Iraq in the Post-Bush Era

I wrote a bit yesterday in the Bush legacy thread about the threat of low oil prices to stability in Iraq. This AP article I think really spells out the difficulties. Beyond that, we probably need a new Iraq thread.

Iraq forced to cut spending as oil price falls

Some highlights:

-Iraq govt. earned $60 billion in oil revenue in 2008.
-oil revenue decrease have already forced a 40% cut in reconstruction projects.
-The Iraq govt. has slashed its budget from $79 billion to $54 billion.
-The U.N. estimates that more than half the country?s 27 million people lack access to one or more essential services such as clean water, electricity and health care.

 

Where is the money going? Anti-terrorism? Graft? Corruption?

 

What happened too the people being acused,that they are reviving the Baath party?

 

I'm sure military spending is a big chunk of the Iraq budget. Also, food aid and keeping the existing utility grid running, such as it is.

 

It's still just a power-keg wanting to go up in smoke.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

 

With Iranian links to Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah, and probably still supplying arms to militants in Iraq and Afghanistan... I wonder if the US-Iran proxy wars are going the Iranian way. Israel seems to do as it pleases, and Turkey and the US have touchy relations because of the Kurds. Saudi Arabia at least remains friendly, but how far that goes is probably about as far as Saudi tolerance of Christianity is - keep the money flowing, protect the Saudi forture, and they'll stay friendly.

This doesn't exactly sum up what is going on in the region though.

To be blunt, Iraq itself is meaningless. Iraq could freeze the US out tomorrow, and it* would be fine, as long as Iraq upheld the new status quo. Post 1962 Cuba is the perfect example here.

The Saddam Hussein regime upset the balance of power, which was why he had to be removed. If anything, pushing Iraq back to it's pre-1991 standing will the longest lasting result of the invasion, especially for the rest of the region.

Not every nation in the world has to be allies with the US, or even friendly for that matter, as long as those nations remain inwardly focused. The goal was always for Iraq to develop as its own nation- allies as a bonus, but this was never required. More importantly, just because a nation like Iraq does focus inward as a natural side effect of its growing pains, it's not a loss.

You are correct that Saudi Arabia and Iran are the 2 current actors in the region, but they have neither the capability nor the desire to go at each other. On the international stage though, Saudi Arabia is the clear winner.

Simply put, if there is a powder keg, the fuse has been cut from the barrel and thrown in a bucket of water.

*= I'm using "It" here, not just to refer to the US or Iraq separately, but rather to mean the situation in the region.

 

I seem to remember Joe Biden having some plan to stabilize Iraq back during the primaries, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. I want to say it was some multi-state Republic or something of that nature, though I could be mistaken.

 

He wanted to partition it into 3 regions.

 

Such a partition plan is fine as long as the UN is on board before the actual partitioning takes place. The UNSC would have to be prepared to break a lot of eggs in order to make the multi-state Iraq omelette, so to speak.

Realistically though, such input would run counter to the current administration's view on Iraq, and I'm not sure the public has the will to carry it out. Although now that Biden is part the current administration, who knows?

 

It may still carry itself out.

These last few posts are a prime example of why we miss you around here so much, 44.

One thing I'd quibble with is:

The Saddam Hussein regime upset the balance of power, which was why he had to be removed.

It was Hussein's geopolitical ambitions that upset the balance of power, not the regime per se. The Bush administration never came up with an adequate explanation for why regime change was the best method for containing Iraq, or more to the point why regime change stacked up in a cost benefit analysis against the risks (realized of course) of plowing under the country, decimating Iraq's economy, creating a multinational refugee crisis and destabilizing Iraq's internal balance of power and strengthening Iran's hand in the region.

Why are dictatorships so popular in the region? One is that dictatorships are an efficient way to manage and control a one-resource export economy like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. Another reason is that it may be the most efficient way to control a country that is starkly divided by subregional ethnic groups. Democracy was probably impossible in Yugoslavia, but it works in Slovenia and Croatia.

If Iraqi democracy is more important than other American strategic goals in the region, then creating three separate democratic Iraqi sub-states is still probably the way to go. If managing the flow of oil out of the country is the primary concern, then we might as well get out and wait for a new dictatorship to emerge around the oil resource base - and then support it the way we used to support Saddam Hussein.

 

,,It was Hussein's geopolitical ambitions that upset the balance of power, not the regime per se. The Bush administration never came up with an adequate explanation for why regime change was the best method for containing Iraq, or more to the point why regime change stacked up in a cost benefit analysis against the risks (realized of course) of plowing under the country, decimating Iraq's economy, creating a multinational refugee crisis and destabilizing Iraq's internal balance of power.,,

Its actualy quite ironic,first going after the Wmds,than all the sudden bringing democracy,because there were no WMDs.

 

It was Hussein's geopolitical ambitions that upset the balance of power, not the regime per se. The Bush administration never came up with an adequate explanation for why regime change was the best method for containing Iraq, or more to the point why regime change stacked up in a cost benefit analysis against the risks (realized of course) of plowing under the country, decimating Iraq's economy, creating a multinational refugee crisis and destabilizing Iraq's internal balance of power and strengthening Iran's hand in the region.

Well, I'd agree with you even as I pointed out that the two are the same. Hussein's ambitions are what made up his regime. The two didn't exist in isolation.

I would add that yes, it wasn't Hussein's ambitions on their own, but the fact that they were allowed to go unchecked. I'm not just referring to the disasterous decade under the UN sanctions, but the prior invasion of Kuwait.....the Iran-Iraq war.

To use an analogy- You can't build a prison without locks on the doors and hope the prisoners don't realize this fact. It might be a prison in name only, but the first prisoner who gets bored and opens an unlocked door means that your lockless prison is finished.

By 2003, regime change was the only option left to contain Iraq, it's just that in a perfect world, it would have been undertaken by an alliance like NATO or the UNSC, not a unilateral undertaking. It's what should have happened no later than 1995, not left to fester until 2003.

 

Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, it wouldn't be accurate to say that Hussein's ambitions went unchecked. It's more that his ambitions were directly promoted and supported by the U.S. Iraq as a regional power was in part an invention of American foreign policy.

Besides that I think you're vastly overrating Iraq in the post Gulf War, pre-invasion period. He was for all intents and purposes incapable of threatening his neighbors. And indeed his neighbors remained unthreatened throughout this period. By all accounts Hussein turned his focus completely inward to domestic survival of his regime.

The Bush administration picked Iraq as a target not because they thought Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone, but because they knew 1) toppling his regime would be a cakewalk and 2) ultimately no one would be willing to stand in their way. Rumsfeld even made it his mission to see how few resources he could deploy to get it done. They failed to think strategically about what Iraq would be like afterwards, sure, but they knew the invasion itself would make for a great and easy demonstration of American power.

 

I don't agree with your attributation of motive though.

("attributation? Is that even a word? Bush's legacy lives on!)

I guess I do agree with some of it-it does fit in with the attitude of the Project for the New American Century, for example. But Iraq wasn't picked for those reasons alone. France and Germany, to name two, were offered input-they just disagreed. Countries disagree all the time-as it should be.

But this is where the "lockless prison" analogy becomes so important. Personally, I think the whole "Oil for Food" scandal and UN kickback scheme played a much greater role in certain nation's decisions-because there was such a good thing going, even if it was the wrong thing-but the simple fact is that Iraq ended up falling smack in the middle of the point where various nations self interests collided.

It's always been my assertion that it should have never gotten to that point.

 

As I have stated in another thread, Iraq is the wild card in the Bush legacy. Consider this:Life returns to Iraq's streets.

Tension still lurks under the surface, but I think overall there is hope for this country.

 

^Indeedy, to Cal.

I don't think that the ethnic tensions that practically appeared overnight were ever really genuine. Having deployed there twice now, it seems alot more likely to me that AQI was killing people on both sides to get them to turn on eachother-the religious tension escalating to the point of ethnic cleansing between Sunni & Shia simply didn't seem to have existed before the war, or even before Saddam. Now that AQI is heavily marginalized, I don't think we're going to be seeing stuff like that on a widespread basis in Iraq ever again.


Now, to toot our own horn a little bit , I'd like to extend a congratulations to every US service member who has deployed to Iraq in the last six years. We've gone from from a lopsidedly easy invasion and toppling, to a seemingly unwinnable counter-insurgency effort, and now they, in cooperation with Iraqi Army and coalition forces, have largely stabilized the country. Good job, dudes.

Now, if the politicians can just get on board and deal with their differences...

 

The thing is, a lot of Iraq's present success is because it has the money (from oil revenue) to finally begin rebuilding infrastructure and help their economy. With oil prices having since declined, things may be getting more tense there, just needing another spark. Hopefully it doesn't come, but just saying there is still the possibility for a fall back into chaos. There was also a planned coup attempt that was foiled, reminding people that Iraq could still revert back into dictatorship too.

 

The thing about the oil prices, it seems to me, is that they're basically getting back to around where they were before the war; the extreme price escalation of the last seven or eight years was quite irregular and wasn't how normally things are. Basically, oil prices dropping =/= insurgency.

 

Don't expect oil prices to stay low for long.

 

Continuing on...


peaceful elections


Democracy takes root in Iraq

[image=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45455000/jpg/_45455956_-14.jpg]

By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad

History may look back on the provincial elections held on the last day of January this year and see them as the point at which it could be said that Iraq had turned a corner and was heading towards a stable, democratic future.

Considering the situation just two years ago, when the country seemed firmly bent on plunging ever deeper into a nightmare of sectarian carnage and fragmentation, they were an astonishing achievement bearing many messages and huge implications.

On the security level alone, the polling passed off more peacefully than even the most optimistic had dared hope.

Voting took place in 14 of the country's 18 provinces, including all those that were the scenes of the worst violence of the past nearly six years. Only the three largely peaceful Kurdish provinces and disputed Kirkuk did not take part.

Yet the polling passed off with virtually no security incidents of any significance.

There was a huge security operation by Iraqi forces, but that was hardly a deterrent in itself, since those very forces themselves have very often been the targets of insurgent attacks.

There were no such attacks, failed, foiled or successful, on the day.

That could reflect the fact that, unlike the previous round of provincial and then parliamentary elections in 2005, this one involved full-hearted participation by the Sunni community.

Its disgruntlement and alienation had earlier inspired electoral boycotts and provided the sea in which the insurgents swam.

The security success of this election operation had clear implications for the prospects for further troop reductions by US and other coalition forces - though US commanders continue to warn that the situation may still not be irreversible, and that over-rapid draw-downs could be destabilising.

'Really happy'

With some 14,400 candidates competing for just 440 seats around the country, there were fears that violence might erupt when the results were announced, given the large number of losers, all with access to guns.

But those fears have also proven unfounded, so far.

The results announced on 5 February were provisional only in the sense that they are subject to complaints and appeals. Nobody expects the overall picture to be radically changed by that process.

There were grumbles by factions which had done poorly, but no trouble, and little serious questioning of the propriety of the polling.

That is not just a security achievement, but a huge step forward in Iraq's political development and the emergence of a real democratic culture.

For the polling produced major changes on both the Shia and Sunni sides of the political equation - changes that the factions themselves have largely accepted, even when they are the losers.

For the Iraqi people, it has been a real eye-opener.

They learned, for the first time, that they could hold those they elected to account, and change them if they failed to meet expectations.

"People are really happy," said one Baghdad resident after the election was over.

"They think this is how elections should be. The message is that those who are elected and don't deliver, will be removed, peacefully."

Fierce competition

The transformations that these elections brought will be reflected in the general elections at the end of the year, since all the major national forces were participating in the provincial polls.

On the Sunni side, they included, above all, full Sunni reintegration into the political process, entailing big changes in the relevant provinces.

In Iraq's third city, Mosul, that meant that Kurdish factions which won control of the provincial council in 2005 by default because of the Sunni boycott, had to give way to the Sunni majority - a process that seems to be passing off gracefully.

There was fierce competition between rival Sunni factions in the former in

 

What!
Is this for real?

Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

Site looks dodgy, but the investigators seem to know what they're doing...

 

...Yeah, that's frankly ridiculous. News like that would've been leaked all over the Arab media by now.

 

Oh come on there is an oligachistical consensus in the mainstream media all over the world, anything is possible expect shapeshifting reptilians ruling the world.

 

That site strikes me as odd, only as I've doubts as to if that is a reliable methodology.