Defining success in Iraq

[sailaway21]

An interesting article devoted to the topic of how we define success or failure in Iraq. The benchmarks debate has turned into the usual tit for tat debate in Washington. Mr. Kagan devotes his time to discussing what is in the strategic best interests of the US and her western allies. I am not as fixated on democracy as he is, believing that it is perfectly capable of evolving out of a stable Iraq over the long term. A good read that keeps it's eyes on the prize.
How We'll Know When We've Won

[chris_gee]

What that analysis leaves out is open consideration of the real reason for being in Iraq - namely securing a source of oil. The structure of the country is thus only relevant insofar it bears on cementing that outcome which is too important to be left to be self determined by a stable country. While a level of stability is desirable so too is a level of instability sufficient to justify continued military presence.

An alternative perspective to the article Sailaway cites is given by POWERFUL BULLMARKET IN US STOCKS LOOMS as the US prepares for GLOBAL HEGEMONY... the major points being as follows.


“The United States, more than any other country, is an economy dependant on an abundant supply of cheap oil. The per capita use of oil in the US vastly outstrips that of most countries in the world, the two principal reasons for this being that the infrastructure of the country has been developed on the assumption that cheap oil will continue indefinitely, and the other reason is that taxes on gasoline are held are much lower levels than in many other nations for political reasons.”

“The seizure of Iraq is widely perceived to be have been a blunder. From the strategic standpoint of the US elites it was no such thing. The oil reserves contained within Iraq are gigantic, and thus its acquisition was a major economic and security leap forward for the United States.”

The wolf dressing up as Grandma and saying I am only here to help you impresses only the naďve and gullible

[BenthosCritter]

Is their culture and religion capable of self-governance?

[PBzeer]

Any culture is capable of self-governance. The real key to establishing a stable Iraq, is the creation, and growth of a "middle class". Where the average person has the hope, and the opportunity of bettering themselves by their own effort and creativity. Once they do, then they have something to lose by not supporting some type of freely elected government.

Chris - what would we do with more oil, when we don't have the refining capability to deal with what we already have?

[Giulietta]

The words success and Iraq, can't be in the same sentence....

[sailaway21]

chris gee's analysis, and the conspiracy-fixated article he cites, leave out the fact that we live in a capitalist world where it is not necessary to "secure" the supply of a commodity. The market does all the securing needed. and the US get's very little of it's oil from the Persian Gulf anyways, not that that matters in a world-wide economy. The US strategic interest in the Middle East is it's large oil reserves which, if denied to the rest of the world would certainly effect the demand on oil from our principle suppliers, Mexico and Canada. Oil is fungible. The primary purpose of a stable Middle East from a western perspective is an uninterrupted flow of oil.

Our secondary interest, but still an important one, is what type of stability the Middle East enjoys. Is it one with rival regimes and sects threatening each other ala Iran and Iraq? Is it one where the Saudi's fund and nurture Islamic terrorism to maintain their own internal power position? Is it obne where Iranian hegemony can dominate the region and continue to export terror throughout the Middle East and the world?

A stable Iraq goes a long way towards resolving all those issues. I differ from the author, Frederick Kagan, in that I'm not convinced that democracy itself is essential to that happening, no matter how desirable. I agree strongly with PBzeer on the natural benefits that would flow from an empowered Iraqi middle class.

I'd also question the statement's within chris gee's article cited that oil production is at it's peak. Some of the largest reserves in the world lie within the US and we're not even touching them. That doesn't sound like a crisis to me. The phrase "cheap oil" is meaningless as used in the article. Cheap compared to what? Oil is still cheap compared to it's alternatives. And there is no conspiracy to keep us adicted to it. We continue to consume it out of sound economic sense. When either technology changes that or the price rises to a certain level then that will change. The prescription offered of raising taxes on it, which must be just the right thing to do since Europe does it, will have no effect on US oil consumption and just enrich the government while slowing the US economy.

I'd remind Giu that the senior statesmen of the day thought that the allies would have to occupy Germany and Japan for generations to stamp out their inherent militarism. In less than twenty years from the conclusion of WWII the question became, what militarism? A stable Iraq, hopefully a democratic Iraq, is a real possiblity and will be an asset to matters Middle Eastern as well as world-wide. Much as a stable Germany and Japan have been, but in a much more unstable region of the world. The benefits gained by the successful conclusion to the Iraq war may well dwarf the benefits derived by most of the world's previous wars at a fraction of the cost.

[chris_gee]

If I understand Sailaway's first paragraph correctly, he seems to be saying that the purpose of being in Iraq is to secure the availability of oil to others thereby reducing competition for supplies to the US from Canada and Mexico.
Okay so it is still about oil even if we assume the linkage is indirect and that the crude is light and sweet versus heavy and sour is irrelevant.

Second the market will take care of any supply issues. Oil then is not of strategic importance. Even if this were true it is unlikely to remain the case, because in at least the former USSR, China, Iran and Uruguay world market prices do not apply internally. Further there are signs that access to oil will be subject to political influences eg Russia Venezuela.

One can claim that there is no peak oil problem because the US has substantial untapped reserves. Presumably those pesky liberals or Greens will allow them to be tapped in due course. In the meantime, and in the longer term, without going into the detail of peak oil, one might consider oil supplies and reliance on cheap abundant oil relevant to planning.

On the one hand Sailaway claims price may effect demand but on the other won't if a price rise was due to taxes. This thinking is less a revision of economics than an aversion to energy policy which entails the Government getting the money. If I recall correctly the oil crises in the 70s did reduce or at least contain demand. It doesn't seem unreasonable to plan for oil being a finite resource which will not always be cheap and should be used wisely.

As for the US bringing peace to the Middle East, one gets the impression of surprise that the "liberating troops" were not greeted by citizens waving palms. "A stable Iraq, hopefully a democratic Iraq, is a real possiblity and will be an asset to matters Middle Eastern as well as world-wide." Uh huh so the troops should be home soon.

[chucklesR]

Let me get some things straight in my head:

We lost WWI because 20 years later Germany attacked again?

I say that because Iraq is and has been already won militarily.

Raising Taxes on a commodity (gas in this case) means we'll use less?
I drive to work and back, seldom just for pleasure - how exactly am I to use less?
Silly economics are what gets us into trouble. Raising taxes solves nothing but whos pocket the money is in.

Okay, now that I got that straightened out:

One does not win or lose diplomatic/cultural issues, one adapts to reality.

Here is a reality that most seem to miss - we did not invade and conquer Iraq, we went in and changed the regime because right or wrong the U.S. administration thought they posed a risk to our nation and or strategic interest.
Obviously (to the sane, non-tinfoil hat wearing folks in the crowd) we are not a conquering power so take the oil off the bench and get it out of your news byte mentality, jealously driven head that the reason we invaded Iraq was to get their oil. Do you doubt that if we'd decided to TAKE it we could have? Keep in mind we have ONLY 150k troops there - 50 years ago we took the world with 12 million troops. We don't want it, we just want peace so we can live in our over consuming capitalistic style with the arrogance and comsumerism to which we have become accustomed. If you can't deal with that, move out, shut up or we'll bomb you. Capisce?

[sck5]

A couple of observations:

1. Whoever owns Iraq will sell the oil. Otherwise they wont get the money. So it really doesnt matter as much as you might think how friendly the regime is - if all they have to sell is oil then they will sell it

2. Nevertheless, oil HAS been used as a weapon before. There was an embargo in 1973 and it would be naive to assume it couldnt happen again. However, if it did we could certainly invade and straighten them out - we have already demonstrated our willingness dont you think?

3. It is ridiculous to assert that oil demand has nothing to do with price. Certainly, none of us go out and sell our cars as soon as the pump price goes up but I will bet you all those people in Hummers wont buy another car that inefficient if the oil price goes to 4 or 5 bucks and stays there. It isnt an accident that Europeans have had way higher gas prices for years and also drive way smaller cars. Just because an effect takes years to show up doesnt mean that it isnt there.

4. You may think that people who view the US as a conquering power are wearing tin foil hats but that is the view of most of the world. They are afraid of us. And how else would you describe invading the country and conquering it? Call it what you want, but that is what most people call it when you take your army and march into a country and occupy it and then put in place a process that results in a government friendly to yourself when most of the people of the country say they want you out. Check this link for a look at how the rest of the world sees us

World Public Opinion

For what its worth, here is my definition of success in Iraq

1. A government that will stand up to Iran
2. A government that will pump the oil and sell it to us
3. No US troops there

Democracy would be nice, but I sure dont want my son to die for somebody else's democracy. Let them fight for it themselves if they want it so badly. We did.

[camaraderie]

Glad to see it is only the hair that is missing between your ears Chuck!