The Future of Iraq

Masadi, Thank you for your comments but i hope you dont mind me taking the issue futher. I am afraid all discussions with you are sound.

Dash_dot, my sincere apologies, could you mail me offlist if you dont mind? bdasgupta@gmail.com

#35 "Democracy is just not simply a numbers game (as our dear friend Masada Complex (who ever came up with this name must be rewarded) seems to think "

Yeah according to this miserable fcuk, democracy is about indoctrinating the public through the media, giving them limited choices among a bunch of elite thugs, then determining the agenda, making money raising and sloganeering the be all and end all of campaigns, and then staying with the agenda determined among the elite group of thugs regardless of public opinion or desires, for these fcuks, democracy is about voting for preselected candidates, between tweedle dee and tweedle DUMB, and then letting the auto pilot of elite advantage take its course.. Don't try to teach me what democracy is about you miserable fcuk.

Beady, (and Kaalchakra)

on another thread, there was an interesting interact from Wheel O Time regarding "faith".

This is an important factor here. The people int he country need to have faith in

(a) Democracy
(b) leadership

Democracy is just not simply a numbers game (as our dear friend Masada Complex (who ever came up with this name must be rewarded) seems to think. Many countries, peoples seems to think that this what it is - a numbers game. You need to recognise that democracy is far more than just simply a numbers game.

Leadership : the people must have confidence in the leadership that it can deliver (within the constraints they have eventhough they might have promised heaven to the people), and that the leadership itself is totally committed to democracy. It is this second aspect which is missing in most cases.

Present day Iraq is no different. You have the mullahs who think democracy is a numbers game, and you a venal iraqi leadership which is seen to be paying lip service to democracy. And in between the two, the people do whatever they can to make ends meet, and to save up for a rainy day. Hence that story yougave about the jeep loads of money and doling it out, and hence my comment Yatha Raja Tatha Praja.

by complete cleansing, I did not menat it in the sense of debathification, but really one of educating the population and the leadership about the deeper meaning of democracy and peoples rule.

My tuppence for a long time. BTW you did not give me the info I asked some time back.......
cheers

"take France, USA, UK, Japan and India, strongly democratic countries, with a strong national ethos superseding any racial, religious, economic, ethnic, linguistic, political, sociological or anthropological grouping "

More BS by the author, the USA has a long history of racial segregation and oppression that exists to this day, Japan was US restructured/occupied and is a more or less homogeneous country. India has a long history of sectarianism, and the UK and France a long history of colonization based on race and skin color, as well as the current policy of ghettoizing people that don't look like them, maybe the author has forgotten the Arab riots in France. These countries practice democracy in name only, look the condition of the vast majority in India, what have they gained from this facade of "democracy", not much, same is the case of the tens of million of the poor in the USA. Did UK not go to the war as America's sidekick even though the vast majority opposed it? Come on, you are hiding the fact that homogeniety under a national flag was achieved by the elite in these countries are perpetrating the most barbarous of crimes and carnage, those are parts of their adjustments to make the vast majority of humanity subservient to the status quo that benefits them....

The author writes "That’s when Allah/God and other assorted deities and divinities need to step up to the plate and knock some sense into the warring groups and parties "

Allah needs to knock some sense into your dimwit mind. When an invader has destroyed civil society, the rule of law, all state authority (except now in the Green Zone), you expect chaos to reign supreme following in the footsteps of the invader's "rule by the gun". There was no sectarian violence of the kind under the various Iraqi regimes pre US invasion, even though foreign elements tried to ferment such conflict. The cause of this conflict is firmly placed with the American invaders. Also there are no Hindus of any substantial number living in Iraq to call for "an assortment of dieties and divinities" (you idiot).

When no effort has been made to reconstruct Iraq, or make the Iraqi people sovereign and when the shadow of the invaders, who want chaos to rein, is always hanging over their heads, we expect violence and sectarianism. Peace requires a structure to reign, that structure was taken away by barbarous foreign invaders.

Just today this appeared in the news
------
WASHINGTON AFP - Iraq’s ambassador to the United States Wednesday launched a withering attack on what he said was US slowness to provide basic weaponry to his country’s ill-equipped armed forces.

Samir Sumaidaie said the foot-dragging was inexplicable given President George W. Bush’s oft-stated desire for Iraqi forces to “stand up” and so allow US troops to withdraw from the frontlines.

Rejecting suggestions that the Pentagon is reluctant to allow high-tech US weaponry to fall into Iraqi hands, the ambassador told reporters “we’re not talking about nuclear submarines” but basic arms like automatic rifles.

------

Why do you think the US is not giving basic arms to the Iraqi military? Because they do not trust them, they know that those people, who themselves hate invaders and wanted them to leave regardless of their sect, will turn on the invaders armies every opportunity they get. The US is afraid, soon it will get its fat a$$ kicked out of Iraq, so it is trying to ferment a similar civil war in Pakistan...

Our extremist born-again Christian Knight of the Neo-Convicts Order has not only raped the country but mutilated it beyond recognition and repair -- after the Ugly American leaves the quarry with blood on its hands and a bandaged conscience -- the left over bones and carcass will go to 5 standby muslim dogs plus a chihuahua -- the Iranian dogs -- the Turkish dogs -- the Syrian dogs -- the Jordanian dogs – and the Saudi dog plus the yelping Kuwaiti Chihuahua.

The Kurdish Kuislings are going to be kloberred by three sides as soon the Kurdish Kennel guards leave the area limping -- never to return. This is the Fractured Future of the Messy Little Potamia.

Re: # 29
Sorry for english and spelling. I just got up and was sleepy and was feeding cat but now I feel better. People should not read here too much as lots people from enemy cam is trying too demoralise by posting and magnifying stuff fro newspapers but any way thet cj stuff is over. Now real stiff fight is just starting, Lal Mosque ( LM) was just warm up and terrorist are going to suffer lot unless they mend their ways and become civilised and become lawful citizens and general is doing good to country. But liberal anti muslim , antinational and panislamic terrorist want to make here trouble like Iraq and A.stan. They may be able to do that trouble for stort time ungoverned areas but as steel grip of pakistan armed forces becomes tight and as helicopter gunships start making sorties their freedom doing terrorism is going strat shrinking as LM trouble makes undertood in post operation period. At this time they do not understand they are being watched and squeezed just like late Bugti never believed when general said this time B.Terrorist will not understand from where missile struck. I got some info from one army man. It was technological achievement for High tec h. This mr. Bugti had bad habit of talking and army airmachine and usa drone caught him talking to NY times or some foreign press person.American High flying (30,000ft high) Drone was able to find location by High Tech( Longituse and latitude withing 3 feet accuracy) and conveyed to Paf f-15 eagle. And drone programmed and fired missile from f-16 and Bugti was history. Ossama Bin knows that big airmachines from usa and pakistan are looking for his talking once they get that he will be getting missile from F-16. But he defeated by just stop talking on cellular phone. If you do not use modern communication then all modern thing is garbage. Fight with asymmetry. Now he uses donkeys to transport than jeep again they can not catch as donkey is too unsofisticated compared to jeep. Any way time is on side of govt and surly things are getting tough fot terrpor making people. Nehru was not kashmiri he was up Bhayya land person. His skin was dark and he was bald and he had weak body died of heart attack. He was fake secular as proved by his daughter when she attacked pakistan same with his grandson he admitted Nehru family dream was to cyt pakistan to size. Question is can this family be suied in International court for making war palns for years? Only lawyers/ international court experts can write and tell.

Re: # 15

Beady boss,

As 4 showing the finger....King jong Il had been actually showing the dick to Bush....& All American Prezs!

Indiscrimante bombing of Lebanon was uncontested.....occuption of Iraq (though I am happy abt the flattening of Taliban) is another concern....there's nobody in this world to speak, at least.......

The idea of Nehru lingers.....the brightest Kashmiri son of modern India............

& the voice of Sunil Khilnani comes to my mind.

Its not a theocratic state but Islamic Republics of Pakistan. The country has given constitution by founding member / mr.Bhutto of 1973. Which is living documrnt and will change with time and will be modified as needed. The constitution is basic document for all muslim nations including India and others who want to improve the law and order situation by useing this Bhutto constition. Look at Pakistan market is defying gravity and going up like crszy and higest reurn on srock.Just few years had highest return on equity market.Economy is booming. Pakisrtannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n is economy on rise look at realestate, stock market, interst rated, dollars can Indian economy do this it can not. The country is at war against intially India and ussr and that country was oput out od misery by insurgent pakistan, usa and china. And now usa and pakistan are fighting extremist and still easternfront is not cold, Fight fr kashmir is going on on long term. Which economy has done better after taking into account this ongoing war on eastern front and now on eastern front. The terrorist and extremist on run . Soon usa is also going to upgrade military hardwere specially mobility assets like addition of Helicopter gunships which will put terrorist at great advantage and JF aircraft produced by China and pakistan with powerful Russian engines which are same SU-30 the russy most modern air machines engine. I am tired of silly comparison between india and pakistan. India is like fat elephant while pakistan is asian power animal like bengali tiger which can smash any thing and put wild fat elephant out of misery. The economy is expanding at fast rest by absorbing huge foreign investments. Now these rich companies from west and arabland are not stupid to pour billions of dollars fro electricity to car companies and gas and oil production sector is booming like rocket. With defreezing of oil and gas prices and allowed to raise to international levels it is going to country like middle east. Sindh and B.Stan is full of oil and gas. Canadian, usa companies are pouring money in this sector and every month new discoveries. Now Chinese are going to pour money in that sector. World class coal deposits will used by Chinese companies to make power and may be India can get some juice at little concessional price to help poor people of India. Soon power lines will be carrying power from central asia to fuel economy of pakistan. IPI pipe line is coming on line and Indians will be forced to pay $500 million per yer as transit fee. If Indian do not behave properly then Iran Pakistan line will work properly but India pakistan cab burst what India, Iran can do. Precisely nothing . It is in interst of india to solve K problem tp pakistani satisfaction or Pakistanis will control gas from Iran.
Iraq problem can be solved if Muslim armies under UNO are employed and others go home. But long term as Jinnah suggested type solution be implimented as Iraq mind is very hot headed and same with Kurds. Division of Iraq will solve problems like india pakistan. And they will be all right if India pakistan can live Sunni, Shia, Kurd Islamic republics can live. PIA is needed that P(akistan)+I(ran)+A (a.stan) which will be good for pakistani people, afghan and Irani and USA will not be able to threaten PIA as such combination will be very powerful with huge army and atomic bombs and resources and all can move where there is job need etc like europe.

This just in …

A few days ago Bush got checked for colon cancer. Doctors found nothing alarming. They did find one lump that Bush has not been able to pass. It is being investigated further, but for now, the doctors are calling it "Iraq".

Ranjit #25

Given the utter and total incompetent mess that the US has made with Iraq with its basic peace keeping and national administration, I am not confident at all that it can replicate a yoguslavia here.

Second, it requires a sustained decades long multi-national effort to make sure that yoguslavia works, and i cant see that happening in Iraq, not the funding, not the people, not the police, not anything.

Third, yoguslavia succeeded because the pressure on all the 3 parties worked, everybody was getting something out of it. In this case, while I can see the kurds and possibly the SICRI group getting something out of partition, I cant see what turkey, iran, the mahdi army, the other arabs, etc. getting out of it, so it will be a bit of an issue.

Fourth, the crux of the matter, i simply cannot see how an equitable distribution can be established. Why on earth would the kurds give up their share of the oil to the sunni's in a different country or shia to the sunni's? or or or or.

Not very sure that it will work. In any case, i cannot see or hear any legitimate backing to this idea in any corner of the USA at all. So lord only knows who will push it? The republicans? nope. Democrats? nops. So not very hopeful i am afraid.

cheers

bd

Ranjit

Makes sense... that may be the only viable option left...

Re:beady#18 and harish_hyd
"Well, an orderly transition. I presume along the lines of India and Pakistan?"

The India-Pakistan partition was a good idea that was terribly executed by the british. At the end of the day, both Indians and Pakistanis are very happy with the way things turned out, in fact the Indians are overjoyed at the prospect of not dealing with the kind of crap that Pak society/army is dealing with these days.

I was referring to the Yugoslavian model that was executed very systematically by US and NATO. A deal was reached, borders were demarcated, peacekeepers were deployed and everyone is happy since then.

Coming to the point of external parties, since when has the US cared about their opinions? It can just tell them to take a hike and parition the country since it has physical possession of it. The internal stakeholders will comply since they will immediately get a chance to get power. The Kurds are doing quite well. The Sunnis would prefer to get their own place to rule rather than play second fiddle to the shias and see their people die every day. The Shias may not mind either since it will mean the end of suicide bombings by sunnis. The jihadis are not a party to any dispute and are a "microority" anyway. What we see in Iraq is basically a sectrian civil war. Either one party wins completely like the US civil war, or the parties get tired like in lebanon or they need to be separated physically. If the US doesnt leave, no party can win anything. No one is tired of the fighting either since the US is managing to keep some level of control. Therefore the only option is to separate them out.

The one key thing is to ensure equitable oil revenue sharing and the US can force that on all the three parties. The other thing is to have peacekeepers. That is where the UN, NATO and muslim countries can be pulled in if the US shows leadership. At the end of the day, either the US does this or it will suffer a humiliating loss. It will just retreat and we will see an orgy of a civil war happening along the lines of Lebanon for years in Iraq.

biggest mistake of the bush admin was not so much not getting enough international support (coalition of the willing) while going in but not getting enough of banias in after going in (calling europeans old and denying them the war booty AKA reconstruction ).

"US admin thinks it could do it in 4 years"

iron_mask, in religions-cultural terms the US administration and the American people in general are the most ignorant of the lot. Worse, they cocky about their own ignorance - much like our dime-a-dozen Hindu secularists.

They will always be used by smart outsiders. The saving grace from American point of view is that ultimately, the US being relatively so strong, they are still able to get their way.

beady,

Leaders do not happen, they are created by the people. For leaders to emerge, there has to be some dominant social value and any one that exudes that value emerge as a leader, in response to the hopes and aspirations of its people.

No islamic country can have a leader, because the ultimate is to follow the book. There is no flexibility, there is no dominant value other than literally do what is in the book.

Where there is prescriptive book to follow, as in India, it creates heros, it can make an Albanian Chrisitan into a saint, mother theresa. It can make an italian woman to a national hero and give the chair that a mahatma occupied.

That is why there is no hope for pakistan, no hope for any islamic state, they have to become theocratic states.

Re: # 20
that is why I find it astonishing that the US admin thinks it could do it in 4 years. It needs a much more longer term thinking - its not a short term thing.

Maybe something like the Shia democracy (I donot want to use the other word here for obvious reasons ;) )should be the option here.

Who knows, Crystal ball gazing is best left to the people who can do it!

#16 Posted by iron_mask

well, i would advice slight caution. That's what the interim administration did, went for complete de-baathification. Not good, it created huge problems.

Also, shia democracy is not like what we know as democracy in the west or even in india. its guided democracy to put it politely. Sunni democracy, well, less said the better.

#11 Posted by HP

you are right. At that moment in 2002, it was Plan Rumsfeld all over. March in, kick saddam out, put in chalabi, put in some vague governing federal structure and walk out bearing bottles of shaat al arab water. Now look where they are!

#10 Posted by Ranjit

Well, an orderly transition. I presume along the lines of India and Pakistan? well, it wasnt orderly at all, and in any case, there are way too many parties involved who are against it. Outside Iraq, Turkey is against it, Syria is against it, most of the Arab lands are against it. Iran is ok with it but not with kurdistan coming into play. Internally, you dont have a hope in hell of convincing the sunni, yazdi's to do this, not the baathists, not the al queda buggers, not the tribal chiefs. The SCIRI might be willing to do so, but again, i dont think the mahdi army guys would like it..... And even if it was possible right after the invasion, it most certainly is not right now. And the UN, Arab League or even OIC dont have the troops, money, will or guts to step in to drive something like partition down the throats of the various groups.

#9 Posted by TahirQazi

Tahir Sahib, thank you for your comments. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Kurd question being more than just Sunni. The history of kurdistan is a long and frequently shameful one. (see an old essay of mine here, http://www.flash-bulletin.de/2003/eSeptember22.htm#5). Oil is indeed a factor in the iraqi imbrogilo and you have identified it as such.

Re: # 13
precisely the point beady - the divisions are deep. And the reason, if I could borrow (or steal) from kaalChakra and Dash_dot (respectively)

Yatha Raja Tatha Praja

If you can trust the king you can trust the people. If the king is a slime ball, some of it will sublimate to the people.

You need a process of a complete cleansing of the stables - starting with the minds and attidues - otherwise everything else will be cosmetic.

#8 Posted by Folio on July 24, 2007 7:50:22 pm
There are no more Nehrus in this world to save us from the tyranny of the likes of George Bush. Alas!

Folio sahib(a), i wouldnt go as far as that, my friend. The tryanny of dubya bush can be rejected, and has been. Let me give you two particular examples. Turkey told Dubya to take a flying jump when they wanted to create a northern front for Iraq. Similarly, India told Dubya to take a swimming leap when they came around asking for troops and stuffies. Even iran is doing that. And none of these countries, during the time that they showed the finger to USA, has had charismatic national leaders like Nehru, Tito, Ataturk, or Khomeini. But these countries have institutions (threadbare, dusty, leaking, corrupt) but institutions none the less which allowed pretty average leaders to be confident that the country was behind them. Once that confidence is there, they could show the proverbial finger. Compare that to other countries whose leaders do not have an institutional structure, who are unable to rely whole heartedly on the country, they buckle under the pressure and trynanny of king george!

#2 Posted by KaalChakra

I am afraid without leaders who can draw the nation together, it will be impossible for Iraq to live on as an independent entity. Take Yoguslavia, India and Pakistan for example. Nehru and company managed to draw india together and developed institutions. Yoguslavia under tito tried to do the same but he didnt manage to develop institutions which could overpower the ethnic chasms and we all know about Pakistan. So while the importance of leaders can be debated, in the case of Iraq, I would say that it is absolutely vital that some form of national leadership (outside the sectarian/group/religious aligned leadership) emerges for it to survive.

#1 Posted by iron_mask

no, nothing new, my friend. This has been said before and I am sure will be said even more going forward. Just couple of points, you need to think about how the Yazdi's and the fast diminishing number of christians fit into this picture.

Secondly, within the sunni's, you have the tribal structure, the international jihadi networks, and the secular ex baathist structure, broadly speaking, there are many more fissures.

I spoke with couple of senior G3's here in London who had rotated out of Iraq, and listening to them was absolutely bizarre. These chaps are using latest organisational mapping software to determine how and where to deploy funds (usually cash out of the back of a hummer) and i saw one printout. In one province, ANBAR, they had more than 60,000 people to whom they were distributing cash. Each of these guys were supposed to be identified as a "stakeholder". That's how far down the divisions go! So the theorising has a point, the theory is being applied on the ground, the results are for all of us to see.

#10 by Ranjit

By having homogenous partitions, the Iraqis have a fighting chance to be democratic in each of these partitions.

Are you sure it will happen? Because closer home not too long ago, the justification used was the same, but it didn't work at all except in the case of India.

Interestingly, no one was concerned about Iraq’s future in 2002 or even before that but after the US forces have destroyed that country inside out, we are talking about Iraq’s future.

Foreign intervention of the kind of magnitude that Iraq saw would destroy any country’s future. In the 90s the US destroyed the future of a country in Eastern Europe and that one country now perhaps is three countries. The US destroyed the future of a country right in front of our eyes and now we are debating its future without discussing what the US intervention based on lies did to it. More important than the country Iraq itself, are the people of Iraq. What is their future? The Iraqi Middle class has pretty much left the country and is now holed out in refugee camps in Syria and other neighboring countries.

Every plan that the US had for Iraq had failed before it got any traction. Surge hasn’t worked, the Maliki kind of democracy hasn’t worked, the friendship with the Shias hasn’t worked and now claims of friendship with the Sunnis wont work.

Strangely, after four years of presence, the US claims that the Alqaeda is more powerful in Iraq than it ever was during the Sadam regime. The tacit acceptance of failure by the US admin and the US military is astonishing.

Iraq will have a future when the US gets out of there. With such an inept admin in the White House, the question of US future perhaps is more appropriate.

"If Iraq falls apart into three parts, the Shia, Sunni and Kurd parts, then the Middle East is going to go up in flames"

This is a cliche that is repeated ad nauseum by the media. Why cant there be an orderly partition of Iraq into three countries? If that country is such an artificial entity, just break the damn thing up into its natural pieces. At least they will stop suicide bombing each other and random killing of 30-40 people every day. Then the UN and NATO can send in peacekeepers to manager their borders. The populations in the mixed areas can be transferred in or out in a systematic manner under international supervision. By having homogenous partitions, the Iraqis have a fighting chance to be democratic in each of these partitions.

Lets look at the issue of foreign intervention in a post partition Iraq. To begin with, Arabs have zero unity. Iraqi sunnis, will not want to be taken over by Syria or Jordan who belong to different tribes. Similarly the Iraqi shias are arabs and not persians. They have no natural desire to unite with Iran. They may form an alliance like Nepal and India but thats about it. If Iran attacks the Shia part or Turkey attacks the Kurd part or Syria attacks the Sunni part, then the NATO forces and United Nations peacekeepers will step in. In fact, these peacekeepers can not only manage the borders between the 3 new states, but also the borders with their better known neighbors.

Lets face it - Iraq is just like Yugoslavia where croats, serbs and bosnians were fighting like cats and dogs. They were separated and given well defined borders under the Dayton Accords. That stopped all the violence that we routinely saw in Sarajevo. We certainly didnt see Russia or Turkey or any other neighbor step in and take sides in any broader conflict, mainly because of the presence of the UN peackeepers and NATO troops.

If Bush had one tenth of the IQ that Clinton had, he would have got this done years back. Instead he is wasting lives and treasure trying to create a secular democracy amongst these barbarians.

Dear Bhaskar:

Interesting article indeed.

I did not look at the divide in Iraq with as much emphasis on sectarianism as you did. May be your vantage point is valid. My reservation is based on the idea that the conflict in Iraq (if one places primary emphasis on ‘sectarianism’), does not predict the misgivings of Kurds even though they are mainly Sunnis. Along this line of reasoning, they should have allied with Sunnis if sectarianism were the root-cause of conflict. One has to change the yardstick from sectarianism to regionalism to explain Kurd issue.

Anyways, I had written about Iraq issue some months ago that the CHOWK staff decided not to publish for whatever reason. It was published as featured article on "Axis of Logic" and some other places. I am taking liberty to copy and paste it below for sharing with you. Like always, thanks.

Tahir Qazi
____________________________________________________


Iraq
Fight for "Black-Blood" of Global Economy in Iraq
By Tahir M. Qazi, MD
Jan 13, 2007, 17:22

Hidden behind the smoke of firing guns and chaotic scenes in Iraq is the greedy face of Multinational Corporations and their political patrons, who have been waiting to make a killing in the oil fields of Iraq. Oil exploration and extraction used to be a state enterprise of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule. With Saddam Hussein through the gallows, one obstruction is cleared.

Oil, the "Black-Blood" of Global Economy, is an Iraqi natural resource. But the draft legislation is on the table to be presented to the Iraqi parliament to sign it into a law. It is currently being termed as "Hydrocarbon Law". This law will allow oil-hawks to take a bigger bite out of the energy resource in the war ridden and collapsed state of Iraq. It is going to be called Production Sharing Agreement (PSA). Common practice for investments is to offers rights for extraction for 10-15 year whereas in case of Iraq it may be up to 30 years. Until the costs of a project have been recovered oil companies would be allowed to keep 70% of the profit. Elsewhere 40% would be a standard. Once the costs are recouped the companies' share falls to 20%, which is still double other comparable agreement.

There were prophetic voices in the world alarming about greed for oil when WMD-danger was being moved as an argument for invasion of Iraq. British and the US high officials, at that time, had vehemently denied any intentions of controlling Iraqi oil. Tony Blair went to the extent of saying that Iraqi oil should be put into a trust fund to be run by UN for Iraqis. Obviously, it seems that the promises made before the war have been conveniently forgotten.

There are vast oil reserves in many parts of the world. Iraq has about 115 billion barrels, the second largest in the world. Despite the present violence there, it appears to be most promising for future profits. Elsewhere there are hindrances like tight controls of states, limitations on extraction of oil as in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez, and high cost of drilling out of North America etc. These are few factors for looking at huge oil fields in Iraq where the oil geological stratum is not too far deep under the surface. It will translate into the lowest cost of extraction in the whole world.

In a scenario where cost of extraction remains the same as the selling price is not a viable business strategy, to state the obvious; projections in case of Iraq are that there will be high yield with good profit margins. Oil corporations have always been aware of this fact. This fact alone makes the core of US Middle East foreign policy that was turning progressively hawkish against Iraq over the decades, partly due to the absence of polarity in the world that former Soviet Union provided and partly due to Saddam Hussein's nationalism-based opposition to opening oil fields to private corporations for extraction of oil.

Fast forward to the present; the US did not anticipate such a stiff resistance in Iraq against the most powerful military in the world. It has made the US rethink the course by which private oil companies could be offered security in the future Iraq. While Saddam's fate from tribunal to gallows was fast moving towards its destiny, counseling and consultancy for draft of legislation that is soon to be presented to the legislative body, was being provided by the US to Iraqi administration to ensure opening oil fields well before such recommendations appeared in the Baker-Hamilton Commission Report on Iraq (Recommendations 62 & 63).

The importance of this fact alone can be understood by the fact that the Baker-Hamilton Report frequently talks about the US interests and specifically refers to oil on second page of its opening, "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves".

Nonetheless, the draft bill that has been obtained by Dow Jones Newswire Service and also widely published by The Independent newspaper details some interesting key elements that can help foresee the future of Iraq.

There was one bill passed by the Kurdistan Regional Government in December claiming rights to oil of the region. What is interesting is that the Hydrocarbon Law currently under consideration by Iraqi administration precludes any regional control of oil and stipulates control from Baghdad.

It sows the seed of future conflicts because the Kurdish authority has already signed agreements with several small oil and gas companies, including U.S.-based Calibre Energy Inc., Norway's Det Norske Olje Selskap, and Turkey's Petoil and has signed memoranda of understanding with Australia's Woodside Petroleum Ltd., Canada's Heritage Oil Corp., and the U.K.'s Sterling Energy PLC.

The part of Iraqi hydrocarbon law, the way it has come open to the media that describes Baghdad's control of oil has important implications for the future: It means Iraq will not be divided into three regions as has advocated by many including presidential candidate for 2008 Joseph Biden, Senator from the State of Delaware. Since Baghdad wishes to maintain control on oil, there is a good possibility of friction between center and Kurdistan and a civil war that has engulfed Baghdad may spread towards northern areas of Iraq.

If a favorable deal is reached between Baghdad and Kurdistan, it will serve as precedence for southern Shiites who will find it hard to stay alienated from control unless special guarantees are offered to them, which in turn would not fare well with Sunnis, located in central Iraq.

In short, according to an old adage, "There are no friends in oil politics, only enemies and competitors" rings true in the case of Iraq also. Such fears validate predictions that the US would fight viciously to stay in Iraq and that the black-blood of industrial civilization is firmly in the grips of capitalism for the foreseeable future. It also measures willingness of the US to trade human blood for its greed for oil.

[This article is dedicated to my niece Sarah Choudhry, with love.]
Authors e-mail: tahir.qazi@yahoo.com

© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

There are no more Nehrus in this world to save us from the tyranny of the likes of George Bush. Alas!

Hmmmm, Dash_Dot, I would be only guessing here. I know nothing about Arab culture as such.

Is there any Islam which is not Arabic ideology or Arabic Emperium? Ofcourse! Iranians aren't very fond of the Arabs at all. The Turks, the Malaysians, the Indonesians, the Black Muslims, and the European Muslims all do whatever they do without paying yearly tributes to the current Arab regimes or without entirely giving up their own cultures.

But I also don't believe that any of these are stable or not ill-fitting in their respective contexts. None of them is viable or durable in the least. Only time will tell whether that is true or not.

Islam will become clearly distinguishable from Arabic ideology and Emperium when (1) Islam can be known for sure without people caring for the fine points of Arabic language (say, local translations of the Quran become popularly accepted as authentic), and (2) the practices, preferences, and histories of Arabic men and women stop beign relevant to defining Islam for the masses.

----------------------

Why did Islamic civilization flourish in all those places? I can speculate based on basic facts.

Islam is centrally concerned with the acquisition and maintenance of temporal power in the hands of the Islamically righteous Muslim men, with Muslim women as their primary support mechanism. And it is concerned about the centralization of that power.

It's byproducts are stability, uniformity, and Islam's own version of justice. (this is all theory, in practice, no ends are ever fully achieved)

WHEREVER and IF creativity and rich cultural/intellectual traditions are ALREADY present, the above (stability, uniformity, and some framework of justice) can create an environment for strong civilizational efflorescence to the extent basic Islamic framework is not directly contradicted.

Well, that's my speculation. Subject to complete and total revision. Would love to know your views.

#5 contd

what we are seeing today is the advance of "arabic ideology" not the islamic civilisation as we have known for "sadiyon". This is the Arabic Emperium which the likes of little zeemax and co are trying to impose on the world.

Just a thought I could be wrong, what are your thoughts on this.

Re: # 4

Wheel O Time have you ever wondered why the so-called Islamic Civilisation flourished in

(a) Mesepotamia
(b) anatolia
(c) Persia
(d) India (indian-subcontinent)
(e) egypt
(f) iberia

and did not in the place it started?

Dash_Dot

Trust you to be a most alert reader! More often than not, one gets away without having to provide long-winded explanations. :)

That (yatha raja, tatha praja) is the actual, more traditional Indian form of the idiom. But like all other ancient Indian wisdom, it assumes a specifc cultural framework. To keep it valid outside of the one society for which it was written, IMHO, we must go to the more basic principle of leadership: that (native/organic) leaders mostly carry forward the dharma (the order and the ideals) of their societies. If we notice, that's what ancient teachers repeatedly exhort leaders to do, and the leaders themselves aim for.

So for the most part, the ideals of leaders reflect the ideals of the societies they lead. At a basic level, yatha praja, tatha raja.

Once ideals have been determined, however, in practice, depending upon their own personalities, some leaders succeed well, some go overboard, some fail miserably. That then affects their socities. And in that much, yatha raja, tatha praja is true.
---------------

In the middle East, it's doubtful there would be (or would arise) too many significant native/organic leaders propagating the idea and the ideals of liberal democracies (in the sense you understand the concept). So the argument that the place would be different IF the leaders were different seem a little moot.

wheel o time why not

yatha raja tatha praja

in the case of the arc of cresent this appears to be the case....

Beedy, you pull fewer punches in this article, so it is more realistic.

To an outside casual observer, Iraq seems to be just another society of suicide bombers and potential suicide bombers. The whole fun of being suicide bombers would be lost if people had to make do with liberal democracies.

(You do, again, place too much importance on the presence/absence of 'leaders.' Believe me, that most ancient dicum of "yatha praja, tatha raja" has never been bettered.)

BD nothing new in what you say. Iraq will survive but in 3 parts - federated, co-federated, confederated, unitary or seperate. What is crucial is not what we want, but what they want? Right now Kurds cannot stand the sunnis and shias (first is hated more than the second), the shias - the Sunnis and Kurds (first is hated more than the second), and the sunnis both the shias and kurds in equal measure and would love to see these guys finished off so that they can join their brothers south.

Love is kind of passe here. All the theorising is moot.