Tag Archives: Iraq Democracy

The Countdown to the Inheritance of Bush’s Headache

It is proving for the US that one man can take a horse to water but a thousand can’t make him drink. 

Five years of a conflict with seemingly no end-sight has taken its toll. With the cost of operations in Iraq at $10billion a month, a US economy in recession, rocketing fuel prices, over 4000 US casualties and protracted political progress in Iraq, disgruntled voices in the Senate and general US public are understandably growing by the day.

Much like their Iraqi counterparts in their transition to democracy, the US has often taken one step forward and two steps back. This view was reinforced after President Bush as widely expected announced his intention to freeze troop withdrawals from July and allow senior commander General David Petraeus time to evaluate and assess the next steps.

With Petraeus unwilling to commit on troop numbers and Bush’s wait and see approach, it is apparent that at least under his presidential tenure, Bush has no strategy for ending America’s highly contentious and costly involvement in Iraq.  

The Democrats have accused Bush of handing over the headache to the next president by side-stepping tough decisions. The announcement to halt troop drawdown means that US troop levels will remain above 140,000 well into 2009 at the minimum. Although Democrat-presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signalled their intention to withdraw as soon as feasible, the next administrations hands may well have been tied for the foreseeable future.

Even in the face of other critical concerns at home headed by looming economic recession, it is easy to see why Iraq has dominated the presidential race.

Bush may well be executing his own exit strategy as he hailed a “major strategic shift” in Iraq.  Bush’s stance was notably more encouraging than that of Petraeus and Crocker, as he delivered an upbeat speech pointing out to military, political and economic progress in Iraq.

However, although the surge has reaped dividends in Iraq, the ultimate goal of political reconciliation in Iraq has been instigated at a leisurely pace. Whilst the US has too-often hailed what has been achieved, the emptier half of the glass is of far greater weighting. Key benchmarks such as a representative national government, oil sharing and provincial powers are proving as elusive as ever. On the ground, reconstruction is slow and heavily reliant on US funding.

As Bush may have tied the hands of the next administration, Baghdad has effectively tied the hands of Bush.   The Iraqi military, riven by sectarianism, is still heavily reliant on the US and unable to function effectively as a ‘central’ force. Meanwhile, the fractious Iraqi political landscape is plagued by common mistrust with the cancerous influence of numerous militias proving a major time-bomb. Recent violence in Basra only highlighted the tentative and volatile climate in Iraq.

Violence has certainly dropped and al-Qaeda has taken a major blow, thanks largely to the onset of Sunni councils. However, this may yet haunt Iraq in the future if Sunni demands for a bigger slice of the political cake are not fulfilled.

Petraeus has warned that any hasty pullout would undercut security, while the US institute for Peace claiming “the U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago”, warned of mass chaos and genocide in such an eventuality.

While more troops can enforce valuable security, at the end of the day any sacrifice is in vain if Iraqis do not capitalise on the windows of opportunity afforded. Even with all the time and money in the world, the appetite of the Iraqi factions for reconciliation and compromise, is far more empowering than the might of any army.

If the current US vision of a democratic, prosperous and peaceful Iraq is to be realised, one can forget withdrawal in the next 10 years. Ominously, even then such full US-engagement may prove inconclusive or even powerless to avoid civil war.

The only way the US can withdraw in the next 1-2 years is to implement a drastically fuzzier interpretation of “success”, then possibly opt to allow nature to run its course in Iraq. Bush may be accused of creating the current mayhem in Iraq, but in reality they only lifted the unceremonious lid. Iraq’s problems are far more deep-rooted and artificial. Century’s old sectarian and ethnic tension can not be papered over by Western values.

If the Iraqis do not advocate the same ideals, the US can dream all it likes. 

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Just who is ‘Illegal’ in the Fuzzy Politics of Post-liberated Iraq?

As the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) signed 5 new petroleum contracts and announced ongoing negotiations with foreign firms over 24 new oil blocks, the rather customary rhetoric by Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussein Shahristani, took a new twist by warning international companies that they would blacklisted by Iraq and even prevented from exporting oil. Ironically, in a bitter war of words, the Kurds claimed that it was Baghdad that was ‘neither legal nor responsible’. 

Arguably, oil is the blessing and curse that has plagued modern day Iraq, from its artificial boundaries based on the discovery of oil to the modern day scramble for control in post-liberated Iraq.

It is clear to see why one of the Bush administration’s fundamental goals has been national unity but more specifically the division of the national resources in a way that brings bitterly-divided factions back from the brink of civil-war.

Typical of the new ‘democratic’ Iraq, political progress was compromised with all-frequent vague agreements and the haling of achievements such as the Iraqi constitution when clearly most of the issues were swept under the political rug.

Even today, despite several short-lived announcements of agreements and hundreds of hours of negotiations there is no official hydro-carbon law in Iraq and no clearer end-sight into the formation of a workable partnership amongst the Iraqi ethnic mosaic.

With the KRG working tirelessly to live up to the billing as ‘the other Iraq’ and the only oasis of stability in a shattered country, they pushed ahead with their own oil law in August and have since approved a remarkable 15 exploration and production sharing contracts (PSC).

As the Kurds have pressed on with their own development, the threats and accusations of illegal dealings from Baghdad have been all too common.

The signing of the latest five contracts with TNK- BP, Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC), Hillwood, Sterling Energy and Aspect Energy, were historical as well as a political statement authorising the legitimacy, prominence and stability of KRG.

In reality, the fuel for this debate has been the virtual independence of the KRG. Perhaps the only remaining noose that the central government has on the north is the provision of oil. A determined drive towards self-sufficiency by building new power stations, new oil refineries and even talk of a new oil pipeline has only stirred nationalist blood in the Baghdad administration to boiling point.

Once the ties of oil have also been severed, then the Kurds will be effectively independent from Baghdad. Although, officially all resources are to be shared with the KRG getting 17% of all revenues, the long-term strategic and political implications are all too vital.

Defending the so-called ‘defiance’, KRG Prime Minister stated that 85% of revenues from these agreements will go to Iraq and that all exploration activities are for the good of the greater Iraqi population. There are now 20 international companies working in the north and working according to the Kurds within ‘democratic, federal, and free market principles mandated by the Iraq Constitution’. 

Clearly most of the land in the KRG is not explored and provides remarkable returns for would-be investors.

In spite of Shahristani’s warning of ‘consequences’, evidently the companies who have flocked to win contracts were already aware of the ramifications and decided the risk was worth taking. Most major oil producers were waiting for rest of Iraq, with the vast majority of oil resources to become stabilised, however, the wait is over 4 years and counting, whilst Kurdistan is ready to welcome them with open arms.

Long-term the Iraqi government seemingly views the KRG as a competitor and not a partner. Once the contentious issues of oil-rich Kirkuk is resolved and probably annexed to the KRG, this means that effectively Kurdistan would ‘own’ a sizable proportion of Iraq’s oil reserves.

One can begin to see the real Baghdad fear of a literal Kurdish break-away and Turkish alarm of the Kurds becoming a huge economical power house. This would leave the rest of Iraq to be fought between Sunni’s, with potential large swathes of barren land and with the Shiites retaining control over the rest of Iraq’s precious reserves.

Equal distribution of natural resources is one thing, but in Iraq with deep-mistrust and an artificial social patchwork, actual control of the oil-rich lands is everything.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.