Iraq

In a follow up to my fellow blogger Jennifer’s piece on the lucrative oil wars in Iraq, the BBC has a piece entitled “Iraq seeking help to develop oil“. This discusses the official beginning of the opening up of the oil industry to foreign investment. The six main oil fields that are being opened up to investment are Rumaila, Kirkuk, Zubair, West Qurna, Bai Hassan and Maysan (according to BBC). These are being chosen because according to Oil Minister Husain Al-Shahristani, “These fields were chosen because their production can be raised in a short time and at a low cost”.

Anbar province (known most commonly as ‘the restive Anbar province’) has been handed back to Iraqi authorities. Anbar is the province of Abu Risha (killed in September 2007), the tribal leader whose prominent backing of the Awakening movement continues to drive the province today. This has brought peace to the province, but the peace’s sustainability remains to be seen.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington DC, has released a report on “Quietism And The U.S. Position In Iraq” on June 19. It is written by Anthony Cordesman and Jose Ramos. It mainly discusses Ayatollah Sistani  and his true level of influence. His positions on various issues such as political and military matters are difficult to gauge because his public statements are very limited. According to the report, “Experts also disagree about the extent to which Sistani has seen some loss of influence, faces a challenge from Shi’ite politicians and parties, and has become more cautious in taking political stands. Furthermore, there are conflicting reports about the extent to which he holds private policy discussions, some of which are reported to oppose any lasting relations with the US.”

According to the Senlis Council’s latest report on Iraq entitled, “Angry Hearts and Angry Minds“, the international community’s mark on Iraq should move away from military means and towards more humanitarian and economic efforts. “Just as we have seen the use of a military surge in Iraq, we need also to see a job surge and a democracy surge to meet the legitimate grievances of the population,” Paul Burton, the council’s director of policy analysis, said. “Current attempts at bringing democracy to Iraq have taken too much of a ‘top down’ approach.”

So basically, the Senlis Council (in the entirety of the report) is saying that the jobless and poverty stricken population of Iraq needs the international community’s help in creating jobs, because they will be driven into the arms of extremists otherwise. There have been many arguments for subsidizing the Iraqi economy. But honestly, the argument could be made for any country where the threat of terrorism resides. You could make this argument for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The jobless, illiterate masses of rural Pakistan are a massive potential terrorists threat. Senlis Council’s findings and suggestions are legitimate (especially their emphasis on finding non-military means to ameliorate the conflict), however, I’m not sure how groundbreaking they are.

February, 2006: Shi’a Iraqis sift through the rubble of the al-Askariyya, or Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra, Iraq in order to find remnants of their religious texts.  The city lies in rubble from the supposed al-Qaeda bombing (although no one actually claimed responsibility for the attack).  One of the most internationally important Shi’a mosques is almost unidentifiable, cloaked in an invisible, yet thick layer of fear and sadness.  The attack set off the worst sectarian violence since the US overthrew the Ba’th regime in 2003. 

June, 2008: The Shrine still sits in ruins.  The remains of the famous dome once covered in gold-plated tiles still lie on the ground.  Concrete blocks of rubble sit in piles awaiting attention.  The shops next door, once filled with bustling Iraqis buying food and gifts, still have closed doors.  But all is not lost– one shop remains open, serving the workers that have started trickling onto the construction site.  The Iraqi government, partnering with UNESCO, (the United Nations’ heritage agency) has taken on the restoration of the mosque, and plans to reconstruct it exactly as it looked prior to the bombing.  The rebuilding effort is reported by Deborah Haynes, from the Times Online blog, “Inside Iraq.” 

On the subject of recontruction progress in Iraq, I admit it: I am a cynic.  Even Ms. Haynes mentions the lack of electricity and running water in Samarra houses and the abundance of trash in the streets.   But after reading this story, I have gained some hope.  That architect Haj Zuhair al-Auzari is taking on this incredible project leads me to believe that Iraqis are slowly starting to fix their country, and in a sense, reclaim it as well.  We can only hope that the reconstruction of the Golden Dome mosque will return Samarra to the center of Shi’a pilgrimage that it once was, and in turn, begin to rebuild its economic base.  And with this, give all Iraqis the courage and determination they need at a time when their country and culture have been ripped to shreds. 

The story of this mosque holds a special place in my heart; it was my MA Thesis topic.  I thought that the bombing was one of the most incredible stories to come out of this war in terms of destruction and devastation.  But I might be wrong (and I certainly hope that I am).  The story of the al-Askariyya Mosque might, in fact, still be one of the most incredible; this time a story about hope and healing. 

The latest news involving Iraqi reconstruction revolves around just one word: oil.  (Reported on Informed Comment) Both UK newspapers, The Independent and The Guardian, published stories today about recent foreign oil company deals with Iraq.  The articles discuss the new contracts negotiated by Exxon Mobil, Total, Shell and BP (amongst others) for “repair and technical support.”  The contracts are not long-term (only two years) and do not include the full set-up for drilling and exploration.  However, there are insinuations, and even some flat-out comments, that the companies are using these agreements as a “stepping-stone” for future, more lucrative contracts.  Both British authors compare this latest development to the western exploitation of Iraqi oil following the post-WWI creation of the Iraqi state (for more historical background, click on Informed Comment or The Independent.)  Essentially, these stories have turned oil companies into the McSinisters of the world (not that I completely disagree with that right now). 

The Washington Post , The New York Times and USA Today also reported on the new contracts.  They state that foreign investment means that Iraq is finally on track with its security and reconstruction efforts, while implying that the US is doing its job in reducing violence and improving Iraqi government and infrastructure.  USA Today’s version of the continuing oil saga is particularly interesting.  Entitled, “Hope arises for Iraqi oil production,” this article views the same story in a completely different way than that of the Brits.  Quoting a Basra councilman, author Charles Levinson describes the return of the oil companies as Iraq’s “wish.”  Here, we are led to believe that the oil conglomerates will save the day (more specifically, Iraq’s economy). 

The US media is claiming that these contracts would propel Iraq into modernization, and more importantly, wealth.  But does this really mean wealth for Iraqis?  Or just more for the oil companies?  As The Guardian, The Independent and The New York Times all state, these oil deals are making Middle Easterners nervous that getting our hands on their oil was the US government’s goal all along.  And of course, the latter group of articles include Iraqi oil output in the discussion about alleviating gas prices in the US, something that Americans are desperate to hear right now.  I don’t have a strong background in economics, but I have to ask: with the exponential increase in consumption by China and India, is a 4% addition to the global supply really going to lower prices for the next six months, one year, five years? 

We’ve all seen it a thousand times before: one set of facts, ten different stories.  That’s just how the media works.  But I’m always left wondering, who should we listen to? 

 
John McCain’s Interview on NBC’s The Today Show (YouTube excerpt)

If you’ve had any contact with the media this week, I’m sure you haven’t been able to escape comments made about John McCain’s interview on NBC’s The Today Show. 

As I’m sure you all can tell by now, I have no plan on voting republican in the next election.  But I have to admit that what the media is doing to Senator McCain isn’t fair.  Many people, including those uploading clips to YouTube, are cutting McCain’s comments off to imply that he is simply unconcerned with the troops.  As my father (a military man and a republican) is always saying, McCain understands the plight of the US military more so than most people in this country, given his history as a prisoner of war during Vietnam.  I believe that when he says that the most important effort we should be making in Iraq is to minimize US casualties, he has a very valid point.  Our troops are not coming home tomorrow; therefore our first priority should be keeping them as safe as possible.  As the Senator continues, he states that the US has stationed troops in many countries with very few or no casualties.  And if we remember World War II correctly, nation rebuilding in Germany and Japan was achieved with the help of the Allied military. 

 As a liberal, I have criticisms of McCain.  Obviously, he is forced to back George W’s policies, but does this also mean Bush’s cowboy-style, over-militaristic attitude?  He also brags about advocating for the troop surge before Bush did.  This makes me wonder if he really does understand the military; many troops were not even getting the time off that is mandated by military doctrine prior to the surge. 

Another important criticism I have of McCain is his habit of misspeaking.  Obviously, troop numbers in Iraq should be important, and probably are important to the Senator.  When we listen to the rest of his comments, we begin to understand that he does not truly mean that a withdrawal is not important.  But once again, he phrased his comments the wrong way; the same thing happened with his “100 years in Iraq” comment.  After the past seven years, do we really want another president who constantly sticks his foot in his mouth? 

Click here for the full interview (on more topics than just Iraq).

The biggest news story at the beginning of the week involving Iraq is that of Iraqi-Iranian talks over the weekend.  BBC reported that Nuri al-Maliki (Iraqi PM) discussed security issues with Iranian President, Ahmadinejad.  This included Iraqi desire to stop Iranian backing for Iraqi Shi’a groups and Iran’s concern over Iraq’s constant chaos.  Also on the table during these talks was Iranian hostility toward a US-Iraqi security agreement.  This comes as no surprise; if the US gets as many military bases (58, as Juan Cole’s Informed Comment reports), the US will have the security advantage, and Bush’s desire for a preventive war against Iran could materialize in a real way.  Dr. Cole further stated that al-Maliki also met with Iran’s highest religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  For Khamenei, the problem is very simple: the US. 

What complicated this situation even further, yet is also unsurprising, is the US’ increased pressure on Iraq to tie up our own security agreement once and for all.  The AP reported a couple days after the talks that a top State Department official believes that an agreement can be reached by next month.  With regard to US-Iranian relations, Myers and Kulish for the New York Times reported yesterday that Bush is looking for harsher sanctions against Iran.  This is understandable; as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran needs to adhere to its guidelines against enriching uranium (for more information, see the IAEA’s “Focus Iran” site).  However, we see Bush putting “all options… on the table” (typical) while his new ally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is still sticking with diplomacy. 

This fight over Iraq was destined to become more heated as the Iraqi government attempts to pull itself together, especially with all the nuclear drama.  While Iran is violating international law by starting down the path toward nuclear weapons (they have not arrived yet), we should ask ourselves why.  Instead of jumping to conclusions, as the US media does so much with Iran, we should consider their reasons for wanting nuclear weapons.  This could help us determine the right path in trying to stop their enrichment program, and therefore their potential threat to US troops in Iraq (depending, of course, on when we leave).  If we were in their place with a proclaimed enemy taking over right next door, I’m sure we would be sweating just as much as Ahmadinejad. 

We should remember that Iran does not have the same fledgling government that we saw in 1979, when students took over the US Embassy.  In my opinion, it is very unlikely that they will act irrationally, especially with nuclear wildcard Israel a few doors down.  Yes, their government is religiously zealous, but so are the Saudis.  And while we see George W. threatening Iran, he’s partying like a rock star in the Saudi royal palace. 

It seems that talk of Blackwater and other mercenary organizations in Iraq has subsided over the past year (while searching the New York Times, the most recent articles I found on the subject were Mike Nizza’s ”The Lede” blogs from 2007).  At least that’s what has happened in the US; abroad it’s a different story.  The topic of mercenaries, or PMFs (Privatized Military Forces), is still hot in Egypt, and came out of the most recent publication of al-Ahram Weekly.

Galal Nassar writes that international mercenary soldiers make up a billion-dollar industry, being hired from multiple countries to fight for thousands of dollars per week, sometimes even per day.  Further complicating the issue, these salaries are becoming a huge problem in recruiting Iraqi police and security forces, as the difference in pay is staggering.  Why would an Iraqi soldier want to be a target for insurgents, trying to avoid death on a daily basis working in an under-funded position when he could just as easily make twice as much and have access to the latest technology and weaponry?  I know what my choice would be, given the situation in Iraq. 

 The worst part of mercenary companies is that few international regulations apply.  Essentially PMFs are said to perform missions in which national armies, such as that of the US, are not supposed to engage.  They can assassinate, use guerrilla tactics, import weapons and ’sabotage’ the enemy.  There is even talk that these companies are inciting further violence. 

While the subject blew over in the US after the CEO of Blackwater testified in front of Congress, we should still be wary of PMFs operating in Iraq.  It is obvious that these organizations should be further investigated, but easier said than done with the constant chaos embracing the country.  And while these companies might be spurring violence, what if their role has contributed to the latest decline in hostility? 

We should wonder if hiring private armies is the new trend in fighting conflicts.  If so, this is a very dangerous line to cross.  CEO Erik Prince testified that the soldiers working for Blackwater are, “Americans working for America protecting Americans.”  If this is the case, how do we stop from blurring the line between paid mercenaries and US soldiers?  The scariest question we have to ask then is what happens to the ideals of fighting for bravery, honor and the love of your country?

Here’s an interesting op-ed by Fouad Ajami in today’s Wall Street Journal. An ardent supporter of the Iraq war since the beginning, Ajami harshly criticizes Scott McClellan’s accusations towards the Bush administration. He also says, “With the luxury of hindsight, the critics of the war now depict the arguments made for it as a case of manipulation and deceit. This is odd and misplaced: The claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were to prove incorrect, but they were made in good faith.”

Another piece in the Christian Science Monitor by Monica Duffy Toft argues that Iraq’s civil discord is, at its core, religious. She points to the Shi’ite-Sunni divide, and the intra-Shi’ite rivalries that this blog has chronicled. She goes into more detail about the possible end-games for how the majority Arabs could be able to unite, but in the end, she says, “The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however. The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well- thought-out and well-executed withdrawal.”

This video is a few days old, but it’s still very interesting. Thank you to Robert Nolan of FPA for pointing this out to me. It’s several of our beloved news anchors such as Katie Couric and other NBC anchors discussing Scott McClellan’s accusations that the media did not do their job in properly asking enough questions of the Bush administration. Ms. Couric points out that the White House Press Secretary told an executive producer at NBC that they didn’t like the ‘tone’ of the interview that Couric had conducted, and that the White House would block NBC’s access to the Iraq war. Couric, in the video above, refers to this as ‘insidious pressure’. I would say that’s more than just ‘insidious’ pressure, Katie. That’s astounding and disgraceful.

Australian soldiers are leaving Iraq as of Sunday, June 1, which fulfills the election promises of the current government. This comes on the heels of an interesting article in The Times last week, where Australian soldiers said they were ‘ashamed’ at their lack of frontline role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article comes from an extended article written by Major Jim Hammett (who is serving in Iraq) in the Australian Army Journal entitled “We Were Soldiers Once”. “Many within its ranks suspect that the role of the infantry has already been consigned to history . . . the on going inaction [in Iraq] . . . has resulted in collective disdain and at times near contempt by personnel from other contributing nations,” he said. I have attempted to find the piece, but have cannot find a link. If you Google the title and ‘Australian Army Journal’, you can get a link to the pdf of the issue that the article appears in.