Iraq's "Best Interest"

Over the past few years, we have heard oft-repeated that our presence in Iraq is to "help" the Iraqis (even though it's false). Recently, several strange coincidences should cause any objective observer to (once again) seriously question this assertion. The first major point comes from de-classified documents from the National Security Archive. One of the documents, an electronic message from Paul Bremer, outlines all of the "help" we should be giving Iraq: A section on "military/security operations," though partially redacted, includes several points, e.g.: "U.S. must be authorized to detain, intern, and interrogate anti-coalition and security risk personnel" "U.S. must be authorized to retain custody of current POWs/detainees/internees…" "U.S. must be authorized to seize and retain intelligence-related documents" "Coalition forces must have unlimited authority to conduct military operations they deem necessary and proper under the circumstances." On the "bearing of arms, uniforms, flags & markings," the cable says: "U.S. forces must be authorized to bear arms and wear uniforms" "Designated U.S. contractor personnel must be authorized to bear arms." On "utilities and communications": "U.S. forces must have access to utilities and enjoy priority in use" (Note 2) "U.S. forces must be authorized to use all necessary radio spectrums without charge." Information in the cable on "postal and recreational facilities" was redacted in its entirety. As to "privileges and immunities," according to Bremer's cable, "U.S. personnel must be accorded status equivalent to that accorded to administrative and technical (A&T) personnel (full criminal immunity and immunity from civil process for official acts)" "Contractors and Iraqis employed by the coalition must be immune from legal process for acts performed in official capacity" "U.S. personnel and contractor employees must not be surrendered to international tribunals or any other states or entities without approval of U.S. government." On "entry and exit" into and from Iraq: "U.S. personnel must be allowed to enter Iraq with ID cards and orders" "Iraq must not use visa issuance as a way of imposing limits on contractor personnel." Regarding "movement of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft": "U.S. vehicles, vessels, and aircraft must be able to freely enter, exit, and transit Iraq" "U.S. vehicles, vessels, and aircraft must not be subject to taxes, fees, tolls, charges, regulation, registration, inspection, etc." "Iraq must accept U.S. driving licenses and permits as valid." On "importation and exportation": "U.S. must be able to import and export equipment, supplies, and materials without inspection, restrictions, taxes, customs, duties, etc." In regard to "contracting", CPA headquarters wrote: "U.S. must be free to contract for goods, services, and construction without restriction" "U.S. must be able to contract using its own rules" On taxation: "U.S. forces must be exempt from all Iraqi taxes" "Iraq may not tax income of U.S. personnel and certain contractors received from U.S. government or sources outside Iraq." All discussion of "claims" was withheld from disclosure. Wow, what a great deal for Iraq. Let me see if I can summarize all of the things the US must do to "help": We can do anything militarily that we want We can arrest, jail, and torture (oops, "interrogate") anyone we want We can pack any weapons we want We have priority use of all utilities (water, electricity, etc.) We are immune from Iraqi laws We don't pay anything for our use of Iraq's infrastructure We can import/export without cost or inspection How could it be that Iraq has the temerity to question this benevolence? The reason I highlight the last point is due to this. Big oil is now engaged in "negotiations" with Iraq's government for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's oil fields: Imagine. At the precise moment when demand for oil was the highest in history, a recently democratized country with enormous reserves had the chance to sell extraction contracts to the highest bidder. This was a country that desperately needed the revenue to help rebuild its schools, power grid and water supply after a long internal conflict. So why did it hand out the contracts with no auction at all? Gee, I wonder... and without import/export cost too. When we talk about Mission Accomplished, we are discussing the wrong mission. The mission is accomplished because we got what we wanted - It's the Oil: Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices... The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. Thank God the Iraqis have us to "help" them.