The Reasoned Review

Just another weblog

A Baghdadi Conundrum

with 2 comments

The Times on this week’s Baghdad Bombings

On the same page one can view an image of Jay Leno smiling in a convertible with the headline “Life needs more laughter”. More laughter indeed!

Two parallel narratives of Iraq currently populate our mainstream media, each claiming to represent the truth, yet both mutually exclusive of one another. On the one hand the Obama Administration claims (and our newspapers echo) that the situation in Iraq has markedly improved. We are endlessly informed of the “remarkable turnaround” in Iraq – the quiet streets, the reduced violence, and the returning refugees. As I mentioned earlier, Secretary Gates has committed to withdrawing 15,000 troops by the end of the year, with all “combat brigades” to exit by 2011. Publicly, our administration has stated that Iraq has begun to “take care of itself” and that US troops are no longer needed. Privately, they admit that the real focus of our Mid-East adventures has shifted to Afghanistan and that the reason for the Iraqi drawdown is to provide infantry for an Afghani buildup (17,000 extra soldiers already deployed with more on the way).

The Times, The Post, and various other newspapers have lent credibility to the idea of Iraqi stability with endless human-interest pieces on the resurgence of civil life in Iraq, now that the guns have fallen silent. View, for instance, this delightful little story on the finer points of Iraqi fish-roasting. And, of course, the endless op-ed pieces which begin with the premise that “the surge has worked” and continue their arguments from there. Ross Douhat gives a memorable line in a recent Times article: “Plenty of war-skeptics are unconvinced that Iraq’s recent stabilization will deliver a happy outcome in the long run. But the surge smoothed the way for withdrawal, which is what the war’s critics have wanted all along — so why rock the boat?” It is important to note here the assumption of “recent stabilization” and the bald assertion that “the surge smoothed the way for withdrawal”, as if those were facts only the most staid contrarian would dispute. Later he speaks of the “current [Iraqi] consensus” in much the same tone.

And yet the actual dispatches coming from Iraq paint a far different picture. Every week we hear of a new string of bombings in Iraq, “apparently intended to inflame sectarian passions”, as the Times puts it. (Here is a list of all major attacks in Iraq this year.) I think it safe to say such “passions” have long since been inflamed. So on one hand we have the official line espoused by the Obama Administration that we’ve seen “real improvement” in Iraq and that “the surge worked”. On the other we have the bombs that are still going off with alarming frequency. Taken together they paint a rather confusing picture of Iraq in 2009.

The key to deciphering these cryptic reports – indeed, to deciphering nearly all US dealings in the Middle East – is oil, always oil. The violence in Iraq concerned us in 2005-2008 because the US-installed Maliki government was still unsure of itself and still a bit wary to make deals regarding oil. Well Maliki has since fallen nicely into place, the lucrative oil contracts have already been made, and most importantly, Maliki has shown resilience to the various forces attempting to depose him. He’s our man in Iraq, and he’s not going anywhere. So let the Iraqis carry on their bloody feud! Let them blow one another up! As long as our man is in power and the oil still flows into US hands, what does it matter?

Afghanistan, however, tells a different story. The oil there flows through the geopolitically vital, and now precariously placed, Central Asia Pipeline. The Karzai government has not shown a tenth of the resilience of Maliki, though he has surely made up for that in obedience. Clearly he needs help. And so we put a veneer  over Iraq, ignoring the reality that nothing has been solved there, in order that we may draw soldiers out to help our friend in Afghanistan.

The contempt for life which the US government displays on a daily basis is nothing short of appalling. But even more insidious, if a bit less deadly, is its continuous contempt for the truth.


Written by pavanvan

August 8, 2009 at 3:15 am

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. the beauty of the neocolonial project is that it is able to separate itself from old school colonialism in public discourse. the times article cited above is a perfect example, brushing aside the possibility that(gasp), the US and western companies might have used the invasion and subsequent free advising of the oil ministry for (gasp) ulterior motives!

    the money western companies will get from these no-bid contracts in iraq, and the impending contracts in afghanistan, raises an important question: could this be a method that the american government can use for economic recovery? (economic exploitation through no bid contracts and other colonial policies). iraq and afghanistan represented great investments in the american military and in reconstruction equipment/personnel, investments that required the government to incur huge amounts of foreign debt. perhaps the decisions to incur this debt were not completely irrational, after all. could the US, through its companies, see a significant return on its investment? all of this depends on the extent to which the no-bid contract recipients will be loyal to the government which set the stage for the contracts.


    August 8, 2009 at 6:26 am

  2. That’s an interesting thought, one which I admit I had not considered until now.

    I think the original plan was definitely to borrow money for an Iraqi adventure and then pay it back via no-bid contracts and the like. Control of Iraqi oil production was clearly the aim from day one. But things haven’t really gone as planned.

    I don’t believe Rumsfeld and co. were wholly lying when they said “Six days, six weeks, probably not six months” as an estimate for how long it would take to subdue Iraq. They genuinely thought it would be that easy. But the years for which the war has dragged greatly slim the possibility for a profitable outcome. Even if we were to make 100% profit from all remaining Iraqi oil starting right now, I don’t think the total amount gained would equal $11.6 Trillion, our current national debt.

    Add to that a mind-boggling $3 Trillion annual deficit for the next decade in order to finance our bank bailouts, and it’s not hard to predict a $20-$30 Trillion National Debt by the end of this coming decade. Not enough oil exists to cover that, even if it were all ours.

    I think the term gamblers use is “going for broke”, or if you’re a poker player, “pot-committed”. The US has sunk so many resources into this misbegotten adventure that it can’t withdraw without seeing at least SOME return. But at the same time we have to start being cost-conscious – we can’t just spend money all willy-nilly as we had earlier this decade. Thus the “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq, leaving behind enough troops to teach Maliki a lesson, should he start to act up.

    So ultimately, while I think the original idea was to borrow money to invade Iraq, secure no-bid contracts, then pay back our debtors with cash to spare, I doubt such a thing would be possible anymore. Instead, we’re merely trying to recoup whatever we can from this failed adventure. Dead Iraqis, of course, notwithstanding.


    August 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: