Oil and the looming threat to Iraq  

The situation in Iraq is more complicated than is indicated in your post. Separation of the regions of Iraq is a possibility, but hardly a slam-dunk.

The Sunnis mostly occupy land that has little or no oil. Why would they push separation? To be poor?

Kurdistan separating from Iraq is very problematic:

There is a large Kurdish population in Turkey. The Turkish government is barely containing separtist Kurdish military groups, in eastern Turkey. If Kurdistan gets strong, and forms an independent country, this will strengthen the separtist movement among Kurds, within Turkey, and threaten to break up that country. So Turkey is stronly opposed to Kurdish separtism. President Bush agrees with Turkey, on this score, and said so at a recent meeting with the Turkish prime minister. Kurdistan's government gets 90% of it's revenues from oil. Guess where the pipelines run? Through Turkey, and south thru Shiite land. So if Kurdistan wants to separate from Iraq, it will have to piss off 2 political groups that it depends on keeping happy, to keep its oil/revenue/money flowing.

Separating from the rest of Iraq would be a highly irrational and self-destructive thing to do.

And if you look at Where the oil is, in Iraq, it's mostly on Shiite land. Separate from the source of most of the future potential wealth? Why would the Kurds do that? To get in a costly war, and kill 90% of revenue?

I find the potential breakup of Iraq hard to believe. Think about life, from a Shiite point of view: Historically, Shiites have been subordinate to the Sunnis for so long, economically and in terms of political power, that it's nice to finally be boss. Saddam gave them the shitty and short end of the stick, and routinely oppressed them, and finally they are masters in their own house. The Shiite dominated government in Bagdhad has given no indication it wants to kick the Kurds and Sunnis out of Iraq, and partition the country. Why would they? What would be their motivation?

In a democracy, numbers are power. Not only do Shiites have the most oil, they also have the most numbers. 60% of Iraqis are Shiites. They don't want to break up the country because they have the most power, finally. At 25% of the population, and little oil, why would the Sunnis want to leave the banquet table? Without oil, they'd actually have to work for a living to survive. I don't think they want to do that.

They are perfectly aware that in many oil-rich Gulf states, many Sunnis do very little, and earn high wages, due to oil wealth. I know, because I have 2 family members over there, making the big bucks, as professionals for hire. In several small oil-rich Arab countries, foreigners, who do all the work, outnumber locals.

Sunnis, doing something that would force them to work for a living? I find that hard to believe.

I agree that the proposed Hydro Carbon Law in Iraq is highly unfair to Iraq, especially when you compare it to deals given to other, non-occupied oil rich countries. But my guess is it will be passed this year, as Arab leaders let their greed get the best of them.

If the breakup of Iraq happens, it won't be because most Iraqis want it. A few separtist nuts may want it, but most Iraqis don't. If Iraq breaks up, it will be because America lets it happen, not because Iraqis want it, because they don't.

A breakup of Iraq, though, is more likely if America just packs her bags, and goes home. A violent and bloody civil war is one of the unintended consequences of doing what Democrats, and the majority of Americans want to do: pull out of Iraq as quick as possible. Since pulling out of Iraq quickly would likely lead to a massive and bloody civil war, where hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Iraqi men, women and children would die, it's not an option I support. America shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but leaving with the job half done is just plain irresponsible. If the Democrats win the White House, and do the quick withdraw thing, and it leads to mass genocide in Iraq, the blood will be on their hands, and Arabs will think less of Americans than they already do.

My position on Iraq is this: America, you broke it, you bought it, and you own it, for now. So fix it before you leave, and make it a safe country, before you leave, so Arab women and children can walk the streets safely, or Arabs will hate you for a thousand years. War does not end when one side has won a military victory, and just leaves. That's a fool's victory. War is won when the streets are safe, the damage has been repaired, children can go to school safely, and life is better. America did this for Germany after WWII under the Marshall Plan, and America has a moral obligation to repair damage in Iraq, and help Iraqis, for at least 20 years, to make up for the horrific carnage they inflicted on that country. Democrats like Obama who say America can just walk away are saying it's ok to kill millions of men, women and children, and make no amends, and just walk away. Sort of like saying a man can rape 10 women, and just walk away, because it happened in a foreign place. Disgusting.....

Hi Tim,

The article is arguing that the US is trying to partition Iraq, not that the Iraqis want this to happen.

My personal theory is that this is a "negotiating tactic" of sorts - basically the Iraqis are being told to hand over their oil, or face partitioning (which will disadvantage the newly rearmed Sunnis and result in further large scale ethnic cleansing if it does happen).

I disagree about the US needing to "fix" what it has broken. They should just leave - the Iraqis can sort themselves out. Once that is done their oil revenues will fund a quick reconstruction.

Ideally the US would pay reparations, but that will never happen.

If they stay they will be meddling in Iraqi affairs and trying to control the oil forevermore.

Best they just leave...

Thanks.

You say the Americans should just leave?

Yes, the U.S. could just leave. But there are pluses and minuses, with each option, including that one. One thing that could happen, if they leave, is that Iran, at some point, could invade Iraq. They've done it before, a number of times. Iran and Iraq are long-standing, bitter historical rivals, and the last war they fought, in the early 1980s, was over oil revenue, among other things. In that war, over 1 million people died on each side. With the American gone, a power vacuum would be created, and I think Iran would love to fight a conventional war with Iraq, since Iraq's current army wouldn't stand a chance this time. And remember, Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon, and with the latest political assassinations in Pakistan, it's easier than ever for them to acquire one, rather than develop one on their own. Now, with America gone, suppose Iran invades Iraq, kills a million Iraqis, eventually wins, occupies that country, and finishes developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. Short of nuclear war, what could America do, at that point, to kick Iran out of Iraq? Very little. And what would be the consequence of this scenario, besides more Iraqis dead or oppressed?

As we both know, the world has just entered the downslope, of Peak Oil. At the same time, the demand for oil is huge and quickly accelerating, in China and India, both with over 1 billion people. There is so much economic development in China, that economists are predicting that within 40 years, or less, China will have an economy as big as the U.S. economy. And it is oil that is making that economic expansion possible.

So, global oil demand will be sharply rising, for at least 30 years, and global oil supply will be sharply declining.

And who has that oil? Right now, Iran is the world's fourth largest oil supplier. Iraq has the third largest potential supply of oil in the world, although, as indicated in your link, How much oil is in Iraq, the number is likely to be much higher. If Iran takes over Iraq, and develops it's oil, and combines revenue streams to include it's own oil revenues, it will likely end up with tremendous economic leverage. Iran would have the industrialized world by the short hairs. This could be one of the practical consequences of what you suggest, which is to just pull out.

Also, Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and are behind groups at war with Israel, so with an America severely weakened, due to a nuclear Iran that controls the world's remaining oil supply, expect a much more unstable world, and more wars in the middle east. One thing Iran's leaders have said, that make sense, in a sick way, is that Israel, their bitter enemy, is a "one-bomb state". That is, geographically, Israel is very tiny. There are parks in Canada, my home country, much bigger than Israel. And all six million Jews live in that tiny geographic area. Now, Israel has nuclear weapons, but could not survive more than one bomb, thus the name one bomb state. But Iran could easily bounce back from a limited nuclear war, because they have the numbers. Six million Jews, dying in a Holocost. Sound familiar? I hope the world doesn't end up going down that path again.

Whether you or I like America, or not, and I often don't, one thing I believe, is that in the geo-political chess game, order is presently maintained when one player, in this case, America, has more power than the others. The more the world becomes a variety of closer to equal, power players, the more war is likely, in my opinion. That's part of the reason the history of Europe was so bloody, for the past 2000 years: Europe had a variety of power player that could vie for dominance, depending on the time and situation. Whenever Europe had a variety of roughly equal competing powers, rather than one superpower, war followed. And when did Europe have order, without war? When one player dominated for a long time. The Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years because the Romans kept order, and no one was around to seriously challenge them. In our current historical period, Europe has been unusually peaceful, compared to her past, having been at peace for the last sixty years. Why is that? People like to think, nowadays, that it is because we have morally evolved beyond that. Personally, I don't believe that point of view, for a second, and people who believe that might want to read a bit more history. I think, instead, it's because one country, America, in this case, instead of Rome, is keeping order. The implications for the present situation in the middle east are obvious: Once America can be more seriously challenged, by a nuclear Iran, controlling a commodity vital to the world's economy, or China once it is as strong as America, then expect a more unstable world. An American pull-out of Iraq is pushed forward with the best of intentions, but I think it would have the opposite effect, of what it's proponents want. Rather than decrease war and suffering, globally, it would likely make the problem much worse. That's why I don't support it.

Right now, President Bush is over in the middle east, selling advanced weapons to Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, who are naturally worried that if America leaves, their long-time bitter historical and religious rivals, the Shiites of Tehran, will do exactly what I said, take over Iraq, and threaten them as well. And, as much as I don't trust America, I trust Iran even less. America is not the only country with a hidden agenda.

Democrats would have the public believe there are no consequences to their plan, of just pulling out of Iraq. But there are, and they are mostly bad. So, no, I don't support just leaving. I think it's very irresponsible, and would lead to more, not less, human suffering. Just leaving would make widespread civil war, or a take-over by Iran, more likely, and de-stabilize the whole region, and end in the death of many. Just packing up and leaving means more dead Iraqi men, women, and children, needlessly suffering, and I don't support that. That wouldn't be in Iraq's interest, it wouldn't be in the interest of global security, or world peace, or world economic prosperity, or a humane approach to ending this conflict and violence.

A better approach, I think, is for America to leave the cities and towns and villages of Iraq, within the year, and to retreat to isolated military bases within Iraq. You are right, Iraqis should sort out their own problems, but they need to do it without worrying about Iran invading, and without American soldiers hanging about.

Now, it turns out there are currently 5 giant, isolated, super-bases within Iraq, with America soldiers on them. One of them is a small city, really, with over 20,000 soldiers on it, and it's own power supply, food supply. It even has bowling alleys, fast food restaurants like Burger King, and swimming pools. I know, because I talk to my friend, who works there.

It's not talked about much, in the public press, but America started planning these bases, as part of their strategy, long before they invaded Iraq. Think about it. Small cities just don't sprout up in the desert overnight. They just don't appear, like a mirage, in the desert. They require years of planning. That means the generals in the Pentagon were planning the invasion of Iraq years before they invaded, and probably years before 9-11. September 11 just gave them an excuse to go ahead with their plans.

What I'm saying is, it's obvious that constructing large bases, for America to retreat to, was part of America's military strategy for years before they invaded Iraq.

Although I think invading Iraq was a very bad idea, a tragic mistake, right from the start, and a totally unjustified act of monumental aggression, a worse idea would be just packing up and leaving, at this point. I think, instead, at this point, having got in this deep, and with so many negative consequences associated with just packing up and leaving, that America should now do what they intended all along: retreat to those bases, and leave Iraqis alone.

That way, Iraq would not have to worry about Iran invading, and stealing all their oil, and killing people. It's bad enough America is trying to steal their oil. Just leaving and letting someone else steal the oil is not in anyone's interest, except the interest of the next thief, Iran.

Also, by staying on isolated bases, for a while, Iraqis could have the 10-15 years they need, to sort out their own problems, build up their own economy, re-build their own country, and build up their own army and police forces, so they could keep internal order, and protect themselves from external threats.

I read a UN report, from a group of economists, who quantified the variables needed for economic development to take place, in any location, worldwide. The variables are the same, globally. It doesn't matter where you live. Anyway, they tried to figure out how much, different factors were responsible for economic development and prosperity being possible. It turned out "security and order" was rated about 50%, which was double the variable stength of "education". In other words, countries need a stable police force, and army, in order to economically develop. Without order, development is near impossible. This is obvious, just watching the mess in Iraq, on TV. How can economic development take place, with daily carnage and bloodshed? It can't. It's bound to fail. That's just common sense. It can't because the present government of Iraq does not have exclusive use of deadly force, which is something that is necessary, for any government, world-wide, which is the ability to impose order on their society. This is especially true of fractious, ethnically and politically divided societies, like Iraq.

So Iraqis need order, to sort out their problems, work toward a humane peace, and re-develop their country, economically. That's why I think America should stay there 10-15 years, and then leave.

If, in a decade or so, Iraq is a stable country, with a good army, and peace and security and reasonable human rights are respected, and prosperity is coming back to Iraq, then America should understand that their role is finished there, and get the hell out.

That's why I think America should stay, for a while.

Iraqis are perfectly capable of coming up with a humane, peaceful society, in my opinion. They just need a little time to do it. In the big picture of history, ten years isn't much time. Remember, from your history, these are the people who had civilized, beautiful cities and advanced mathematics and astronomy, and had scientists and philosophers, and advanced literature, and invented codified law, at a time when Europeans were backwards, dirty and illiterate.

And in the mean time, while getting Iraq back on it's feet, Iraq's government should have the political guts to throw out the ridiculous, exploitive Hydro Carbon Law, presently before it's parliament, and put in place a real law, with real teeth, that's fair to Iraq, and that gives Iraq it's share of oil revenues, based on international standards. Right now, the Maliki government is just trying to please it's masters, the Americans, rather than protecting the interests of Iraq.

Politically, I notice the Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, are not pushing this last point, of treating the Iraqis fairly, in dividing up oil money. And the American media isn't saying much if anything about it, except to parrot the propaganda line from the White House, about so-called Revenue-sharing agreements being necessary in Iraq, as a "benchmark". (as if agreeing to be robbed can be a sign of progress) This seems a grievous ommission. And she's also being very coy about her intentions for whether to leave Iraq, if she becomes president. Personally, I think she's in on the heist, with Bush. That's why she's acting like this.

And it is, a heist, or hold-up. Since the value of oil reserves in Iraq are in the tens of trillions of dollars, by my calculations, she is an accomplice, with George W, to what is clearly an attempt at the greatest robbery, in human history.

Oil is incredibly valuable, as you know, and the world is running out of it, and Hillary and George are attempting to steal what's left, while the world runs out of oil.

A sad time for humanity........

Well, that's my two-cents worth of comments.

Great blog. I'm learning so much, about things I knew little of. Thanks.

Thanks for the conversation.

Also, I agree with you. America playing footsie with Iraqi separtists is probably just a negotiating ploy, to make it easier to pass the law on hydrocarbons, so it's easier to steal their money. Makes sense to me.