Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, September 24, 2007

Iraq Relents on Blackwater
Bush to ask for Nearly $200 bn.

The Iraqi government is backing off its demand that the Blackwater security firm be expelled from Iraq in the wake of apparently unprovoked shootings that left 11 Iraqis dead, according to the LAT. Apparently the argument has been made to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that the 1,000 Blackwater guards who escort US embassy personnel would have to be replaced by troops, who would have to be pulled out of their current attempt to drive Sunni Arab militants out of Baghdad neighborhoods.

Tom Engelhardt analyzes the Bush administration legal framework that keeps US companies and personnel unaccountable in Iraq.

A big feature of the literature on decolonization is the delight leaders such as Gamal Abdul Nasser and Ruhollah Khomeini took in abrogating laws bestowing 'extra-territoriality' on colonial personnel and even just civilians from the metropole, while in the subject country. Now extra-territoriality is back with a vengeance; and, of course, no colonial enterprise can be run without it. One can't have persons of the superior race hauled before a native judge; bad show, old boy, to let the wily oriental gentlemen get the upper hand that way.

The argument about whether Cheney/Bush went into Iraq over petroleum is not interesting. Of course they did, one way or another. The question is what exactly they thought they were doing about Iraq's petroleum. I would argue that they threw public resources (perhaps as much as two trillion dollars worth when all is said and done) to secure profits for private companies. Otherwise, the US public will never, ever realize the sort of savings from the development of Iraqi petroleum that would compensate them for the blood and treasure they have spent in Iraq. (Not to mention the opportunity costs of squandering so many resources on a quagmire, when the public investment could have been put to much better uses).

Over twenty retired generals have now spoken out against the Iraq War, a gut-wrenching decision for these highly conservative lifelong Republicans.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat writing in Arabic reports that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned against any partition of Iraq. He urged national reconciliation, instead. He also criticized Iran for intervening in Iraqi affairs and called for restraint among the country's neighbors.

At the Global Affairs group blog, Barnett Rubin imagines what he would say about accountability and the Bush administration if he were a politician rather than an analyst:


' The Bush-Cheney administration has surrendered much of Afghanistan to the Taliban and much of Pakistan to al-Qaida. They have turned most of Iraq over to Iran, creating the very danger over which they now threaten another disastrous war; they have strained the U.S. Armed Forces to the point of exhaustion, turned the Defense Department over to private contractors, the Justice Department over to the Republican National Committee, and the national debt over to foreign creditors, while leading a party whose single most basic belief is supposed to be that individuals must take personal responsibility for their actions. And they dare to lecture us on national security?'


Then Rubin restates the case from an analytical point of view. It is a beautiful thing to behold. Read the whole thing.


At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, Lacuee writes:

' Egypt has not the slightest resemblance to what has been said of it by our writers. Its soil, indeed, is fruitful, but there is little of it. Nature asks only to produce; but the land is bare, and almost uncultivated. The natives, degraded by slavery, are relapsed into the savage state, retaining nothing of their former civilization but superstition and religious intolerance. I have found them resembling, in every circumstance, the islanders of the South Sea, described by Cook and Forster.

In a word, this country is nothing at present. It merely offers magnificent recollections of the past, and vast, but distant hopes of the future. It is not worth conquering in its present condition: but if statesmen, above all, if able administrators should undertake the management of it for ten years;--if for the same space of time we should employ all our care on it, and sacrifice the whole of its revenues, it might become the most valuable colony of Europe, and effect an important change in the commerce of the world!

But where are they,--these able administrators? '


Where, indeed?

Labels:

6 Comments:

At 3:38 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

Further to your mention of the Wily Oriental Gentlemen and the diiculty of letting them get a fair shake of the stick:

As I was reading the New York Times this morning I followed the story about the President of Iran speaking at Colombia and idly scanned the comments section.


Free Speech


To my surprise most of the comment is in favour of letting the man speak

An example of a typical comment follows

I understand why people would want to protest this speech on intellectual–not only emotional–grounds; Mr. Ahmadinejad has in the past been sanctimonious in his professions for peace and dialog. But for New York lawmakers to potentially limit financial aid to students if Columbia doesn’t rescind Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speaking invitation (as reported in the NY Sun, http://www.nysun.com/article/63232), such mob mentality has no place in a free country. This intimidation straddles the line of government censorship, and is the wrong message to send to the world about America’s commitment to free speech and our strength as an open society to engage our enemies.

The ordinary people who write comments like this show the US people in a very positive light indeed.

Mr Ahmadinejad performs the useful role of the boy who questions the emperors new clothes. By asking the question why they should be denied development and technology because of some historical events in the 1970s and a refusal to roll over and abdicate their independence, coupled with conflation of rish and threat, and asking the question as to why the Plaestinians should pay the price of the German crime he is in fact doing the world a service.

Do we really have good answers?

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

"I would argue that they threw public resources (perhaps as much as two trillion dollars worth when all is said and done) to secure profits for private companies."

To put the two trillion in perspective, according to Ken Burns last night, the total cost of WWII for us was about $3 trillion in today's money.

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

what enormous valuefor Money

Cole and Galbraith in Salon on the same day.

For less(dollar still plunging) than 10 pounds a year.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Chris said...

Didn't Prime Minister ask for replacing Blackwater with a different security company, not troops? Didn't General Petraeus say in his testimony before Congress that there was a Marine expeditionary unit coming into the Gulf which he could claim, so therefore replacing Blackwater would not require redeploying any troops?

As to why the Bush administration invaded Iraq, I now believe the primary reason was blatant Israeli propaganda wrapped as "intelligence" on Iraq's WMD's. Bush and many in the US media appear to have believed every word of it, and it heavily biased US news coverage of Iraq.

Why then do we still consider the US media a reliable source on Iran, Syria, or Lebanon? Along that line I especially thank the editors at the "Group Affairs Group blog" for their contributions.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

not unlike the massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge of WWII, The Blackwater phenomenon [in IRAQ] undermines the Petraeus surge, which applies counterinsurgency principles that require winning over the local population, and isolating the bad guys from them. Instead, Blackwater [ = Petraeus' militia apparent] is seen by Iraqis as the face of a malignant occupation.

i submit that, Whether ‘the surge’ is now working, or was ever a good = blood & treasure cost-effective strategy in the first place, is moot. All it takes is one foul deed by a de facto Schutzstaffel to render all the sacrifices made by all the otherwise honorable soldiers, sailors and airmen over the past six months, meaningless.

in my humble opinion, history will record that ‘the surge’ had no benefit, thus : for either the Iraqi people or the AngloAmerican occupation forces...

insofar as the Iraqis are concerned, their hellish agony continues.

insofar as the U.S.A. is concerned, our helpless shame continues.

...rather, ‘the surge’ was a cynical, yet successful EXIT STRATEGY for Mr. Bush.

 
At 6:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Bush is basically holding Iraq hostage with Blackwater - Iraq must allow them to continue or risk a setback in the fight against the 'insurgency'.

Basically, the choice of a rock or a hard place, and they had no choice. The gamesmanship of the Bush Administration is absolutely galling, and the fact that our troops ultimately suffer as Blackwater is allowed to continue is reprehensible, in my opinion.

These mercenaries MUST be held to account in IRAQ for their crimes. In order for Iraq to self-govern, they MUST be able to enforce their own laws - Blackwater cannot be allowed to exist outside of the law.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home