why we stay in Iraq, and when we will leave. The answer is

This is an analysis of the Iraq situation, from an economic perspective. It had dawned on me that economic perspective remains the only one, in which the current deadlock formulated by all parties, can be explained logically.

All of this is based entirely on my opinion and observation.

From the onset of the Iraq occupation, the officially stated goals of the administration had reduce from WMD, Saddam (got him!), link to Al Qaeda, freedom, to democracy. But now even the officials themselves are tempted to remove democracy from the list[1]. While stability, which was not suppose to be an issue (according to some in Washington), became the dominant concern. Of course, we still seem to care about the pottery barn rule, so Al Qaeda, angry ethically-divided population, insurgent, or what not, are there to keep us occupy for the mean time.

Even if Bush doesn't care about polling numbers, the pro-war politicians surely had felt the growing pressure and sentiment from the citizen at home. The occupation had gone on for four years, three years longer than the original estimate. It is important to have time on your side, because that is one hell of an enemy who literally grows stronger every second.

But there is a dominant reason, one that is not discuss on any main stream media, for our seemly selfless, yet increasingly foolish Iraq commitment. What keeps the US army in Iraq is oil, and the fact that it doesn’t belong to our corporations, yet. OK, so maybe not so selfless nor foolish after all.

Currently, the whole ordeal centers around the Iraq draft oil legislation (Iraqi Oil and Gas (Hydrocarbon) Law). Basically it boils down to privatization of a majority of Iraq’s oil fields, with conditions favorable to the players of the “free” market. The majority of the profit is not mandated to circulate within Iraq, and does can and will be siphon right out of the god forsaken land.

The actual text of the law can be found here [2]. There are several good analysis and commentary on the web [3].

The trouble with this law, which has been an open secret for about two years, is that it still has not passed. This does not bode well for those who deeply regard the within grasp, but yet out of reach economic victory.

[4] news conference, Aug, 21, 2007

So why is the law not signed? Well, it is because the Iraqi government is not completely stupid. Somehow it sees through the politics and concludes that its survival depends on support from US force. Once the law is signed, US would likely yield to domestic pressure and start reducing boots on the ground. Thus, US will pull out shortly after the passage of the oil law There is simply too little incentive to commit our resource to keep someone else’s act together, when there is nothing we could gain. Armed force presence will be limited to the privatized oil fields, since it is very important to keep the oil flowing.

Al-Maliki “supports” the law from the very beginning, he is somehow able to stall the government from actually inking the deal. A cunning fellow he is.

On the other hand, until the law is signed, US cannot withdraw military support to the Iraqi government. If the government collapses, then there is no legitimate authority to sign away Iraq’s natural resource. We do not have enough political capital to hold another election, so we are stuck with what’s built. This strange catch-22 is precisely the reason why our military is in Iraq, today.

By the way, if you pay a bit of attention, you would notice the timing of the military surge, the 6-month wait-and-see period, the promise Al-Maliki made regarding the time requires to sign the draft, all goes very well together.

But we live in an interesting time, because now it’s another turning point period where inaction yields to politics. After 6 months, time runs dry, law has not been signed, and everyone start talking again. And they start to crank up their voice because dissatisfaction runs through everyone’s vein. We are going to see some interesting development in the near future[5].

Remember prior to the eminent invasion, the blood for oil chant? Well, so as it turns out, there is a lot of truth there. Some people are able to seem through the other bull**** much earlier. It was not even one of the official reasons, although the administration has never been shy about oil revenue that could be direct to reconstruction and more importantly, how it can booster the “free” market.

Let's ignore the moral implication for a second; the invasion makes a lot of sense from an economic perspective. The US utilizes its military, an one-of-kind local resource that cost considerable upkeep, to acquire a vital resource. What went wrong is that we try to impose democratic institution in Iraq at the same time.

When we re-built the war torn Japan and Germany through the generous Marshall Plan, we achieved the political objective in expense of our economy. It turns out great because the long term economical benefit far out weights any short term gain we could had otherwise. These regions stabilized quickly and remain as our allies today.

Unfortunately, economic objective and political objective are not entirely compatible. By going after these two contradictory goals simultaneously, US managed to achieve neither thus far.


[1]
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html#cnnSTCText

[2]
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Iraqoillaw021507.pdf

[3]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0819opposeoil.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0809uniteoil.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0717slick.htm

[4]
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html

[5]
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/26/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13600



Sorry for the long rant. Read the bolded part only if you don’t have the time.

 

This is not true. A new government can change the law to prohibit future privatization, but it can not do much on deals that already existed. One historical example would be the ownership of HK. It remains a British subject after the communists drove out the nationalists.

The new government can try to re-nationalize its oil fields. But it has nothing on the US arm force that will be there to ensure the oil flow.

To the decision makers, it's all about cost and benefit. Think of it as an investment that has yet to mature.

 

both of you, that is exactly what I meant by this part

In the foreseeable, any Iraq government can have the balls to force the issue. But the US force and mercenaries will be there to cut them off.

 

how can I edit my post? I really need to start using the preview button

 

I'm not too sure what your point is, but let me clarify my position again. Once the oil law is signed, US will withdraw the vast majority of its force. That is what the public will perceive as the pull-out. But for one reason or another, there will be just enough troops left behind to guard the oil fields, or corporal asset. So yes troops remain in Iraq, except there will only be a handful of them stationed for a very different purpose.

Our commitment to the current Iraq government will die out due to lack of incentive. Anything could happen to Iraq once the ground troop pulls out, but we won't care as long as the oil is being siphoned.

 

The treasure, aka oil, now slips further away from political reach. It is certainly still within military reach. Deterioration of support to the Iraqi government is inevitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin