http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48605/ Another take/ It has always been about oil. We did not give 2 shits about the Iraqis or Saddam.
Depends on who wins the internal war in the Bush Administration,
the neocons or the oil lobby.
I know what you’re talking about – but while that internal war mattered in the first 2-3 years of the occupation, I’m thinking that sociopolitical conditions in Iraq have now degenerated to the point where the oil lobby and the neocons no longer have any meaningful conflict of interest.
I wasn’t aware that personal dictatorships were particularly well-known for the stability of their political arrangements, particularly when the subject population is less than perfectly homogenous. Squabbling over the spoils tends to erupt quite fast. In this particular case, I’m not convinced the fils Hussein would have been able to sit down and amicably decide who was going to be number one, even if the old guard who had loyally supported their father for decades were happy to amble off into a happy retirement supervised by those two.
And that’s without even getting into clans, ethnicity and and the Sunni/Shia issue.
This is true of course. Some dictatorships end in chaos and civil war (Yugoslavia), but others transition towards some type Democracy without too much upheaval (Greece).
The problem I have with this is that you seem to be saying that the current chaos was destined by fate. That the US is basically powerless, and even a major military intervention could at best serve only to precipitate the inevitable. Is the US really so powerless that it can’t be held responsible for the consequences of its actions ?
A (somewhat tenuous) parallel to the political situation in Iraq can be found in XXth century Spain. After a difficult transition from monarchy, there were conflicting nations within the nation (different languages etc), some historical bad blood, religious and political differences, followed by a major civil war ending in a long military dictatorship. It could have seemed that the death of Franco would inevitably lead to a resurgence of the civil war, but in fact the transition to democracy was relatively smooth. There are some obvious differences - Spain had a democratic nation on one of it’s borders, the Franco government was less repressive than Saddam Hussein (once the ‘reprisals’ period ended). Still, it seems like a stretch to say that Iraq was ‘destined’ to collapse into civil war with the death of Saddam Hussein.
As for who’s going to ‘control’ the oil, it looks to me like we have two questions here. Who’s going to profit from the oil, and who’s going to consume it. In economic terms the current debacle seems to demonstrate that seizing the oil by military means is a high cost and unprofitable move. In terms of escalating global conflict or a resurgent cold war, US interests would be best served by having (friendly) trading partners in the Middle-East, rather than attempting to directly ‘control’ the oil. In the case of open warfare, I’m dubious that there would be any realistic way for the US to access ME oil regardless of any pre-existing arrangements.
Update: The Iraqi Parliament still can’t agree on the proposed oil law. Foreign investment is the sticking point.
I like Scott Adam’s plan:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/iraq_withdrawal.html
Saddam had kids. One of them would have killed the other and took over. Iraqis I know feel Iraqi. They claim religion was rarely mentioned in daily life. They mixed and had few problems on that basis.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ Heres an Iraqi take.
Now Dennis Kucinich is weighing in! Very insightful dissection of the bill!
Update: The proposed oil law is still gridlocked by opposition. Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers have now joined the forces arrayed against it.
See also this interview with the founder of the Iraq oil workers union.
Some of us think that it is far-sighted. People have been put into place and things have been thrown into motion that could concievably reach into the future and finish The Goal. I sure as fuck hope that in two years, we can just throw the switch and change the egregious ills.
This is why, again, Kucinich is the correct person to run the country. Well, at least he is, in my opinion.
A member of the parliamentary committee drafting the oil law just quit in protest.
The best idea I heard was to create an oil trust that put took some of the oil revenue and gave it directly to Iraqi citizens. This would help build the middle class, it would give each Iraqi a direct stake in seeing that the country was stable and oil production was growing, and stimulate the economy rapidly through consumer spending. It would also help dispel the persistent rumors that the U.S. was going to steal all the Iraqi oil.
Of course, it’s too good of an idea for the Bush administration to ever implement it, even though it’s been recommended by people in pretty high places.
At worst, it’s the start to a pretty solid solution.
That’s the rub. If this war and such are all about oil, then the people that want the oil have to make it look like they don’t want it. Then they have to work covertly to ensure that it gets into their grubby paws. It all just reeks of greed.
I agree 100%. In addition to the reasons you listed, it would give citizens an incentive to turn in saboteurs attacking the oil infrastructure.
I think, if the US hadn’t nabbed Saddam and he’d instead died of non-US related causes, that Qusai (his smart, brutal son) would have taken over after his death. That is, unless Udai (the dumb, brutal son) had some smart, ruthless friends.
That works well enough in Alaska. But Iraq is so unsettled, with such a horrible refugee problem (internal and external), that I can’t see how the government could even keep track of where to send the checks, or even who is dead and who is alive.
If they can organize an election, I see no reason they couldn’t organize an oil dividend.
Truth.