Oil Law

It's got to have been over a year now since it became absolutely entrenched dogma in Washington, DC that the situation in Iraq fundamentally required a political solution, and that part of the key to a political solution was a law governing the distribution of Iraq's oil assets that was broadly acceptable throughout that country. In 2003, emphasizing the need for a political solution was something only crackpot liberals did. In 2004, same deal. By 2005, people were cracking. By 2006, this was the Bush administration's line. Only they also wanted to have 130,000 troops in the field and so forth.

By 2007, though, still nobody's acting like they mean it. So, now, today we read "Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Oil Bill". Oops! Getting a compromise oil law has been the top political priority for the U.S. in Iraq since at least the Zalmay Khalilzad days, and we keep not making progress toward that goal. Nevertheless, the military's still there in Iraq fighting away even though nobody thinks their efforts can succeed without success -- permanently elusive success, it seems -- on the political track.

Comments

Numerous military, academic and diplomatic notables assert very large numbers of U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq for possibly decades. Just as in the public speculation and news reports of this elusive oil law, informed speculation of troop levels evaporate like morning fog. Imagine if in South Korea or West Germany dozens if not hundreds of U.S. soldiers had been killed yearly in those post-war occupations. Would we still be there, 40-50-60 years running? However, we will have to put up with just such a scenario in Iraq. With China and India breathing down our necks in competition for oil and exploration rights in the region we're not going to cede an inch of soil we've already bled for. So, several hundred deaths a year for 50 years. Get used to it.

Posted by steve duncan | May 3, 2007 8:37 AM

Assuming the various Iraqi legislative factions do manage to find a "political solution" on oil revenues, is the Iraqi goverment even capable of enforcing its policies? (That is, securing the oil fields and assuring that the royalties from oil production will be collected and distributed fairly.) My guess, based on the present state of corruption and security in Iraq, is "no."

A meta-ness hangs over everything about the Iraq War. Both in the US Congress and Iraq, endless effort is spent debating the creation of rules that are--in any practical sense-- completely unenforcable.

Posted by James Gary | May 3, 2007 8:53 AM

The ostensible purpose of the oil law is to incentivize the major oil companies to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil capabilities. There's a very informative discussion here.

However, it's hard to imagine how BP, Exxon, or anyone else is going to be willing to make an investment in Iraq with security conditions being as bad as they are. And with no hope of improving security in the short term, the oil law looks less and less relevant.

This is simply a recurrence of the obsession over political milestones that dominated the run-up to the 2004 election. "Look, they've approved a draft constitution, see what great progress we're making!" But if we've learned nothing else from the last four years, security trumps everything. If you don't have security, you've got nothing - oil law or no oil law.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 9:27 AM

Laws only matter in societies that already have, you know, the rule of law . Otherwise, laws aint shit.

Posted by RC | May 3, 2007 9:43 AM

DeBaathification wouldn't have taken place if the Administration didn't have a political solution in mind. Don't be silly.

Posted by Cobb | May 3, 2007 10:22 AM

Cobb, I think disarming a large number of Baathists with strong loyalties to an as yet captured former leader might be labeled as much (or more) a military objective than a political solution.

Posted by steve duncan | May 3, 2007 11:16 AM

This passage from the NYT article says it all:

"The draft law approved by the Iraqi cabinet says regions may enter into contracts, but a powerful new central body called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would have the power to “prevent” the contracts from going forward if they did not meet certain standards. A panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq would advise the federal council on the contracts."

(emphasis added)

Posted by SFO | May 3, 2007 11:33 AM

A tenth of the 500 billion we've spent on this war would have been wisely spent in developing alternative fuels. Oh, I forgot, the Exxons of the world want expensive oil until they can get a monopoly on something else.

Posted by darby1936 | May 3, 2007 9:53 PM