Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

Believe what you will, this is a complex, convoluted, and conflicted situation. Aside from the power struggle within Iraq, and the U.S. vested interest in both Iraq and its oil and its war profiteering, the U.S. and the Iraqi government likely have very different visions of what should be done with U.S. forces inside Iraq. The U.S. sees the militias as a threat - particularly the Sadr Militia. Increased troops would likely be targeted at controlling the militias. However, Sadr (and his militia) are a critical support to Malawi and the standing government. Further, his militia seems better organized and supported than the official Iraqi military and police forces. Malawi (and likely most of the Iraqi government) have little desire to pull the teeth of the militia. They may have a desire to "end" the "sunni" problem in Baghdad.

The Iraq government might want the U.S. forces to focus outside of Baghdad, so they can eliminate the Sunni "threat" inside Baghdad, while the U.S. eliminates the Sunni "insurgency" elsewhere. In other words, any U.S. troops should assist in the genocide of the Sunni population.

Now comes the rub. Purportedly, it is the Iraqi government which specifies the where, what, and how, of the U.S. forces and activities in Iraq. Or at least it has been my understanding that the U.S. is now in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. After all, otherwise the U.S. forces are an occupying force and the Iraqi government is not "sovereign."

The decimation of the Iraqi Sunni population will not be tolerated by the Saudis, and the Saudis are big when it comes top the "oil security" of the U.S. (and Europe).

And so we are back to oil, and there are big doings regarding oil in Iraq. I direct your attention to an article in the January 7, 2007 Independent by Danny Fortson - " Iraq poised to end drought for thirsting oil giants" (supporting article Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity). The quotes below are extracted from the article and the emphases are mine.

The Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve, as early as today, a controversial new hydrocarbon law, heavily pushed by the US and UK governments, that will radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world. It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

It would also be a shot in the arm for the global petroleum industry. The biggest oil companies are finding it ever harder to uncover new reserves to replace those that are going dry. Iraq sits on a sea of easily tapped, high-quality crude.

For a sector desperate for a panacea, the stakes couldn't be higher. By conservative estimates, Iraq represents about one-tenth of the world's reserves at 115 billion barrels. Most of this is untapped or under-exploited. Former oil minister Issam Al-Chalabi was quoted recently saying that a fully functioning Iraqi oil industry could generate $100bn (£52bn) in annual revenue.

The new legislation "is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry into a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, a spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party in the negotiations. "It will allow new technologies to come in to revitalise the oil industry and allow foreign investors to invest long-term in Iraq and upgrade infrastructure."

Iraqi government sources say the hope is to have the law on the books by March.

No one expects big players such as Exxon, BP and Shell to jump into the country until the security situation stabilises. They are jockeying to stake their claims now for exploitation later. "It's a mad rush to get something there," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, a New York watchdog group. "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.' "

So, the PSAs (production sharing agreements) implemented by the Coalition Provisional Authority shortly after the invasion of Iraq need to be vetted by the Iraqi government before Big Oil can cement their gains. Big Oil wants "security" to get those contracts vetted. Iraq stands to "gain" $100 billion a year (less than the yearly cost of the war to the U.S. and far less than is likely to be needed for "rebuilding"). While I can't find exact tallies, I would guess that Iraq could do far better without turning over control of their oil and gas production to transnational oil companies.

Regardless, Big Oil and the oil invested White House, want those contracts signed and uncontestable. Things will eventually settle down in Iraq - with or without US presence. However, without the rights to Iraqi oil in hand there are huge economic losses for the greasy few.

Surge or not surge? Fund the Iraq War or not? The messages have been mixed from the Dems. From Pelosi and Reed telling Bush they won't support a surge, to Levin (and others) saying there is no way they won't fund the troops. Can they all dither until March after the contracts are signed? It is problematic as nothing has gone according to plan or schedule in Iraq. One might ask "March of which year?"

Meanwhile, the Saudis have confirmed their order of 72 Eurofighter jets from the UK.

Followup Resources
About: US Government Info / Resources. Iraq: Oil and Economy

EIA. OPEC Revenues Fact Sheet

Global Policy Forum. Oil in Iraq