Letters to the Editor
-
I can't speak for Joe Conason but some believe that much of our fighting force should be redeployed to Afghanistan ...
quite a number of others, like Ms. Clinton, believe that there will be a need to maintain some forces within Iraq to defend our bases, embassy and interests ....
-
"The division of oil revenues."
There are two ways that an oil-rich, technology poor nation can take advantage of their oil wealth. Both involve getting exploration and extraction services from Western multinationals. The first is revenue-sharing, in which energy corporations give up their rights to the oil fields in exchange for a share of the proceeds. Under this model, the nation gives up most of its control and most of the potential revenues.
The second model lets the nation contract technological know-how from the West in exchange for a straight fee. The nation retains control of both the development and the proceeds, while the corporations get their costs reimbursed plus some profit.
Guess which model every OPEC nation uses?
Guess which model Venezuela uses?
Now, guess which model we're trying to foist onto Iraq?
When you read about how one of the "benchmarks of progress in Iraq" is getting the Iraqi legislature to pass a revenue-sharing law, remember this: We're not asking them to come together and draft a law that they think will be fair to all parties. The law is already drafted (with far more input from energy lobbyists than from Iraqis), it punts on the issue of how to divide the revenues between the various sects, and it gives a larger slice of oil revenues to the West than any other contract out there.
The law is so bad that Iraqi oil workers have gone on strike over it, and The Guardian recently hailed the law's stall as the first piece of good news to come out of Iraq in a long time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2140691,00.html
The law is clearly egregious, written on behalf of Western interests, not Iraqi ones. The Iraqi government is clearly under a great deal of pressure to pass the law. If the U.S. can be considered an occupying force, then the law is probably invalid as a matter of international law, and will probably be revoked the moment the U.S. pulls out. Which brings us back to the point that so many other letter writers have been shouting from the rooftops.
The Bush administration intends never to leave Iraq.
-
Bush won't leave, but sucessor will
We are electing a president whose primary promise is to quit Iraq. All of us have accepted the reality that is Bush--he won't leave; in fact, he is doing everything he can to make it difficult for his successor to get out. He built a humongous state of the art embassy (the cost of which was approved--shockingly--by Congress--I don't even recall that building being publicized before a couple of months ago when it was near completion!). Additionally, he's sold arms to the Saudis and has promised them that we won't leave abruptly. I don't know if those promises carry over to another administration, but I'd like to hear that they will not before we elect anybody.
Any kind of U.S. presence in Iraq will require U.S. troops--which will mean continued conflict because we will be attacked. What I don't want to hear from a new president who may be Democratic is that now that he or she's been briefed at a higher level than when he or she was candidate, plans have to be revised. Bush's mistakes may be what gets us in the end, for he has created a million bin Ladens whose zeal is to replicate his madness. But what makes it worse are those contractors who bill taxpayers billions of dollars and who work protected by our armed forces. The fact that there is a huge profit-making going on in the midst of this catastrophe and while Americans and Iraqui citizens are dying makes the situation even more unbearable.
-
Is the sustained Deaths and Injuries Worth It???
What goes without saying or questioning, is that Admiral Mike Mullen apparently sees the average of 3 American fatalities and uncounted critical injuries, that American servicemen suffer per day in Iraq, as acceptable losses. In all the sustained America Military presences, no where has America suffer that much on a daily basis. We would not have stayed in Japan, Germany, Italy, or South Korea if our daily losses in those countries were as severe as they are in Iraq.
Assuming that Admiral Mike Mullen is right that long term American military presence in Iraq could bring stability to Iraq, is it worth it?
Lets look at possible benefits of a "stable" Iraq.
Could a stable Iraq deter terrorism and radical Islam? I am of the opinion that even if the Sunnies and Shiites stop shooting each other (which is hard to imagine since they have been killing each other for over a thousand years now), the Sunnies would still be inclined to hate America, because we removed their dominance from the Iraqi government, and thusly they would still want to fund and/or actively or indirectly support Al-Qaeda. And on the Shiite side it is hard to imagine that they would not form greater ties with America's greatest enemy Iran.
Could stability in Iraq prevent Iraq from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Since I don't believe stability in Iraq will deter terrorism or radical Islam, likewise I doubt a stable Iraq would not pursue weapons of mass destruction to either use on Israel, or on their neighbors, namely Turkey (which is more or less at war with the Kurds), Saudi Arabia (which would like to see Sunni dominance returned to Iraq), or Kuwait (because of their vast oil wealth that was so enticing to Saddam back in 1990).
Does a stable Iraq lower the prise of gas? Why would people who are no longer desperate sell their oil cheaper? And the take over of Iraq by Halliburton hasn't yet (over 4 years later) been linked to lower prises at the pump here in America. The price of gas in America has nearly doubled since the invasion of Iraq began.
Could a stable Iraq promote Democratic reform in the region? Probably, but the attempt at Democratic reform in Iraq is why we have the current chaotic situation in Iraq, and the current chaotic situation in Iraq has encouraged every nation in the region to become less Democratic. And can we really assume that Arab nations and Iran acting more Democratically would be in the best interest of the west? If the citizens of Iran and the Arab nations are given the vote, then more than likely they will elect parties such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which were both recently democratically elected.
However all those arguments are mute, in that stability in Iraq isn't possible. If Stability in Iraq was possible, the British would have achieved that goal over a hundred years ago. Need I remind people why Saddam was our friend in the Iran-Iraq war, and why he was given the keys to the city of Detroit in 1980.
The goal isn't achievable, and the cost in American servicemen lives and in American tax dollars isn't worth it, so it's time to bring our beloved military home, or at least redeployed to places where they would not be getting shot at or attacked with bombs on a daily basis.
The best bet for Iraq is to partition the nation along ethnic lines. This would not reduce the support for radical Islam and unsavory political parties, but such support from Iraqis is inevitable no matter what happens. But a partitioned Iraq would greatly reduce the chances of a Saddam like character coming back to power, would reduce the threats that Iraq potentially poses to its neighbors, and would put an end to the current active Iraqi civil war.