Who Wants to Own a Somalia With Oil?

[Lemur]

Interesting essay from FT today.

Surge or no surge, it’s extremely doubtful the U.S. occupation can ultimately produce a successful Iraq—a stable, unitary, democratizing state at peace with its neighbors. The surge is merely the most preliminary precursor to this intended outcome, and even Petraeus admits that it could all come undone overnight. [...]

This is hardly the fault of Petraeus, a brilliant general tasked with a nearly impossible mission. Building a decent political order in Iraq has always been something of a fantasy. Even if Petraeus somehow succeeds in bringing violence down to a manageable level, it may be generations before Iraq becomes the “dramatic and inspiring example of freedom” in the Middle East that President Bush has repeatedly invoked. Instead, it will most likely evolve into a country plagued by instability, ethnosectarian violence, weak institutions, and unreliable oil production—if we’re lucky. Few Americans would support spending $12 billion a month in Iraq if they understood that they were buying, at best, another Nigeria, and at worst, Somalia with oil.

Here's where the analysis really gets interesting:

Supporters of the Iraq war, however, should know better. Many of them seem to have forgotten the work of scholars like NYU political scientist Adam Przeworski, who has written extensively about the relationship between wealth and democracy. Above a per capita income of $6,055, Przeworski finds, “democracies last forever.” But below that threshold, democracies are more fragile. Iraq’s GDP per capita today is a paltry $3,600, but even that low figure is misleading. When a country depends so heavily on oil revenues, its GDP per capita says little about its real level of development (Equatorial Guinea, technically speaking, is the 12th-richest country in the world). Przeworski’s research therefore excludes major oil-producers, which have their own set of problems.

In fact, oil tells us nearly everything we need to know about Iraq’s grim future. The United States is betting billions that Iraq—which has traditionally depended on oil exports for 95 percent of its foreign-exchange earnings—will escape the curse of what a Venezuelan oil minister once called “the devil’s excrement.” Academic studies have shown repeatedly that poor countries with oil tend to be poorer, more repressive, and more prone to internal conflict than those without it.

So we're paying like mad and sacrificing our sons and daughters to own a Somalia with oil. Lovely.

[Pannonian]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

[discovery1]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

What a mistake, oh what a mistake then.

I mean the whole getting rid of Saddam.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Stability at all costs should be the goal. Find a hardman who can hold the country together with whatever means necessary. Never mind if he's pro or anti US, that's less important than his ability to hold the country together so we don't have to. Then give him a brief of holding Iraq together in one piece, whatever means he wishes to use, whatever he wishes to do with this Iraq, and materially back him. The result will be a far more repressive version of Saddam Hussain, who has free rein to be as hostile to the US as he wants even as he receives American weapons and money. But it will be a lesser evil than having Iraq fall apart.

The easiest way to achieve this would be letting Iran have the south and Turkey the north - leaving a kind of butcher's yard buffer zone where the Sunnis are currently present.

You will not find a strongman of the type you propose in the current mess. The country is now all but partitioned, and religious divisions almost irreconcilable - at least for some generations - which grouping would your strongman emerge from? "Strong men" invariably usurp existing structures or emerge from many years of civil strife/extreme instability to create structures for their own ends. Thus, to impose stability right now, the United States would have to impose a choice by extreme force - something they are singularly unable to do.

If stability at all costs is your choice, then either you turn the country (and its oil) over to the regional powers or inflict a bloodbath several orders of magnitude greater than the current one.

The point is; Iraq has fallen apart. It's broken. I know you are fond of realpolitik - but as options, I don't think they are open to any US president.

[Pannonian]

The easiest way to achieve this would be letting Iran have the south and Turkey the north - leaving a kind of butcher's yard buffer zone where the Sunnis are currently present.

You will not find a strongman of the type you propose in the current mess. The country is now all but partitioned, and religious divisions almost irreconcilable - at least for some generations - which grouping would your strongman emerge from? "Strong men" invariably usurp existing structures or emerge from many years of civil strife/extreme instability to create structures for their own ends. Thus, to impose stability right now, the United States would have to impose a choice by extreme force - something they are singularly unable to do.

If stability at all costs is your choice, then either you turn the country (and its oil) over to the regional powers or inflict a bloodbath several orders of magnitude greater than the current one.

The point is; Iraq has fallen apart. It's broken. I know you are fond of realpolitik - but as options, I don't think they are open to any US president.

There's still al-Sadr, who's credibly anti-American and reasonably pan-Iraq in aim (if not appeal). British governments used to deal with their erstwhile opponents all the time during the colonial wind-down period, with terrorists who were a threat to civilisation and never to be dealt with suddenly becoming friendly presidents of the newly independent republics. Why can't the US do the same?

[Samurai Waki]

...well, it was gonna happen sooner or later. I don't think Uday and Kusay had the cojones to run the country like their dad did. And because saddam kept a rather repressive leash on his Ba'athist Ministers, none of them would have likely stood up to the challenge. Iraq, as a country is impossible until either Moderate Muslims have the will to stand up to the extreme elements, or until a Nationalist "One World For all Muslims" Sentiment appears, however it is unlikely either will happen, or if one does, it will take an epoch.

[Oleander Ardens]

It is good to know that this essay from the FT points to a very simple fact which I already have mentioned here in the .org. The cost of this ill-advised war has been gigantic in non-monetary and monetery terms, in human and political capital and still is, every day it is increasing. So we know that "staying the course" and trying to achieve "stability at all cost" is hugely costly. What we don't know what will happen afterwards. In our complex world the retreat of the US Army could well increase longterm stability or the sectarian bloodbath.

But to stick to the mission just because you have thrown money out of the windows doesn't mean that you must continue to throw out more money to give the impression you did a perfectly sensible thing before...

OA

[Banquo's Ghost]

There's still al-Sadr, who's credibly anti-American and reasonably pan-Iraq in aim (if not appeal). British governments used to deal with their erstwhile opponents all the time during the colonial wind-down period, with terrorists who were a threat to civilisation and never to be dealt with suddenly becoming friendly presidents of the newly independent republics. Why can't the US do the same?

Al-Sadr is hardly a strongman. His own base is fractured, he is an Iranian puppet, and he doesn't even unify the Shia. He has also repeatedly backed down in the face of military confrontation - largely because his paymasters in Iran don't want to play their hand until the US has left.

British imperialists knew that it was always unwise to smash a country thoroughly before then trying to find someone to do business with. The British Empire was pragmatic, as you say, and merely co-opted the existing structures with payments or placemen, changing them to suit over several generations.

Iraq is different. Her whole political and physical infrastructure was destroyed in the belief that an alien model could then be imposed on the rubble. Her people were allowed, nay encouraged, into an orgy of sectarian violence that has dispossessed the country of its brightest and best through exile or death.

This is not a colonial wind-down.

[Redleg]

Iraq is different. Her whole political and physical infrastructure was destroyed in the belief that an alien model could then be imposed on the rubble. Her people were allowed, nay encouraged, into an orgy of sectarian violence that has dispossessed the country of its brightest and best through exile or death.

You give the planners of the invasion of Iraq to much credit. They honestly thought that many would flock to the banner of democracy once Saddam was removed from power, that the alien model would take hold immediately upon his removal.

Now the main failure was that there was no plan for what to do if the first scenerio did not happen. This opened the door for complete and utter chaos.

[Geoffrey S]

The only real possibility I see for stability in at least part of Iraq there is Iran, exerting influence by proxy of al-Sadr. The irony is that the US and Iran have far more in common than either are willing to acknowledge - a shame, because both would gain from a more stable region. But pandering to the public in an international pissing match seems to have the priority.

The rest, though, would be screwed, and probably are regardless. If things get worse I'd be most worried about what exactly will happen in the north, because the Kurds are not going to ignore such a chance at autonomy.

[rory_20_uk]

I am sure that China would have a much more... robust way of sorting out the problem. None of this missiles at a distance, but troops taking on and breaking hard point after hard point with losses viewed as acceptable - people replenish over time, oil doesn't.

Again, China is used to fighting against religion and sees democracy as a problem, not a desirable outcome.

I imagine that if China has "war fatigue" it'd be far greater than the western "powers" and although the armed forces are not as high tech a unified command with clear cut objectives would help.

[El Diablo]

Ummmmmm....

Was some one looking for a dictator?

Mugabe might be out of power soon.

Send him up there.

"Hello country missing a despot, here meet Mr Mugabe, Mr Mugabe meet Iraq."

Problem solved.

Some how I do not think so....

[rotorgun]

Hi all,

I haven't been able to get back to the posts as I am busy preparing for a deployment myself, but If I may add a small point. We of the United States Military certainly don't want to spend our entire lives or careers tied up in Iraq. That being said, it is also a part of what we accepted when we "signed up for the pancakes" by volunteering to serve. Speaking for myself, I'll do what I must to bring a successful end to this mission if one can be achieved. Whereas this is possible is certainly debatable. It all comes down to will- do we have the will to follow it through?

I also feel that we must take a hard look at what it will really take, and disavow this fantasy that there is some sort of "exit strategy" that will achieve anything but admit defeat. I am under few delusions when I say that my fellow Americans just cannot seem to sympathize with the plight of the people of this country in the way they did with Europe, England, the Pacific Basin, Korea, and even Viet Nam. Even I cannot help but wonder what in the hell I am about going to a place were I am seen as an infidel who will only leave after a year or so, or as an occupier at best. It will take many years of patient occupation and reeducation to change this mindset. We will also need to stop this pointless giving back of cleared areas to the insurgents. Why sacrifice our blood, just to let these jackals move right back in afterwards?

Unfortunately this will require the total commitment of the military to succeed IMHO. It's either that or admit defeat, pull out, and let the Iranians and fanatics take over. Only the strong-man can rule Iraq. So either we must be strong-in a way that the Iraqis understand-or accept or abject failure.

Commitment is not going to be easy. As Colin Powell tried to warn us-"If you break it, it's yours to fix".

[Papewaio]

and even Viet Nam. Even I cannot help but wonder what in the hell I am about going to a place were I am seen as an infidel who will only leave after a year or so, or as an occupier at best. It will take many years of patient occupation and reeducation to change this mindset. We will also need to stop this pointless giving back of cleared areas to the insurgents. Why sacrifice our blood, just to let these jackals move right back in afterwards?

Sounds like the problem they had in Viet Nam where the US military would 'win' a piece of land. Give it to the South and then due to a combination of different scenarios the US military would have to win it all over again.

What I don't understand is that if an opponent is openly the leader of a organisation that is using terrorism and those terrorist attacks are against civilians in Iraq that they are not stomped on. Sure give him the option to come to the peace table. But surely after 3 attempts wipe him and his militia off the face of the earth. That would be a far more effective method of saying that the US means what it says about terrorism.

I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State.

[Furious Mental]

"I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State."

That isn't really apt to describe the situation there. Really the only militia that is clearly "against the state" is Al Qaeda in Iraq. All the others have some toehold in government in some form which they wish to defend and enlarge but of course they are certainly prepared to attack "the state" where it aids that agenda.

[Vladimir]

I'll skip the absurdly of the OP and answer your question with one word: China.

No link for you, Google China and Africa.

Merging threads in a way.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, my friend, it's a little early in the day to be posting drunk, no?

[rotorgun]

What I don't understand is that if an opponent is openly the leader of a organisation that is using terrorism and those terrorist attacks are against civilians in Iraq that they are not stomped on. Sure give him the option to come to the peace table. But surely after 3 attempts wipe him and his militia off the face of the earth. That would be a far more effective method of saying that the US means what it says about terrorism.

I totally agree with you here. The problem is that it will be very messy, with a great chance of colateral damage and casualties as these guys are so deeply entrenched within the local communities. We must have the courage to face the critisizm that will surely come our way from such an action. It's part and parcel with the type of war it has become. I feel that the Iraqis will have more respect for us if we shall take such decisive measures. They are certainly suffering more casualties from the malitias than we would cause in the their elimination IMO. Afterwards, we must garrison such an area to prevent insurgency from rekindling. The people must be made to feel safe. In this way trust may be garnered.

I say increase the surge and put down all the militias that are fighting against the State.

Bear in mind that I, as a soldier, abhor war as I say this - but I feel we must adopt a "Total War" mentallity or we will fail. I can't remember who said it, but the jist of it goes "To show restraint towards the enemy in war is the hieght of folly." (Citation needed) This enemy in particular is of the most dedicated and commited. It will call for the same kind of resolve to defeat him.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, my friend, it's a little early in the day to be posting drunk, no?

Now where were you when I posted my puppy comment, huh?

No puppies for oil I say.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Keep them in the babe thread. HAH!

[Xiahou]

I've said it before, al-Sadr should have had an "accident" several years ago. Sure it would've been messy, but at least he'd be out of the way and not poking his head up from Iran every couple months and fighting a proxy war.

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.

As to the OP, the Somali analogy is as flawed as the Vietnam one. They're all very different situations- comparisons like that just dumb the situation down and are designed to evoke an emotional response.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You give the planners of the invasion of Iraq to much credit. They honestly thought that many would flock to the banner of democracy once Saddam was removed from power, that the alien model would take hold immediately upon his removal.

Now the main failure was that there was no plan for what to do if the first scenerio did not happen. This opened the door for complete and utter chaos.

Sadly, I think you are all too correct as to the shape of the original post-Saddam strategy.

Many of our European allies long for the day when Bush will say, out loud, "I was wrong, you were right; Saddam should have been kept there to keep a lid on the cesspool." Until Bush says that (not a likely event), it is unlikely that he'll get much support to do anything in Iraq.

Banquo has the right of it, though. Iraq is as it is. Humpty Dumpty shattered and someone or something has to pick up the pieces. So....

Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts propping up the current regime until it can institutionalize some form of stable quasi-democratic government (probably with a high degree of federalism/regional autonomy), recognizing that this is a decades-long project at least as complex as that occurring in the Balkans

OR

Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from Iraq so that the bloodshed can begin, conclude, and a new stasis point be reached (negotiating with the winners of that internicine conflict).



Currently, many of our European colleagues seem locked in an inactive "we still say you shouldn't have done that" mode. Even if fully correct in that view (which I'll stipulate and which history may well prove accurate), a remorseless chorus of "I told you so's" doesn't do anything to resolve the problem.

Thoughts?

[Tribesman]

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.

Asis from the fact that not only does he have to rely on the parties with militias to form his block in government and without their support he falls , this will never get past the two main Kurdish parties with their very large and very well armed militias .
So as for seeing if he can muscle it through ...yeah snowballs in hell

[Geoffrey S]

I see al-Maliki is approving legislation that prohibits parties with militias from participating in the upcoming elections. An interesting idea, but we'll have to see if he can muscle it thru.

With possibly the biggest militia involved in Iraqi politics backing him?

[Tribesman]

With possibly the biggest militia involved in Iraqi politics backing him?

No , one of the Kurd groups has a bigger militia .
You gotta admit though that its very funny when you get a very right wing American speaking in approval of a politician that is backed by Iran and Iranian backed militias , a politician who spent their time learning politics in Iran and Syria, and not only that , but a politician whose party bombed a US embassy .
Funny old world isn't it

[Furious Mental]

Well they are having to rebuild the army with ex-Republican Guards and fight their ex-allies the Shi'ite militias with their ex-enemies the Sunni insurgents. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Should the USA's European allies commit fully to peace-keeping efforts propping up the current regime until it can institutionalize some form of stable quasi-democratic government (probably with a high degree of federalism/regional autonomy), recognizing that this is a decades-long project at least as complex as that occurring in the Balkans

Not a chance in Hell. Quite apart from the outcome being unattainable, it would be politically impossible to sell.

OR

Should the USA's allies assume that a bloody civil war is inevitable and necessary and push aggressively for a very fast withdrawal from Iraq so that the bloodshed can begin, conclude, and a new stasis point be reached (negotiating with the winners of that internicine conflict).

I've argued for this "solution" for some time now. As horrible as that would be, Iraq was always an artificial construct kept together by repression. Civil wars have been the historical method of resolving these kinds of conflicts about identity. Latterly, we have got better at persuading communities to talk rather than fight, but not much better.

Iraq, as I've noted, is broken. Only the Iraqis can put it back together, with some level of interference by neighbours with enough strategic interest - and less regard for their soldiers' lives - to be involved in such a bloodbath.

All it takes is the bitter realisation that Bush's war has done little but give the region's hegemony to Iran. Not much of a return for 4,000 American deaths and countless broken lives.

[Samurai Waki]

Or possibly a good return on 4,000 american lives... I don't mean this in the tragic sense. Any modernisation of Islam will certainly save more (American) lives than it will kill. Unfortunately, whatever path we head now, there will be large amount of heart ache and devastation to come, on both sides of the conflict. Iran can not possibly keep the status quo, and Saudi Arabia will certainly do whatever it can in it's vast religious power to prevent a status quo. America will be present in the region until either America Falls, or a great revelation occurs. Two Iraqi girls recently moved into town, and I haven't talked with either yet, but it seems like they miss home, they seem like they both have good heads on their shoulders, and from what I can tell (both being medical students at the university) that they're trying to return a favor to their homeland. I like Iraqis in the fact that despite the sectarian and religious differences they harbor against each other, that all I've met regard themselves as Iraqi first. That is hopeful, but not likely a reality for many decades to come... but steps are being made, no matter how small, to allow islam, and the idea of Iraq the chance to get the respect it deserves in the western world. If this works, despite how pessimistic I am, then it will prove that beyond any undeniable circumstance that dignity of one's self is far more important than the Dogma of one's religion.

[Geoffrey S]

No , one of the Kurd groups has a bigger militia .

More than 140,000?

[Vladimir]

Not a chance in Hell. Quite apart from the outcome being unattainable, it would be politically impossible to sell.

Another soothsayer. What lottery numbers should I pick for tomorrow?

I've argued for this "solution" for some time now. As horrible as that would be, Iraq was always an artificial construct kept together by repression. Civil wars have been the historical method of resolving these kinds of conflicts about identity. Latterly, we have got better at persuading communities to talk rather than fight, but not much better.

Iraq, as I've noted, is broken. Only the Iraqis can put it back together, with some level of interference by neighbours with enough strategic interest - and less regard for their soldiers' lives - to be involved in such a bloodbath.

All it takes is the bitter realisation that Bush's war has done little but give the region's hegemony to Iran. Not much of a return for 4,000 American deaths and countless broken lives.

There is plenty of fighting, hopefully we're getting smarter about who to kill or let die. What makes you "Iraq is broken" people think that it was whole in the first place? Scrap metal and Bondo does not a muscle car make. It's like something people have said about the intelligence community: CIA is broken--everybody knows it's broken--CIA is still broken. Yet somehow they've managed to get by for a good while now. Good enough for government work isn't a cliché, it's how things work.

Something which also gauls me is when people say that there is no "Iraq" but that its fate is up to Iraqis .

How much influence does Iran have in the region? How much influence will it have? Can anyone here comprehend the long term prospects of "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan? You're worried about Iranian influence in the region? Will there be Iranian influence in the region? It's natural and easy to be pessimistic; there is comfort in thinking new things will fail, maintaining the world as you know it. I don't have time for that. How many English deaths and broken lives have occurred around the world and what was the consequence? Who really cares, it's just King [sic] George's war anyway right?

[Lemur]

Can anyone here comprehend the long term prospects of "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Don't conflate the two wars, it weakens your argument.