----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Privatizing Iraq's industry (was Re: Bitter Fruit)
>... There are no plans to bring them out, however. Every news analysis that I've seen talked about how the difference now is whether to cut forces based on the training of Iraqi forces or a timetable independant of what would happen. Bush favors the former. Now, it's true that his administration is so dense it took them almost three years to figure out that the Iraqi army had to actually be able to hold their own against the insurgents instead of being ready on paper only....but it appears that the generals have convinced Bush that this is the requirement. When the military leadership in Iraq makes statements that the only way to achieve our objectives is to hand the fight over to Iraqi forces...and are not countered in Washington, you know that the plan is to find a way to turn the fight over. >And I hear an awful lot about permanent bases. That's pretty well gone away. They would have to be approved by the Iraqi government, on an ongoing basis. Al-Sadr has his candidates on the list for the largest Shiite party, for example. Do you think his folks would easily agree to that? >However, we have a history of covertly and overtly intervening against >nationalist governments. But, there are fairly strong bounds on that. The US might favor opposing parties/groups when it thinks that an elected government is starting to turn the government into a 1 party government, such as in Venezuala, but there is a long history of the US happily dealing with national oil companies. After all, we don't have aircraft carriers in the North Sea. :-) The advantage to the United States of a somewhat representative government in the Mid-East that is improving the standard of living of the average person is overwhelming. >Some of these may be paranoid fantasies, but many are not. Well, I find it facinating that I'm now the pro-Bush person on the list because I think his administration is incompetent, dsyfunctional and pig-headded, and not evil. ;-) >And they don't include economic actions against countries that nationalize against our interests. What ecconomic actions can the US take? If we refuse to buy Iraqi oil, it will be bought by someone else. Oil producing companies have the hammer when it comes to ecconomic pressure. That's why Jimmy Carter proclaimed the Mid-East of strategic interest to the United States. One of the reasons folks were worried about the invasion of Kuwait by Hussein was that, without the US military to stop him, he would have been able to control oil production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE....and be able to threaten the West with depression if his demands were not met. We do use ecconomic leverage, but we have to have the hammer to do it. We _don't_ in oil producing countries...unless we can get the world to agree to sanctions. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
