Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Iraq Be a Global Gas Pump?
The (Re)Making of a Petro-State
For modern Iraq, oil has always been at the heart of everything. Its very existence as a unified state is largely the product of oil.
In 1920, under the aegis of the League of Nations, Britain cobbled together the Kingdom of Iraq from the Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul in order to better exploit the holdings of the Turkish Petroleum Company, forerunner of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). Later, Iraqi nationalists and the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein nationalized the IPC, provoking unrelenting British and American hostility. Hussein rewarded his Sunni allies in the Baath Party by giving them lucrative positions in the state company, part of a process that produced a dangerous rift with the country's Shiite majority. And these are but a few of the ways in which modern Iraqi history has been governed by oil.
Iraq is, of course, one of the world's great hydrocarbon preserves. According to oil giant BP, it harbors proven oil reserves of 115 billion barrels -- more than any country except Saudi Arabia (with 264 billion barrels) and Iran (with 138 billion). Many analysts, however, believe that Iraq has been inadequately explored, and that the utilization of modern search technologies will yield additional reserves in the range of 45 to 100 billion barrels. If all its reserves, known and suspected, were developed to their full potential, Iraq could add as much as six to eight million barrels per day to international output, postponing the inevitable arrival of peak oil and a contraction in global energy supplies.
Nailing Down the Energy Heartland of the Planet
Iraq's great hydrocarbon promise has been continually thwarted by war, foreign intervention, sanctions, internal disorder, corruption, and plain old ineptitude. Saddam Hussein did succeed for a time in elevating oil output, in the process raising national income and creating a well-educated middle class. However, his ill-conceived invasions of Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990 led to devastating attacks on Iraqi oil facilities, as well as trade embargoes and crippling debt, erasing much of his country's previous economic gains. The trade sanctions imposed by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in the wake of the First Gulf War only further eroded the country's oil-production capacity.
When President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, his overarching goals all revolved around the geopolitics of oil. He and his top officials were intent on replacing Saddam Hussein's regime with one that would prove friendly to American oil interests. They also imagined that, greeted as liberators by a grateful population, they would preside over a radical upgrading of Iraq's petroleum capacity, thereby ensuring adequate supplies for American consumers at an affordable price. Finally, by building and manning a constellation of major military bases in a grateful Iraq, they saw themselves ensuring continued American dominance over the oil-soaked Persian Gulf region, and so the energy heartland of the planet.
All of this, of course, proved to be a mirage. The U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation policies provoked a bitter Sunni insurgency that quickly overshadowed all other American concerns, including oil. As a result, no matter how much money they poured into the task, the Bush administration and its Baghdad agents found themselves incapable of boosting petroleum output even to the levels of the worst days of Saddam Hussein's regime -- and so their plans to use oil revenues to pay for the war, the occupation, and the reconstruction of the country all vanished into thin air.
The data provided by BP on yearly production tallies cannot be starker when it comes to the impact on oil output of the insurgency, rampant corruption, the loss of the nation's oil professionals (many of whom fled into exile amid sectarian warfare), and other related factors. Prior to the American invasion, Iraq was pumping 2.6 million barrels of oil per day, already significantly below its pre-invasion peak of 3.5 million barrels per day. In the first year of the ill-starred U.S. occupation, production quickly plunged to a paltry 1.3 million barrels per day. Only in 2007 did it finally top the two million mark and, with improved security, 2.4 million in 2008. Assuming conditions continue to improve, Iraqi output could, for the first time, exceed pre-invasion levels, though barely, in 2009 or 2010 -- six years or more after Baghdad fell to American forces.
A Sea Change in Iraqi Oil Production?
Until recently, most analysts assumed that Iraq would continue, at best, to make modest progress in its efforts to increase daily output. There were too many obstacles, it was argued, to achieve dramatic breakthroughs. These included continued insurgent attacks on pipelines and production facilities; corruption in the Oil Ministry and major energy production enterprises; the failure of parliament to adopt a national hydrocarbons law; differences between the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the central government over who has the right to award what sort of oil contracts in Kurdish-controlled territories; and the reluctance of major foreign oil firms to venture into, or invest in a major way in such a dangerous and unstable place.
Recently, however, the Oil Ministry has made noticeable progress in overcoming at least some of these obstacles. Under the leadership of Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, a former nuclear scientist who was jailed and tortured by Saddam Hussein for refusing to assist in the development of nuclear weapons, corruption has been substantially reduced and various production bottlenecks eliminated. Shahristani has also won support from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for the participation of foreign firms in the development of Iraqi oil fields, even though this has alienated many in Iraq who oppose any such involvement. Once derided for ineptitude, the Oil Ministry is beginning to be viewed as a functioning, professional operation.
As a result, there are clear indications that Iraq's oil industry could be poised for a major turnaround. Among the most significant recent developments:
* Late last year, Iraq's state-owned North Oil Company signed a $3.5 billion, 20-year service contract with the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to develop the Adhab oil field in Wasit province, southeast of Baghdad. Originally negotiated under the Saddam Hussein regime, the deal was put on hold after the 2003 invasion and only given final approval in November 2008. This is the first major contract the government in Baghdad has signed with a foreign oil firm since the Iraq Petroleum Company was nationalized in the 1970s. It also represents the first significant investment by a company from China in Iraq. Under the agreement, CNPC and its partners will develop the Adhab field and deliver all resulting crude oil to state refineries; as the field's main operator, CNPC will be paid a fee by the Iraqi government for its engineering work and all delivered petroleum.
* In May, the Oil Ministry reached an accord with the Kurdistan Regional Government that, for the first time, will allow the Kurds to export oil from fields under their control. Previously, the Baghdad government had refused to recognize any contracts signed by the KRG with private oil firms to develop fields in their territory and had prevented the Kurds from exporting oil from these fields through pipelines controlled by the central government. Under the accord, the KRG will initially be allowed to export 100,000 barrels per day from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields, with higher rates expected in the future; 73% of the resulting revenues will go to the central government, 15% to the Kurds, and 12% to the foreign oil companies that signed production contracts directly with the KRG, bypassing the central government in Baghdad. This agreement paves the way for a significant increase in output from Kurdish-controlled areas, which are thought to hold substantial reserves of untapped petroleum.
* In June, the Oil Ministry conducted its first auction of rights to operate existing fields in the country's major producing areas. This represented a major -- even staggering -- shift in policy, opening the door for the first time in three decades to the participation of major international oil companies in the operation -- if not the ownership -- of the country's nationalized oil fields. Although opposed by many key groups in Iraq, ranging from the oil workers' union to significant factions in parliament, the move was taken to secure outside expertise in modernizing and upgrading the country's crumbling oil infrastructure, thereby boosting output in a country that still relies on oil for more than 75% of its gross domestic product and about 95% of its revenues. In fact, many foreign companies chose not to bid in the auction's opening round, finding the returns being offered insufficiently attractive. Nevertheless, one Western firm, BP, won the right (in partnership with CNPC) to operate the giant Rumaila field, Iraq's largest. The Oil Ministry has since indicated that it will conduct additional auctions, including one for the right to explore for oil, on terms as yet unrevealed, in the country's undeveloped south and west -- possibly laying the groundwork for significantly more intrusive participation by foreign firms.
Taken together, these steps -- aimed at securing the necessary external financing and expertise to achieve a significant boost in production -- represent a genuine sea change in the way the Oil Ministry has been overseeing the country's hydrocarbons industry. If all goes as planned, it intends to increase output by 1.5 million barrels per day, and another four to five million barrels by 2017. These efforts, if successful (and given recent history, that remains a big "if"), would place Iraq among the world's top four or five oil producers, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States.
A New Petro-State Servicing the Global Economy?
No one should underestimate the potential obstacles in the way of this objective. Any number of factors -- a rise in opposition to giving away any part of the national "patrimony" to foreigners, a significant increase in insurgent violence, heightened factional fighting in Baghdad, a sharpening of tension between Baghdad and the Kurds, an increase in corruption -- could prevent the realization of these ambitious goals. Moreover, pending the passage of a national oil and gas law (a goal pursued by U.S. officials for years), the major foreign oil companies will remain reluctant to sink too much money into Iraq, fearful that their assets will not be protected.
Nevertheless, it appears that, for the first time since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, the stars in the energy firmament are aligning in ways that may favor Iraq's reemergence as a major oil producer. Whereas the major powers once competed among themselves for influence in Iraq or backed one or another of Iraq's local rivals in efforts to weaken or contain that country, all now seem inclined to invest in, and benefit from, the reconstruction of its energy infrastructure. The Bush administration, which looked with alarm at Saddam Hussein's growing ties to Russia and China, invaded the country in part to reassert American dominance in the Persian Gulf region and diminish the role played by Moscow and Beijing. Today, Washington appears to welcome the growing role of Chinese and Russian firms in the rehabilitation of Iraq's dilapidated energy infrastructure.
It's a reasonable assumption that behind this unprecedented shift lies an acknowledgement of the inescapable reality of peak oil. As things stand now, the world will soon reach a maximum level of sustainable daily oil output, followed by an inevitable contraction in available supplies. Many experts believe that the peak in conventional (liquid) oil output is likely to occur in the very near future, perhaps in the 2010-2015 timeframe, with global output topping out about 5 to 10 million barrels per day higher than today's 85 million barrels.
Hitting the peak moment in that timeframe, and at that level, would prove devastating to the world economy, as global energy demand is expected to climb far higher, thanks to rising consumption patterns in China, India, and other dynamos of the developing world. It's not hard, then, to do the math. An addition of perhaps six million supplemental barrels per day from Iraq would make a striking difference in the energy equation. In fact, it might prove the difference between squeaking by and a catastrophic worldwide shortage. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that -- no matter what their governments felt about the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq -- the major powers now share a common interest in facilitating that country's recovery as a major oil exporter.
For devastated Iraq, of course, these last years were a disaster and real reconstruction of the country still remains a long way off. For the United States, gone are expectations of converting Iraq into a model Middle Eastern democracy, or of inserting a Western-trained, pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad. Nor is there any expectation that the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company will be completely privatized -- once the dream of Bush-era neocons. Nonetheless, the (re)emergence of a functioning Iraqi petro-state working closely with foreign energy firms to boost global oil supplies (with American troops, whether based in Iraq or neighboring countries, providing ultimate security) would be an outcome that could be sold to Congress and, presumably, a majority of the American public.
Within Iraq itself, conditions may favor such an outcome. Although various Iraqi factions have enormous differences, all recognize that their future prosperity rests on the successful development of the nation's hydrocarbon reserves. While Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds may each hope to benefit disproportionately from this great treasure, they all realize that some degree of cooperation -- for example, in the construction and maintenance of export facilities -- is essential to their ambitions, however disparate. While the bargaining over the terms of cooperation may seem endless, and violence may sometimes accompany these negotiations, it is likely that some sort of collaborative structure will, in the end, emerge. A gradual drawdown, if not total departure, of American forces will, in all likelihood, only accelerate this process.
So it has finally come to this dismal possible end point: after all the blood and tears, all the death and destruction, almost all interested parties seem to be returning to the only vision of the country, however depressing, that has demonstrated any viability. In the future, Iraq is likely to be an oil-fueled petro-state with no function other than to service global markets and enrich local elites as well as the technocrats that assist them. This may be not be an inspiring vision -- especially for Iraqis who have suffered so much -- but it might possibly be the only reality available that will circumvent the horrific bloodletting of the past 30 years.
- Posted in
34 Comments so far
Show AllAnother recent article on Iraq discussed the problem of water shortages in that country. It doesn't take an expert to see that Iraq is a long way from being stable.
I don't care for the way that the author has glossed over the internecine strife in Iraq with brittle hopes that all factions will come to understand their common needs, especially when so much foreign involvement is planned.
The past six years cannot simply be shrugged off; there will be residual anger and bitterness for decades (consider how many Americans in the southeast remained angry about our own civil war for more than a century) and the lingering desire for vengeance - both internally and externally - will manifest itself in ways that we haven't imagined.
". . . is Iraq finally fated to become what it was going to be anyway . . . ?"
Funny how things tend to work out that way.
q
Hey, don't blame me. I voted against big government meddling in foreign affairs but your vote for Democrats or Republicans is keeping it that way. I'll keep my Hummer until the Libertarians win because then we'll have a free market for a change. Markets are the best decision makers, not big government !
"Markets are the best decision makers, not big government !"
What about Big Markets? Like the massive oil market that lead to oil companies owning most governments?
"Markets are the best decision makers, not big government !"
This is the most lame-brained post I have ever read. Even a basic course in finance or accounting would tell you that even the "markets" rely on loads of government cash to operate !
Right on!
Hi Moondoggy. Thanks and I'm happy to see you again. I was thinking about you when I was writing a response to another article on this site "Ducking the Shadows of Suburban Life by Stacey Warde". Since we're talking oil, this might as well be mentioned here. When I looked up what NMLib had to go through and how much her surgery cost, I started finding out that she wasn't alone. Connecting this back to driving, you're right that I seriously need to reconsider driving myself 45 miles to work. It may be a lot cheaper to live out in the suburbs in a condo than it is to live in the city in an apartment but in addition to distance and having to fill the gas tank every 3 days, I'm getting so worried that I might be getting long term cramps sitting through heavy traffic in addition to worrying about whether it's safe to drive anymore that I'm seriously considering moving back to the city and trying my luck again at a better apartment. Insurance doesn't cover all kinds of treatments and especially if they're more expensive. I realize that back at the time I chose the location to move to I got desperate for living in a safer neighborhood and the significant price difference made a sucker out of me. The more I think about Peak Oil, the more I feel like moving back as well so that I can at least not feel the pain of having to do without a car and just get used to it.
By the way, it looks like a new troll "laffing garfield" has been popping up today and he has been infecting the health care articles. He keeps making a joke about single payer and associates food with health care ! He also spouts his Faux Noise talking points. Thankfully, he's getting nailed. There's another troll, EncinoM, who wants to harass those of us who came from Alternet to here for a change and he too is a Big Insurance shill !
Hi Jen. Good to "see" you as well. You know, I read your response to "lg". I almost wrote to advise you to just ignore him. In fact I started to, then just deleted what I wrote.
I don't know if this troll is a he or a she. I'm assuming a him, because in my experience, most shenanigans are committed by hims that probably didn't get enough love as a child, consequently taking out their frustrations on the world. So in that light, we need to have compassion.
Sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is ignore them. Wolves practice that. When a member of the pack is misbehaving the rest of the pack ceases to make any contact, eye or otherwise. This sends a strong signal. When the desired response, the attention sought doesn't materialize, the shenanigans cease to be fun.
I don't understand what people get out of being abusive. I know what pain and suffering feels like, so why would I ever want to cause someone else to suffer? I see a dead animal and my heart goes out to that poor beautiful creature that was so recently experiencing the sublime joys of living.
All we need to do is love. Of course we want to be loved (don't we all?). But I've learned that when we give love, we receive even more love. So if we all got on the love program there'd be plenty of love to go around, and everybody would get the love they needed. The more we love, the more the love increases. It's a beautiful upward spiral.
In response to considering your next move, I'm sure you'll make the right choice for yourself. If you give yourself positive messages and really love yourself for who you are right now in this moment, you'll continue to build self-confidence, attracting the people and situations most favorable to your growth and potential.
Follow your heart and you won't go wrong. Love and be love.
I hope you're having a good summer, my friend. If you ever want to talk, I believe you have my contact info. Please, feel free to call or email.
Your friend and brother,
~Moondoggy
Come to think of it, I like that idea on ignoring trolls like LG. I also saw AGG's response on the other article on suburban life. Since you once came from the suburbs, I think that you will probably have some good advice for Stacey Warde as well. What you say on love and happiness corresponds to what I've been reading on the books on happiness and confidence. Thanks for the contact info. :)
Hi again Jennifer!
It's waay past my bedtime, but I've been to "night school". I read the article you referenced on suburbia, and I have a lot to say about that and OC. Just where to begin? I will try to come back to that article and say something, but it may not be until tomorrow night.
Send me an email, and I promise to write back. Don't be shy! So what if I'm 20 years older than you. And married. Friendship crosses all boundaries.
Bye for now!
~Moondoggy
Apparently LG, you didn't notice the latest and current economic disaster brought on by the "markets" that were allowed to run amok without "big government" regulations.
You might try getting out of your brainwashed right-wing mindset and face reality. It's called critical thinking.
Markets are the best solution? I see. And that's why we invaded Iraq with our "big government" military - to depose another big government and replace it with a big government of our own choosing.
The duplicitous, hypocritical, and unthinking rightwing....
Wasn't that always the plan?
Just another excuseto delay (deny) the inevitable and oil/financial interests will bridge no competion while they mild the last dime.
Needing foreign oil "experts" is like needing the Wall Street crooks who devised the scams to be the architects of the "recovery"
This isnt news. It was always about the oil.
But isn't it nice when an expert like Klare admits it? Now if he'd answer the question why the media never permitted the reality that the war was about oil on to its talking head or news programs. Or answer the question why the Bush administration trotted out every excuse for the invasion but the truth - the invasion was about getting their oil.
Still, Klare can't be faulted with his understated doomsday scenario - peak oil is coming and our economies are not ready for it.
Sioux Rose
LOG: Can you imagine the anger that would have resulted if the nation's main "deciders," all heavily invested in the oil industry, came forward to explain that the control of more oil ( & profit $$$) was their ultimate goal? It would have been barbarism for naked profit without even the remotest attempt to wear a fig leaf. Nope. Had to be about patriotism, saving the American way of life, exporting democracy, supporting our troops, getting rid of evil doers, etc ad nauseum. WE in this forum knew the truth.
It is not news. It is ANALYSIS.
When President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, his overarching goals all revolved around the geopolitics of oil . . .
I still think, and will always think, that George Wanker Bush's "overarching goal" was Glory.
What audacity, suggesting that all this time and money and sacrifice and bloodshed and torture and war crimes and illegal occupations and a multi-billion dollar embassy is for some ridiculous notion about oil. It's not about oil, it's about ridding the world of tyrants, of bringing bubblegum and Coke and democracy to a hungry and suppressed people.
It just happens to be somewhat convenient that there is oil in the region.
Isn't Afghanistan about an oil pipeline? Central Asian oil bypassing Russian-dominated lands to the north on its way to international markets?
It's a gas pipeline.
q
Yes. I read somewhere that the region under current U.S. marine assault is the region where the pipeline will go. Heil Obama!
Read Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" for an entertaining
and insightful story of the oil wars from Gertrude Bell to George Bush.
Great book, but "entertaining" doesn't say the half of it. It's fascinating, all the way through the thousand or so pages, but brutal. Fisk must have some constitution to witness all of that and stay sane.
Something rings wrong here. If the US took Iraq for the oil fields, they had to want to take them from someone besides the Iraqis, who would have sold oil anyway. Presumably that would include keeping it from China.
So China will develop the oil, but presumably under US guard. Well, presumably the Chinese will spend unreceived dollars before these fall further, so that makes sense. But it's not like Exxon does not have the money to develop, and it's not like the Iraqis get to make big decisions with US troops all over.
A US-Chinese alliance would provide advantages to a lot of very powerful people, and it makes some sense that the US "contribution" would be largely military, sort of a protection-racket kind of thing. But there's a lot about this agreement that remains unclear.
Something or someone else just got traded.
You raise an interesting point.
My take is that the oil was never designated for U.S. markets alone. Yes, we will get our diminishing share, but the private oil corporations know that China will pay whatever it takes to buy the oil. Same with the gas pipeline planned for Af-Pak, just as soon as we kill anyone who might threaten our global eminent domain at the point of a missle.
China is also looking for someplace to dump its dollars. This could be part of a U.S. payoff to keep the dollar from being dumped.
"For the United States, gone are expectations of converting Iraq into a model Middle Eastern democracy . ." What say??? Surely someone as astute and studied as Mr. Klare does not believe that the ruling US corporate/government oligarchy, ever in a thousand years, had any notion that they wanted a model Middle Eastern democracy functioning in Iraq, or anywhere else they do business worldwide. Just as they have created a top down controlled federal government, controlled corporate media propaganda system, and operate corporations on a hierarchial basis, they want, demand and plan to work with any friendly dictator, military hunta, or ruling thug(s) they can find. And if any people's based government appears or threatens to appear, they have a long, long track record of subversion, attack, and destruction. Witness the current example, one of hundreds in US history, in Honduras. Or consider the intense hostility to the governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and what happened to attempts to escape US friendly dictatorships in Central America during the 1980s. Determined iron fisted control of what is politely called "US national interests" turns out to be the entire globe and thus the 1000 plus US military bases around the world, budgeted at more than $1 trillion a year. Surely Mr. Klare you are not unaware of this history.
If this article by Michael T. Klare has any real value, then he put me to sleep before I could get to the useful part.
courtjester ,
I quite wholly agree with you and, yes, the US ruling "elites" are aiming for dominance, really "full spectrum dominance", which means globally; with respect to economics, as well as militarily. And the latter aspect, militarily, is wherein the Pentagon's or DoD's Vision 2020 program is to be considered, for it's either literally, or inherently, in recognition of the U.S. being the military superpower terrestrially, but while this, they (the "elites") believe, is to be further enhanced through militarisation of space for further guarantee of global dominance on Earth. There are some good articles at www.globalresearch.ca about Vision 2020 and the articles, for anyone wanting to read these, will be easy to find by simply doing a Web search, like with Google, using "globalresearch.ca "Vision 2020"", minus the outer quotes, for search terms.
We can, however, think of full spectrum dominance without the militarisation of space, for FSD it is, anyway, that the U.S. ruling "elites" have been working on achieving; and it didn't start with the Bush-Cheney administration. The "elites" of the ruling "class" in the U.S. want to dominate the world economically and militarily, which of course also means geopolitically. The only part of these three that can be replaced is the military warfare, replaced with economic hit men (see John Perkins) when they succeed. The economic dominance is persistent, and geopolitics is again or always involved or utilised.
That, alone, is [full spectrum]. Add militarisation of space and being dominant in this respect, also, and then we have full spectrum dominance plus, or enhanced, strengthened, ..., how ever you wish to refer to it.
As for the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the planning for these, we need to look a little further back than Bush and Cheney. Consider what Major Doug Rokke has to say about this, f.e. It's not much, he doesn't present a lecture on this, but he certainly does state some important, key points or matters of history. The Clinton administration began plans for disposing of Saddam Hussein in 1995, and the preparations for war on or in Afghanistan began in 1998, when the Taliban terminated the until-then secret talks with Unocal and members of the U.S. Congress and Clinton administration, regarding the oil pipeline Unocal's been wanting for a long time, now.
"Video: 9-11.. Hello!: Major Doug Rokke" (10:35), Aug 19 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGVSHGWZ3JM
I don't recall precisely how far into the clip that he refers to these above matters, but it's a short enough clip and people should listen to the whole of it, anyway.
The following are much better than Michael T. Klare's article, which was putting me into a sleep of frustrating kind.
"The Dirty War", by Dahr Jamail, Truthout.org, Jul 12 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14330
"U.S. Occupation of Iraq Continues Unabated",
by Dahr Jamail, Truthout.org, Jul 7 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14259
"Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion",
by Jason Leopold, The Public Record, PubRecord.org, Jul 1 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14322
Jason Leopold's article is very important with respect to Iraq's oil reserves and western oil corporations moving in. U.S. Big Oil apparently is presently standing back, much anyway; but this might only be to not anger Americans more than they are, already. If they're really standing back, presently, it may be part of a game of trying to deceive Americans [again]. They could let foreign oil cies move in first, knowing the U.S. has a firm hand on the Iraqi government and will be able to change or "correct" ... matters ... in time, for U.S. Big Oil. The U.S. does control the Iraqi government, but the public is not supposed to be aware of this, so steps towards full conquest strategically need to be subtle and deceptive. After all, if the U.S. has the ability to require that ISOF be strictly and entirely under U.S. command, when ISOF purportedly consists of only Iraqis, and the Iraqi government complies with this U.S. demand, or imposition, then we have a clear sign that the U.S. does control the Iraqi government.
Dahr Jamail's articles are very important in terms of unceasing violence in Iraq, constantly a critical crisis situation for Iraqis, but his "Dirty War" article also emphasises that the U.S. has its "death squad", one made up of Iraqis, purportedly Iraqis anyway, and thousands of them. They, purportedly, were Iraqis of around 18 years of age at the start of this war on Iraq, the U.S. took them out to Jordan, and maybe elsewhere in that general area, to train them such that they now are, purportedly anyway, equivalent to U.S. Marines and Special Ops forces. I guess we shouldn't forget about SoA, School of the Americas, type of training, either.
They're estimated to be around 4,000 or a little more, presently, and Dahr Jamail says that the article that he draws this information from says that the U.S. plans on doubling the number of soldiers in this new military force, the ISOF, Iraqi (or Iraq?) Special Operations Force(s?).
The ISOF is a very large [death squad] that the U.S. has formed, and the U.S. has illustrated yet again that it dominates in Iraq. The U.S. has made sure that NO part of the Iraqi government has any oversight over the ISOF; it's strictly and entirely under U.S. command.
I edited this post after first posting it and the edited post became too long, so the rest will be placed on a second post.
This is the completion of my first post, and perhaps it could have been entirely reduced to one post, but ... it hasn't been.
I haven't read the article that Dahr Jamail links to, but it's at The Nation and there's a photograph of one of the soldiers of the ISOF in the article. I carefully looked at the saddening photo, and the soldier is fully covered, head to toe, including hands, no skin showing at all, except for a small area of the face around the eyes; enough to be able to clearly see the eyes and most of the the nose, plus some skin area beneath the eyes. So I carefully looked at what was visible of the actual guy, and I looked again, and again, and I wonder. Is that person really an Iraqi? Do Iraqis and whites have eyes of slightly different shapes, and what about noses; and what about skin colour?
It's difficult to say, given the guy has little skin area showing, but from what there is, I have some suspicion that he's not really Iraqi at all. And it would be very, very easy for the U.S. to pretend to be employing Iraqis for the ISOF when this'd be wholly false; easy, for there are surely whites who know the Iraqi language, whites who can be taught and who can learn the language, including accents, and once fully covered in clothing and gear, there's so little left of the actual person's apparence visible to others that many people might not notice. I believe Iraqis will come to notice, over time, but only Iraqis who come into "close quarters" with the ISOF soldiers and survive.
They're a [death squad] sort of outfit, and many they are. Some people are correctly referring to the ISOF as another El Salvador Option force really under U.S. command.
I'm sure that western Big Oil cies will be very pleased with this. Now they'll finally be able to get on with "business". That must not be too obvious though, so maybe this is why they are allowing foreign, European oil cies to move in first. This'll capture plenty of immediate attention, once people know about it, while U.S. big oil, given its power with the U.S. government, may have plans that will be implemented when the corporate "chiefs" figure that it's relatively safe to move forward with their, until then, objectives. Or maybe they'll just find an alternative way of majorly profiting, without overtly exploiting the resources of Iraqis. Perhaps they could arrange to have some kind(s) of very lucrative deals with the European cies that'll be exploiting, overtly, Iraqis' resources.
What's really going on is something I can't be absolutely certain of, but deception? Expect it.
The US is not in Afhanistan to either stop the Tal or pipelines.
The US is in IRAfPak because it is the NeoCon's Will. Rahm Emmanual, AIPAC, the FPI et al.
Oil was always going to be secondary in Iraq.
First was destroy the Country.
Israel wanted it that way.
They want us to decimate Pakistan & Afghanistan also.
Of course Iran is the Big Prize, if not occupiable, destroyable. False Flag Time.
McCain & Kristol recently clamored to radically escalate a la bush war throughout the region. ( The FPI ) And escalating it is. 'Course, BO is a pig.
"Humbaba July 15th, 2009 3:24 pm
Read Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" ..."
The following video and audio with Robert Fisk on this book of his, a book that's evidently very, very long, 1,000 pages or more, which means very few people will ever read it and it takes him forever to get enough education across to people to help them understand the "big picture"; well, the video and audio that I just found in a Web search on the title of the book maybe possibly be very sufficient, depending on what he says in these.
I didn't need to have historical knowledge to be opposed to the war on Kosovo, and the same applied with the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq; while I wasn't even following current events at the time of Gulf War I, except having seen some footage once the U.S. moved in for "the kill". But I guess some people may need 1,000 or more pages on history, for many people lack sound common sense, to begin with.
However, the above is not to say that I don't like to read about history, for I do. Just don't tell me that you require voluminous explanations before you oppose war.
In any case, the article at ICH is the audio file, while the page linktv.org is the video, and apparently from the same presentation in 2005, November.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11105.htm
http://www.linktv.org/programs/fisk
If I judge by the actions and greed of all the parties involved in the great oil squabbles so far, the more the oil gets scarse, the greater the stakes of value in the last remaining, and the more unprincipled the actions by powerful agencies that wish to increase their share at someone elses expence.
The current semblence of order and restoration of actual pumping, refining and transport facilities will last until the next big power play. Iraq will need all its oil income just to pay off the many species of oil vultures.
Oil is the scarce resource that keeps running what we call civilisation. It supports billions of humans scrabbling for survival, and the wasteful burning of more of it seals our climate change induced doom. We are cooked either way. It is best that events conspire in Iraq to ration it out as slow as possible, so its great that all the competing players get their fingers burnt. A slow release increases the long term total scarcity value for the exploitation of the resource, and slows the resulting buildup of dead entropy and green house gases. The same argument can go for many fast disappearing low entropy resources in the earth, and the accelarating destruction of Gaia. It is accelarating because their is less left over, and still yet more human beings. The old exponential bacterial total takeover model of pond, which I read of in Dr Suzuki's wonderful books , takes place just before midnight.
As Tony Blair famously implied, though not his exact words, "We are going to look after the oil for the Iraqi people". There was far too much oil there to leave just to the Iraqi people, after all.
We need another star on old glory now.
Calm down Iraq a bit, get them addicted to drugs & booze to keep them off-balance and controlled, infuse it with mindless, endless crap USA multimedia, then work can finally get going properly with sucking out all the oil to continue polluting the planet with as well as have a strategic country for bases.
Sounds easy enough on paper.
When we protested the economic sanctions on Iraq and told people that children were starving, the response was," with all their oil"?
Rachel Maddow is raising money and baseball supplies for the Iraqi team . People who watch the show didn't really need to be asked but wanted to help when they saw a picture of a player and heard of their plight.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Now if they can get living wage jobs, clean water, nutritious food, the best free education and health care system in the middle east.The Iraqi people do not want handouts. They are a proud people and want to work. It is their oil, all of them. The government leaders do not own the oil to sell to the highest bidder or the highest briber.