How to Run an Empire

Via Kevin Drum, I see that "A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say." There's more to the war than this kind of thing, but it's naive to deny that this kind of thing plays a large role in providing the impetus for a continued American involvement.

But more important, it's crucial to recall that this sort of thing renders the US military presence in Iraq a destabilizing force in that country. Our troops aren't merely a destabilizing force, it's clear that in many respects they're providing order -- especially local order. But at the same time the fact of American occupation generates a structure cause of disorder that saps the Iraqi government of illegitimacy and given our poor relations with Iraq's key neighbors turns the country into a field for proxy battles.

Comments

saps the Iraqi government of illegitimacy

Yes, I know this is overnegation due to a simple typo, but it still made me laugh.

Posted by Vance Maverick | June 30, 2008 1:40 PM

I think it's fair to say that the war is our worst war since the war in the Philippines. This war has always been waged for imperialistic purposes. It's been carried out clumsily and arrogantly, and to manufacture support Bush has suborned vast numbers of both American and international politicians. Who cares whether the American troops are bringing "some kind of order"?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 30, 2008 1:41 PM

So tell me Mr. Obama how are you going to bring the troops home if Exxon and the other big oil companies are setting up operations in Iraq? Who will protect their investments? Wasn't that part of the deal America demanded Iraq to negotiate with those companies. Offer them the USA guarantee of protection as long as they invested heavily in that country.

So now you see Mr. Obama the troops can't come home for if they do us American tax payers will be responsible for paying those companies the costs of their investments and the loss of future profits.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 30, 2008 1:45 PM

The American taxpayer shouldn't be responsible for paying Exxon one red cent. You do business in a country like Iraq because there is a massive potential for profits and return on investment, with comeasurate risk. That's how capitalism works. The U.S. tax payer should not be providing a guaranteed financial return to Exxon shareholders.

The oil companies will have to rely on the Iraqi government, military and police forces to protect their investments. And to the extent that their financial wherewithal may prove helpful in this regard, well, that may be a wise investment.

Posted by TH | June 30, 2008 1:50 PM

The thing I don't understand about this, is why did they have to conduct this imperialist mission so badly?

Posted by mpowell | June 30, 2008 1:58 PM

TH - surely you jest. You think the oil companies would rely on the Iraqi government, military and police! Look at the fine print in the deal - American troops will be there as long as Exxon is. You're right we won't be paying them directly, but indirectly, with money, men and women, we'll be paying the cost for many years so that Exxon can reap the profits.

That after all is what is wrong with our energy policy. We provide the protection for all the countries in the Persian Gulf to transport their oil to other countries and demand nothing in return for it. Why do you think that is so? It couldn't be because Bush and Cheney have some oil connections, could it.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 30, 2008 2:07 PM

No one could, or to my knowledge has even seriously tried to argue that oil is not a huge factor here. It was huge when it was paying for Iraq's giant Warsaw Pact-model army, and it still is today. The "reconciliation" can only take place when there's clarity in Iraq's oil arrangements, and only big foreign companies have the capability to quickly restore the shattered infrastructure. They're not going to sink the billions required without some security guarantees, and reliable ideas about how these investments are going to translate into long-term relationships with the Iraqi government over developing new fields. The pieces are coming together now for a comprehensive resolution. It's in the interests of the people of Iraq, and of the larger industrialized world, that we get this right, and I don't think we'll do so by demonstrating a lack of commitment to a reasonable settlement. This is not colonialism, neo- or any other kind.

It's my view that any likely Iraqi government is going to want the support of the US for quite a while to come. The upcoming provincial elections there are likely to give good information about the likely outlines of our future relationship.

Posted by robert powell | June 30, 2008 2:40 PM

a structure cause of disorder that saps the Iraqi government of illegitimacy

Slow down the typing! ;-)

Posted by Noah | June 30, 2008 2:45 PM

Notice that I wrote "shouldn't", not "won't".

Posted by TH | June 30, 2008 2:54 PM

that saps the Iraqi government of illegitimacy
===============================================

That's the Matt we know and love! Or maybe it's due to the thin air in Colorado

Posted by Campesino | June 30, 2008 2:58 PM

"The American taxpayer shouldn't be responsible for paying Exxon one red cent."

Agreed.

But it would be cheaper for us to pay Exxon, and every other American or British oil firm what ever it takes to keep them out of Iraq.

Taking Iraqi oil by force, and giving it to Exxon is idiocy of the highest order.

The American taxpayers will end up paying much much more to fix this than Exxon will ever earn in profits on this deal.

Posted by Mike Furlan | June 30, 2008 8:00 PM

Let the oil companies pay for their own security. There is no way the taxpayers should pay with money and blodd for their huge profits.

Posted by Jant | June 30, 2008 8:36 PM

Dumbfuck Powell: "The upcoming provincial elections there are likely to give good information about the likely outlines of our future relationship."

Yeah - the US gets kicked out within the next 24 months. The Sadrists are expected to get 60 percent of the vote in the provincial elections - which are now being postponed precisely because of that fact - which will immediately lead to more violence.

"It's my view that any likely Iraqi government is going to want the support of the US for quite a while to come."

If you mean that any likely Iraqi government is going to be put in place by the US, yes. Otherwise, absolutely everybody in Iraq - the Ayatollahs, the Iranians, the Sunnis, the Sadrists, and the Shia parties run by the Iranians - want the US out sooner or later, most of them sooner.

There's no way the US will have any significant presence in Iraq for more than 24 months after the parliamentary elections next year.

And that's assuming Bush doesn't attack Iran. If he attacks Iran, the US will be driven out in three months.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 30, 2008 9:15 PM

The Iraqi oil minister is just stringing us along. These field service contracts are crumbs. In any other country, the oil majors would just pass them on to Haliburton or Schlumberger. The US only gets one of the four contracts anyway. After ignoring severe US pressure for two years, its hard to imagine the Iraqis giving out the sweetheart PSA contracts that the US really wants to a lame duck who is folding up the surge.

Why were Shell and Total included on the service contract list along with BP and Exxon? Together the four make up the old Iraqi Oil Company. I believe that the Iraqi oil minister is sending a dog whistle to his countrymen. "Remember how angry you felt when you were taught how these companies had looted Iraq for decades. Remember how proud you were when you learned how the Iraqis had thrown these thieves out after forty years of struggle." Every time they hear these companies mentioned, the Iraqis will be reminded who their real enemies are.

Posted by Bill D | July 1, 2008 2:34 AM

I'm so tired of the "blood for oil" articles. Tired because they're true. Tired because we knew about Bush's intentions all along. We're like the Germans during WWII who told themselves that they didn't have a clue about the Holocaust. We also knew that once we deposed Hussein that the country would explode in civil and sectarian violence that would be worse than the war itself.

Once Bush was in office, the U.N. could smell war immediately and labeled us a "rogue nation". Why couldn't we have smelled the rat? Why couldn't we see that a President with the I.Q. of a dead flashlight battery and was trying to channel Will Rogers was now running the country? What made us so blind? Fear? Greed? Hubris?

Whatever it was, it won't be something we'll want to admit.

Posted by DanV | July 1, 2008 5:27 AM

I'm so tired of the "blood for oil" articles. Tired because they're true. Tired because we knew about Bush's intentions all along. We're like the Germans during WWII who told themselves that they didn't have a clue about the Holocaust. We also knew that once we deposed Hussein that the country would explode in civil and sectarian violence that would be worse than the war itself.

Once Bush was in office, the U.N. could smell war immediately and labeled us a "rogue nation". Why couldn't we have smelled the rat? Why couldn't we see that a President with the I.Q. of a dead flashlight battery and was trying to channel Will Rogers was now running the country? What made us so blind? Fear? Greed? Hubris?

Whatever it was, it won't be something we'll want to admit.

Posted by DanV | July 1, 2008 5:30 AM

You certainly make solid points, Bill, but I think that rather than "stringing us along", this will be seen as the first stage of a genuine settlement. The "crumbs" are crucial test cases for the reliability of much more important long-term deals for developing new fields.

The fact that the Iraqis are opening up the bidding to include Shell and Total is in my view an indication of their determination to avoid the kind of looting that went on under the former Iraqi Oil Company. Stay tuned for Rosneft and Sinopet.

Times have changed. Iraqis not only remember how proud they were when they threw the thieves out, but how disappointed they were after forty years of state control ruined their infrastructure and squandered their wealth by starting hopeless wars.

RSH--your views on the "imminent" attack on Iran and expulsion of US forces from Iraq are well known, as are your bad manners. Given the difficulty of communicating across threads, however, I feel compelled to say that your input to the discussion on Shelby Steele's comments in Aspen, specifically on "race", were extremely well done.

Posted by robert powell | July 1, 2008 5:52 AM

The Independent of London has been doing major stories on the planned takeover of Iraqi oil by the Western oil companies for well over one year, during which time virtually nothing has appeared in the U.S. media, mainstream or otherwise.

Now, on the brink of the deal being consumated, when it's too late to stop it or issue a political protest in the U.S., suddenly they've pulled their heads out of their asses and 'discovered' the story.

You'd think for the five thousand dead soldiers, tens of thousands of maimed and wounded, and the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent there, the media would consider it their duty to at least mention that this has all been for oil.

Posted by Gene Ritchings | July 1, 2008 9:44 AM

Powell: All my posts are extremely well done.

Well, except for some of the jokes.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 1, 2008 6:25 PM