2 posts tagged “iraq”

Bad news first:

If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world...

Less bad news:

The [Iraqi] parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.
...
Without the cover of the U.N. mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation...

Normally a nation voting for an end to outside assistance would be a good thing. But in this case the 'helpers' have a vested interest in 'helping', and may not react well to being thanked and shown the door.

The U.S. invested a lot of money in taking Iraq, and will have very few options open to it if Iraq tells them to leave.

1. They could simply leave. While the this is the morally correct option, the U.S. invested billions of dollars in the operation and is unlikely to accept no ROI.
2. They could start killing off Parliamentarians. This is achievable given the unique status of law and order in Iraq, but is more likely to sway pro-American politicains to push for withdrawl than frighten anti-American ones to quieting down.
3. They could kill all the Parliamentarians, install a new Saddam and abandon the 'democracy' pretense.
4. They could simply ignore the Iraqi government and continue as they are. The Iraqi armed forces are no match for the U.S. and would not be stupid enough to fight back, but could simply let the Iraqi resistance do it for them. Without Iraqi help in identifying it's enemies, the MNF-I could be seriousy bloodied.
   

The money America rightfully owes Iraq for rebuilding is not worth the loss of oil revenue* Iraq is being forced to sacrifice for it. Free of the MNF-I, Iraq could easily afford to rebuild itself.

* I assume that the '17' number in the first article is a typo for '27', else a person can reach colonel in the U.S. armed forces without being able to do basic math.

In an article about genetics and political preference, this little gem emerged:

Jost's findings, detailed in American Psychologist, suggest that environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.

For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said. A study of World Trade Center survivors after 9/11 reported that 38 percent grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attacks, as compared with only 13 percent who became more liberal.

Approximately half. This could be enough to tip someone who is unsure over the edge and keep them there.

This is why conservative politicians always talk about the danger we are in (and demonize anyone who suggests temperance). It is not a temporary justification for war, it is a psychological attack.

First they scare you, hopefully making you more conservative. Now that you are more conservative, they try to win your trust with the offer of protection. Now you trust them, they scare you again. I don't believe this is a devised system, more likely an evolved strategy, but it is dishonest either way. It also explains why the private media constantly barrage us with fear - it's not just good for ratings, it helps their political allies.

I have previously thought that when you see conservatives repeating the lies politicians tell them (Iraq had WMDs, we are under a real threat from fantaical muslims, if we retreat from Iraq the insurgents will launch a counter-offensive, we cannot allow failed states because they create terrorist safe-havens, etc) that they didn't believe them. I thought that they simply agreed with their leaders about the importance of empire and oil, and also agreed that it was better to lie about good intentions than admit to bad ones. But now I think I was wrong. Maybe most of them actually believe the lies, having been scared into trusting the liars at the top.

In one way it reduces my faith in humanity - if so many people can be so easily manipulated, what sort of hope do we have? But on the other hand, it is somewhat reassuring to think that rank-and-file conservatives are not dishonest, just scared and lied to.