Petraeus Adviser: ‘Middle-Ground Options’ In Iraq Debate Are ‘Neither Safe Nor Productive’
Petraeus Adviser: ‘Middle-Ground Options’ In Iraq Debate Are ‘Neither Safe Nor Productive’
In recent weeks, conservatives have begun distancing themselves from Bush’s failing policy in Iraq. Many of them — senators such as Richard Lugar, Pete Domenici, Lamar Alexander, and Elizabeth Dole — are finding political comfort in embracing the Iraq Study Group’s call to “change the mission” of U.S. troops in Iraq. Even the White House is considering support for the plan.
Speaking in favor of the ISG recommendations, co-chairman Lee Hamilton told NPR:
[O]ne of its merits surely was that it was bipartisan, and so far as I know, it’s the only bipartisan proposal out there. And I think it still does have a reasonable chance of bringing about a unity of effort which is required for the success of our policy in Iraq.
Stephen Biddle, a senior defense policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, cautions against adopting “a politically moderate ‘Plan B’ that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.” Biddle, an adviser to Gen. Petraeus who has cautioned that escalation is “likelier to fail than succeed,” says the Iraq debate should put aside “popular centrist options” embodied in the Iraq Study Group recommendations.
Biddle writes that the ISG’s call to “shift the mission” of U.S. troops while maintaining an occupation of Iraq would cause even greater problems. “Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. … It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting — this would be neither safe nor productive.” he writes. Biddle continues:
If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme — surge or outright withdrawal — is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange.
Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.
Biddle is right — the Iraq debate must focus on what to do about the current U.S. occupation of Iraq. The question is whether to reinforce the escalation or begin the full redeployment out of Iraq. “Centrist” options do not provide a solution, but rather political cover to maintain the status quo.
UPDATE: John Podesta, Lawrence Korb, and Brian Katulis write in a Center for American Progress memo that “progressives need to point out that some of the ISG’s recommendations are ambiguous and others have been overtaken by events.” They continue:
Rather, progressives should advocate a policy that allows us to strategically reset our military forces, our diplomatic personnel, and our intelligence operations by redeploying out troops in 12 months, partitioning our diplomatic effort to better deal with Iraq’s multiple conflict, rethinking our approach to Iraq’s government and its security forces, and redirecting our immense national power toward destroying those terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. The time is past for more half-way measures.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes. Lets advance into the quagmire more slowly, or, we can even stand still. we’ll still sink and drown, but it will happen more slowly.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:44 amThe only ones that he considers productive are the ones, as what Bush wants, that perpetuate the war. It results in more power both home and abroad, restricted liberties for us, and massive profits for the weapons manufacturers…..oh, and all that oil revenue too.
We need to end this war – not next year, and not next fall. Today. Not tomorrow – now.
Nothing good is coming from this war…
Some follow up reading:
July 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am“Defending the ‘Good’ Done in Iraq”
http://www.populistamerica.com/defending_the__good__done_in_iraq
Atrios talks about this ad nauseam. What will 30K troops do that 160K cannot? Besides be targets, of course.
It’s all or nothing here. Either throw in another 200K (yeah, right) or get them all out. Fewer is not better; fewer is cannon fodder.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:45 amExcuse me – but we changed the mission 6 months ago. That was the chance to change the mission. And we changed it before that and before that and before that…….
July 11th, 2007 at 10:48 amIt’s all or nothing here. Either throw in another 200K (yeah, right) or get them all out. Fewer is not better; fewer is cannon fodder.
Comment by Punchy — July 11, 2007 @ 10:45 am
#
Obviously, we don’t have that many more troops to send. Also, I always find it interesting that when talking about sending more troops, no one ever mentions sending more international troops. If this mission is truly so important to the world, why can’t we get any of our allies to aid in the fight?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:51 amAccording to our Chimp ‘N Chief yesterday, the Surge just got started…
One question: WTF were you announcing it in January for if it just got started? So the insurgents would be better prepared?
And why did it take 6 months to move 30K troops?
This invasion is a frigg’n comedy of errors, and no one is laughing.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:51 amTime to pull 100% out of Iraq, because that will save soldiers lives and save tons of wasted money on funding the misadventure occupation.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:55 amIs July 11th a Troll holiday?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:56 amIs July 11th a Troll holiday?
Comment by Zimzone — July 11, 2007 @ 10:56 am
#
Uh oh. Now you’ve jynxed us.
Weren’t Hannity, Rush, Graham, McCain, etc., just talking the last six months about how well the surge is working? Graham said the progress made by the surge exceeded his expectations. Now the president has said that the surge is just getting started and hasn’t had time to work yet?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:59 amIs July 11th a Troll holiday?
Comment by Zimzone
Shhhhhhhhhhh……
You’ll summon them…
July 11th, 2007 at 11:01 amA f*cking war and the lives of our troops are not BIPARTISAN feel-good issues.
It was WRONG.
It’s not WORKING.
Let’s GET THE HELL OUT.
This thing was lost before we ever got there….
July 11th, 2007 at 11:03 amwatch the scared rabbits run from their responsibility. the politicians can now be seen for what they are, garbage. garbage is something you either live with, and suffer the consequences of smell, disease, vermin attraction. Or you recycle the parts that can be, and throw away the rest.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:03 amalas, this garbage can’t be recycled. we have seen that it has no redeeming value. it’s component elements are just trash, and better to be left to the insects to deal with
It is time to rephrase the definition of winning.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:05 amWhat we are currently doing is losing.
Victory is withdrawal. Complete victory is complete withdrawal, accompanied by massive repayment for the destruction and devastation we’ve caused.
Paid for by personally attaching Cheney and Bush family millions.
The American taxpayer shouldn’t pick up a dime of this cost.
why can’t we get any of our allies to aid in the fight?
Comment by Chris L — July 11, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Because America told it’s allies we will not share the oil.
Did you see Canada is going to increase patrols in the Arctic, this pissed the US off. Hell Canada will kick our asses, we can’t beat Iraq or Afghanistan.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:06 amI don’t care whether you’re for or against our (the US) presence in Iraq, but I do care greatly whether or not you espouse ideas that will place our soldiers in harms way for little or no gain.
Military strategy should NEVER be dictated by political expediency! Politics is the reason for wars, not the playbook for running them. This article seems spot on to me. Increase the Force Potential of our engagement plan in Iraq or pull out. The “middle ground” is stupid; anyone remember Viet Nam anymore?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:06 amBecause America told it’s allies we will not share the oil.
Did you see Canada is going to increase patrols in the Arctic, this pissed the US off. Hell Canada will kick our asses, we can’t beat Iraq or Afghanistan.
Comment by God — July 11, 2007 @ 11:06 am
You mean our largest oil supplier — that Canada?
Well – I know where the next invasion is going! Iran Schmiran! It’s time to kick some toque!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:08 amIt was WRONG. — disagree. We did it for the right right reasons, we just went about it the wrong way.
It’s not WORKING. — hell, I can’t argue with that!
Let’s GET THE HELL OUT. — Nor that.
This thing was lost before we ever got there…. —- Disagree, there was at least HOPE of this working at the beginning….now? not so much hope.
Comment by Zooey — July 11, 2007 @ 11:03 am
July 11th, 2007 at 11:08 amDid you see Canada is going to increase patrols in the Arctic, this pissed the US off. Hell Canada will kick our asses, we can’t beat Iraq or Afghanistan.
Comment by God
I can’t help but think this has something to do in part w/ Russia’s claim to a large chunk of the Arctic that just happens to contain a huge amount of oil and gas.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:09 amI find it ludicrous that some people still call the occupation of Iraq a war.
How do you win an occupation, after an illegal invasion?
Must be more of that republic party logic at work.
Too bad we don’t have a draft now, then a lot of the 26%er chickenhawks could go over and fight their “war” with an M16 instead of from behind a keyboard in mom’s basement. (That is assuming they lower the mental, physical and moral entry standards even further, of course.)
July 11th, 2007 at 11:10 amthe 26%er chickenhawks could go over and fight
6th graders can’t enlist.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:16 amAnd the charade about “stealing their oil” is getting a bit tired…Even you Quislings don’t really believe it anymore.
Give it a rest.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:17 amLet’s start by investigating who those “terrorists” are. The 9/11 study group didn’t do that, and adopted the impossible as fact.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:17 am#20 the 26%er chickenhawks could go over and fight
6th graders can’t enlist.
Comment by Arthur C.
If the military keeps missing their enlistment quotas, that may change.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:22 amSupport the troops
July 11th, 2007 at 11:22 amBring them home now
You are a freaking mental case.
Seek help.
Comment by Ringo
Project much?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:23 amCertain trolls who name themselves after aged musicians should perhaps beat their drum at redstate, where they would fit in better.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:28 amThey seem so frustrated when reality beats their little heads against the wall.
Gringo!
We were just laughing at you, expecting you to show up after your $300 ‘ho & fresh haircut.
Got your Oxy?
Ready to play Invasion Interruptus?
Good. You start…
July 11th, 2007 at 11:29 amIt was WRONG. — disagree. We did it for the right right reasons, we just went about it the wrong way.
What were the right reasons? Iraq did not attack us; there were no WMD, and we knew it; what?
It’s not WORKING. — hell, I can’t argue with that!
Let’s GET THE HELL OUT. — Nor that.
Good. :)
This thing was lost before we ever got there…. —- Disagree, there was at least HOPE of this working at the beginning….now? not so much hope.
Comment by SGT Higgins
It was lost before we got there because it was the wrong war. They sent you over there to fight for a lie, and that makes me so f*cking angry. You may have had hope, but the hope our leaders had was 1) I hope we get all the oil, 2) I hope we don’t get caught, but if we do PARDON!!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:30 amSupport the troops
Bring them home now
Comment by Wayne — July 11, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Yes.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:31 amCertain trolls who name themselves after aged musicians…
—————————————————————————-
I actually took my name from John Wayne’s character in the film Stagecoach.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:33 amAnd the charade about “stealing their oil†is getting a bit tired…Even you Quislings don’t really believe it anymore.
Give it a rest.
Comment by Ringo
Wrongo, Ringo. Why aren’t you in Iraq, didn’t you hear about don’t ask don’t tell?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:33 amSGT Higgins sez:
I just have to ask, SGT, what exactly were those “right reasons”?
Saddam Hussein’s regime was zero threat to us.
Saddam Hussein’s regime did not possess WMDs.
Saddam Hussein’s regime did not have any ties to OBL or Al-Qaeda.
Did I miss any?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:35 amAnd the charade about “stealing their oil†is getting a bit tired…Even you Quislings don’t really believe it anymore.
Give it a rest.
Comment by Ringo
Never read the Hydrocarbon Law, did you?
here, read up http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16238
July 11th, 2007 at 11:35 amI actually took my name from John Wayne’s character in the film Stagecoach.
Comment by Ringo
Just keep telling yourself that, Bingo.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:35 am“I always find it interesting that when talking about sending more troops, no one ever mentions sending more international troops. If this mission is truly so important to the world, why can’t we get any of our allies to aid in the fight?”
Comment by Chris L — July 11, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Someone responded to this already, and yes I do think that a large part is about the oil. We’re not sharing the oil, and we didn’t give any contracts for anything to any countries that were not part of the initial invasion. We cut off our nose to spite our face. I don’t know that much has changed. I think for a while they were waiting for Bush to go, but then he got re-elected and the corruption settled in Iraq. There’s very few players I think over there, Iraqi and American, and this party is by invitation only.
But yes, the obvious answer was always international troops. Now, it may be too late. If I was president, I think I’d feel tempted to go in that direction, to bring the UN in, the Turks in, and others, to rescue a failed state and prevent genocide. But, if we did it now, there would be a lot of resistance.
As far as the middle ground strategy, there’s no way we’ll have a total pullout anyway, because of our bases and embassy. We didn’t build those for nothing. The withdrawl will also be gradual, from what I see. There will be a contingent of troops left behind for years to be a presence and to provide a quick strike force. The point is to take our soldiers off the streets, and stop meandering down to get blown up by IED’s, and checkpoints and all that. We can’t be cops. But if we withdraw to strategic points, and base ourselves in the friendly Kurdish north, we will reduce our daily casualties, reduce friction, and still keep a foothold for intelligence and military purposes. That’s what I see happening.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:37 amWhat were the right reasons? Iraq did not attack us; there were no WMD, and we knew it; what? —- I didn’t know it…I, for one, believed colin powell in front of the UN, as did most of the people in the room with him. They painted a dire picture of Iraq and it’s WMD and it may have been a bald-faced lie, but I was sold.
You may have had hope, —- I did.
but the hope our leaders had was 1) I hope we get all the oil, 2) I hope we don’t get caught, but if we do PARDON!! — maybe so.
Comment by Zooey
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 amThis is the Actual Hydrocarbon Law as of Feb. 15th 2007
FULL TEXT
please read it and judge for yourself, why our kids are dying overseas
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Iraqoillaw021507.pdf
then have a good day
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 amWell, since 160,000+ troops and an equal or greater number of “contractors” aren’t making a strategic difference –neither did a half-million troops in Vietnam–and since the Maliki government has met NO benchmarks and seems to be licking its chops at the prospect of Sunni Cleansing [while paradoxically begging us to stay so we can protect their sorry asses, and to hell with what Iraqis want. Oh! THAT sonds familiar!] AND since the insurgents and the so-called Al-Qaeda in Iraq want to do the same to the Shi’a…
To echo Zooey: Let’s GET THE HELL OUT.
And the last unit out should be a demolition team that blows up that goddam embassy. With Chalabi and the American Enterprise Institute inside of it, please.
The only troop presence I can think of that makes sense would be one that provides humanitarian assistance for refugees trying to flee Iraq. We have a moral obligation as well, to take in several hundred thousand more refugees–those lazy no-goods that are fleeing: doctors, professors, engineers, artists, students and other Scum of the Earth–here at home: We can appropriate those unsued FEMA trailers and relocate them. How about Crawford, TX?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am“As far as the middle ground strategy, there’s no way we’ll have a total pullout anyway, because of our bases and embassy. We didn’t build those for nothing.”
Republicans build bridges to nowhere. Why wouldn’t they abandon the bases and embassy? Their cronies have already gotten the no-bid contracts, and the money – mission accomplished.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:41 amLooks like our pet-troll ran away again because he mistakenly brought up an issue his bosses wouldn’t like.
So…. lets have a look at the issue, shall we?
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Iraqoillaw021507.pdf
They Hydrocarbon Law that he says “even we don’t” believe is the reason we went to war.
Look at; Art. 6- Creation of National Oil Company
Look at; Art. 7- Reorganization of Ministry of Oil
Look at; Art. 8- Developement of Future Oil Fields (and subsequent ownership)
Look at; Art. 13 – Exploration and Production Contracts
and on and on and on
July 11th, 2007 at 11:49 amThank you Ringo for bringing that up!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:50 amLook at; Art. 6- Creation of National Oil Company
Look at; Art. 7- Reorganization of Ministry of Oil
Look at; Art. 8- Developement of Future Oil Fields (and subsequent ownership)
Look at; Art. 13 – Exploration and Production Contracts
——————————————————————————————
What the Hell is wrong with any of these things?
You people are nuts.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:53 amTheir cronies have already gotten the no-bid contracts, and the money – mission accomplished.
Comment by barfly
Well,, yeah, that money is in pocket, but how about the trillions in potential revenues rom the oil and all the new markets created for (Disney, GE, Microsoft, AOL, Bank of America, Statefarm, CityGroup,ect.)
July 11th, 2007 at 11:53 amWhen Saddam was there it was illegal to do business with Iraq…now?
What is wrong with them is that we have no business telling anyone what to do with their resources.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:54 amOut Now! This occupation has got to end!
Lets impeach Bush and Cheney for lying us into war!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:54 amwillyloman,
I assume you are a Leftist so why do you have a problem with Art.6?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:55 amComment by Ringo — July 11, 2007 @ 11:53 am
#
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 10) – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) released the following statement:
“There has been a broad deception about the content of the hydrocarbon law, a deception which has taken in members of Congress and the media. Misdescribed tactically as a revenue sharing plan, it is in fact a radical plan to privatize Iraq’s oil.
“The law before the Iraq Parliament contains 3 vague lines about revenue sharing and 33 solid pages of a complex legal restructuring, facilitating the privatization of Iraq’s oil resources. The sharing will not be 1/3 of 100%. The sharing is more likely to be 1/3 of 20% at most, after private oil interests take their cut. The stage is being set for theft on a historic scale.
“Iraq may have as much as 300 billion barrels of oil to be tapped. At a market value of $70 a barrel, the value of its oil may approach $21 trillion.
“In the past twenty four hours the Vice President made an extraordinary trip to Baghdad to urge the Iraqi Parliament to stay in session to pass a “hydrocarbon law†which provides for “revenue sharing.†Today, President Bush explicitly mentioned that he could come to an agreement if it included a benchmark for “sharing oil reserves.†This is the tone of the legislation which the House passed tonight.
…â€The attempted theft of the oil assets of Iraq under the guise of a plan to end the war will keep the war going long into the future.”
July 11th, 2007 at 11:56 amWhat is wrong with them is that we have no business telling anyone what to do with their resources.
Comment by willyloman
——————————————————————————————
Where is the part where we steal their oil?…or are you such a Lefty that you consider buying their oil to be the equivalent of stealing it?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm1. Scope :“B- Its scope of operations shall include:
First: Managing and operating existing producing Fields mentioned in Annex No. 1, and both
the North Oil Company and the South Oil Company are linked to it.”
Why is it limited to only Oil Fields that already exist? Shouldn’t it pertain to all oil fields? Who controls the new ones in the south?
2. Control; The Federal Oil and Gas Council is really in charge of contracts, development, and asset distribution. The law specifies that “5- the Chief Executives of important related petroleum companies including the Iraq National
Oil Company and the Oil Marketing Company; and 6- Experts in petroleum, finance, and economy, with their number not exceeding three (3), to be appointed for a period not exceeding five (5) years based on a resolution from the Council of ministers.”
So, CEOs from Mobil, Shell, and BP and others are written into the Constitution as being particially in control of the main resource of Iraq.
Any foreign investors written into our Constitution?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:07 pmWhere is the part where we steal their oil?…or are you such a Lefty that you consider buying their oil to be the equivalent of stealing it?
Comment by Ringo
Revenues from existing fields in production will be tapped to the amount of up to 70% by the foreign investors (BP, Shell,Mobil) till such a time as THE INVESTORS say their investment has been covered…
WHILE the rights of drilling in new fields in certain areas will be handed over to those companies to start drilling. Those new companies will be able to keep the revenues from those fields indefinately.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pmPlease Ringo, keep going…this is important stuff for us to be putting out here for the readers to look at.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:12 pmComment by Ringo — July 11, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
#
Several key features of the law would:
* Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
So in other words, 70% of the profit goes to Chevron, Exxon, etc. intead of going to Iraq. The oil companies, under this law, would not be buying it from the Iraqis, the Iraqis would be buying their own oil from the major oil companies.
* Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
This is where BP and the British come in.
* Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevron, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:12 pmBut Ringo is right! We do have to pay for it. We pay Shell, BP, Mobil. So, Bush and cronies are not stealing it for us….
Who are they invading another country for?
come on Ringo, you brought this up.
Who are they invading another country for?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pmAnd the charade about “stealing their oil†is getting a bit tired…Even you Quislings don’t really believe it anymore.
Give it a rest.
Comment by Ringo
Nice job Chris L. Anymore topics you would like to go over Ringo?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pmNice job Chris L. Anymore topics you would like to go over Ringo?
Comment by willyloman — July 11, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
#
Thanks.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pmRingo? ringo? No comment? runn’d away?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThat was very thoughtful of ringo to let us get all that info out there again. He is very helpful to the cause.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pmTheories of Johnny Ringo’s death:
1. Ringo killed himself. Depressed after rejection by family members in California and the recent deaths of his outlaw friends, stoked by a period of binge drinking, Ringo shot himself in a peaceful, isolated spot.
wikipedia
July 11th, 2007 at 12:25 pm,theories of Troll Ringo’s death;
His life just sucked out loud.
willy
July 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pm“So in other words, 70% of the profit goes to Chevron, Exxon, etc. intead of going to Iraq.”
———————————————————————–
No : http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq’s new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein’s government.
————————————————-
“…there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.”
———————————————————-
So oil comapniaes should remove the oil from the ground for free?
I don’t think you understand basic economics, which would make sense since most of the people who post here seem to have undergone a Marxist indoctrination rather than having been given a proper education.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:35 pmwhen they post them, they will be here (one hour or so)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00241
July 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pmI don’t think you understand basic economics, which would make sense since most of the people who post here seem to have undergone a Marxist indoctrination rather than having been given a proper education.
Comment by Ringo
Basic ecconomics doesn’t suggest that a country comes in BY FORCE and then dictates who will control another counties OIL FIELDS.
That IS MARXISM. simpleton. got anything better?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pmOh. You quote CNN? I’m sorry. That must be more credible THAN THE ACTUAL LAW I POSTED.
CNN, huh? Same guys who tried to do the hatchet job on Moore?
Yeah, credible reference there, Ringo. try Fox News next time
July 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmBy your own quote, nimrod, “While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say”
Which means 1. They are argueing about who controls the contracts i.e. CEOs from Shell,BP,Mobil…ect (same thing I said)
and 2. they are arguing about the revenues and who will take the PORFITS out of the country.
Even your quote makes my point!
July 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pmCNN, huh? Same guys who tried to do the hatchet job on Moore?
Yeah, credible reference there, Ringo. try Fox News next time
Comment by willyloman
—————————————————
What?….Do I have to quote Mother Jones or Noam Chomsky before you’ll believe it?
Fools.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pmFrom Ringo’s link:
“Giving out a few crumbs to the Chinese and Indians is one thing,” said Kretzmann, who noted the draft law was seen by both the Bush administration and the International Monetary Fund before it was given to Iraq’s parliament. “But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the [Western oil companies] are biding their time.
Since when a country’s law is first seen by a foreign government before being sent to that country’s parliament?
Does that sound like a sovereign government to anyone here?
Plus the article repeats what was said to Ringo: The problem with Iraq’s oil law is that allows long-term contracts to go to foreign firms something that was not the case before the invasion.
Again, does that sound like a sovereign country to anyone here?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pmComment by Gregor Samsa
Great post. it was “seen” by them becasue it’s too hard to write with your eyes closed.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pmComment by Ringo
You’re slogans hold no ground here, ringo. Go sit at the kiddy table
July 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pmI don’t think you understand basic economics…
I have a post-graduate degree in Econ from UCLA. It’s very conservative department.
What’s your point? Other than the one on yer dunce cap, I mean.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pmYou’re slogans hold no ground here, ringo. Go sit at the kiddy table
Comment by willyloman
———————————————————–
The Left has never been good at dealing with dissent.
Right, off to the kiddie table then.
Later
July 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pmI don’t think you understand basic economics — Ringo
I have a post-graduate degree in Econ from UCLA [...] What’s your point?
Later — Ringo
Coward.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pmComment by willyloman — July 11, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
I’ve been following the developments in Iraq with interest. Iraq’s constitution was re-written by Paul Bremer, in a move that was widely criticised (outside the US, of course). Several of the targeted portions of the constitution had to deal with (what else?) oil.
I knew foreign firms had been granted access to exploration, and exploitation of Iraq’s oil field, that the law had been “seen” (read approved) by the Bush administration before Iraq’s lawmakers had the chance to even touch the document, and was curious to find out if Ringo’s article mentioned that fact. Lo and behold, there it was, at the very end. I suspect Ringo didn’t get that far -short attention span, and all.
Granting contracts to non-American firms is a sham, much like the “Coalition of the Willing”. The bulk of the contracts will go to American and British companies, if Iraq can be “pacified”, no doubt about that. I’d he hard-pressed to believe the Bush administration -not known for its charitable nature- invaded Iraq, changed Iraq’s constitution to benefit the Chinese.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pmComment by Gregor Samsa
it’s funny. Even his quote supported our argument, that this was indeed a ‘Resource Grab Occupation” of a sovereign nation. but I thought that baker and his firm were involved in the writing of the Hydrocarbon Law. heard anything about that.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pmComment by willyloman — July 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Something lost to Ringo is that, with his line of reasoning, Americans are doing the dying so the Chinese and the Vietnamese can get a piece of Iraq’s vast oil reserves.
And if Ringo’s premise is true, it is another reason to oppose the occupation and to bring the troops back home.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pmIt’s all or nothing here. Either throw in another 200K (yeah, right) or get them all out. Fewer is not better; fewer is cannon fodder.
This is absolutely the correct argument. Every Dem should be saying, “either have a draft and put in 200k more troops or pull out.†This is a winning argument and shows Bush to be the incompetent Commander and Chief he is.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmI say we set up a fake debate so the Leftists will shut up, then we get guys like Stephen Biddle to oppose the fake debate so that the Leftists think they have scored points.
Keep them distracted while the grown folks talk business!
July 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pmThe 12 year old in the photo looks like he got hit with the gay ray.
And he could use some zit medicine.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pmIt is very unlikely that the ISG report will be adopted by Bush. His agenda has always been to escalate this war and to deepen our involvement. The ISG report sought to reduce our involvement in Iraq not increase it. The ISG report stresses political and diplomatic reconciliation over options like the surge.
We need to pull our troops from the civil war between the Shiias and the Sunnis. The Iraqi military should be doing what we are doing. We will never make any progress as long as we are seen as an occupying and invading force. Our presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency who like a majority of the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Our presence has made us less safe.
Our presence is used as a recruiting tool by insurgents. The only thing we can do for the Iraqis now is to push political and diplomatic progress. We can’t fight this civil war, and we won’t win it if we only approach it in a military sense. There can be no compromise on withdrawal of troops. Our only option now is to remove them from this danger. They are in harm’s way.
How many more soldiers have to be lost to IED attacks before Bush acknowledges that the policy has been wrong? It is clear there is no centrist option when it comes to Iraq. Congress must set a date to withdraw all combat forces. It must be a binding date that Bush can’t waive. As far as fighting al Qaeda goes, that fight is not in Iraq it is in Afghanistan. Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pmPull all our troops out of Iraq NOW.
And if the criminal Bush administration, along with any insane Republicans or idiot Democrats, want to continue fighting Bush and Cheney’s war for Iraq’s oil, then have Bush and Cheney’s private contractor mercenary company pals go fight it.
Oh, wait, if our troops withdraw from Iraq and there’s a “surge” in private contractor security personnel policing Iraq, then the cost to U.S. taxpayers would “surge” as well, since a private contractor security person makes 10 times what it costs U.S. taxpayers for someone serving bravely in our nation’s military.
This would be a major financial boon for all the Republican-owned Bush-crony private security companies, but would end up screwing the American taxpayer by even more than they are currently getting screwed by the astronomical cost of Bush’s insane, and totally unnecessary, war in Iraq.
The only acceptable answer is for Congress to ban the spending of any U.S. taxpayer money in Iraq, except in very limited instances of humanitarian assistance. And this means no more throwing money away on the gargantuan U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The daily mortar attacks against the Green Zone have proven that the U.S. embassy will never be secure, and any U.S. personnel stationed there will be just more U.S. citizens being used for target practice by either side in Iraq’s sectarian civil war.
We know that Bush is flat-out nuts, as well as Cheney, but I still hope that members of Congress will come to their senses, and stop this senseless, jihadist-generating misadventure in Iraq…NOW.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pm