So go ahead Bob critise Lieberman and anyone else you can think of, at least they and everybody else knows were they stand. I find your vauge stated beliefs a mirror image of a MacDonalds corporate mission statment.

You and Lantaan the two cheeseburgers of world political commentary.

Also Will Lieberman attempted to run against Bush in 2004 just incase Bob forgot.

Margo: Borderline, Jay. Please, let's lay off the abuse and get back to the debate, OK? BTW, feel free to post your own links on 'Irises'.

Will Howard, I didn't miss anything. The point I was making was that, true or not, the airing of the rumour about Lieberman will raise speculation about his motives.

If you care to go and do a thorough reading of Irises you will see lots of opinions about Iraq. You can then weigh Lieberman's possibly suspect opinion against those.

The counter question is: why do people select Lieberman alone against all the opinions?

Bob Wall says (after quoting an interview with Sen Kerry in which Kerry is asked to respond to rumors the Bush Admin. may appoint Sen Joe Lieberman as Sec'y of Defense): "This raises speculation as to motives and should also be compared with one of Jay's reasons for finding Lieberman a sound source: 'He also can hardly be called a fan of Bush given he is in an opposition party ...'. It is, of course, not unknown for a president to appoint members of the other party to his cabinet."

You are correct on this point, Bob.

For example William Cohen, a Republican, was Secretary of Defense in the 2nd Clinton (Democratic) Administration. Democrat Pat Moyhihan served in the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations.

You may have forgotten, but Lieberman did run against Bush and Cheney in the 2000 election.

But how does this rumor (about the SecDef job) discount Lieberman as a source? You can agree or disagree with him, argue for or against his opinion, but his possible consideration for a Cabinate position in the Bush Admin is not a real argument against his assessment of the situation in Iraq. What do you think are Lieberman's "motives" for expressing the view he has? Isn't it just possible that, right or wrong, Senator Lieberman's Op-Ed piece is simply that: his honestly-held opinion?

Will Howard, I would have thought that today people would desist from playing their silly little games.

Due to to the nature of events I will resist the temptation of saying a few home truths about your tactics other than I have seen right through you from very early on.

And by the way Bob Wall, your only mention of Lieberman on the Irises thread is the mention of the rumor about the SecDef job, and the following comment: