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.

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).

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?