Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Insisting on "Victory" in Iraq
The NY Times says the administration knew it's Iraq war policy was a disaster as early as last summer but didn't want to do anything before the midterm elections because it would make it look like the administration didn't have a plan for victory:
When you read the entire Times article, you come to realize the administration has no "plan for victory" other than saying the words "We have a plan for victory" over and over again:
There you have it - this preznut has no endgame plan, no idea how to alter the current course of violence and bloodshed, no way to force the Shia to stop disenfranchising the Sunni, no way to keep Iraq from essentially breaking up into three different states.
All he has are his empty words.
This year, decisions on a new strategy were clearly slowed by political calculations. Many of Mr. Bush’s advisers say their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr. Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic.
Mr. Bush came to worry that it was not just his critics and Democrats in Congress who were looking for what he dismissed last month as a strategy of “graceful exit.” Visiting the Pentagon a few weeks ago for a classified briefing on Iraq with his generals, Mr. Bush made it clear that he was not interested in any ideas that would simply allow American forces to stabilize the violence. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, later told marines about the president’s message.
“What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win,” he quoted the president as warning his commanders, “not how we’re going to leave.”
When you read the entire Times article, you come to realize the administration has no "plan for victory" other than saying the words "We have a plan for victory" over and over again:
As security efforts in Baghdad faltered, a confidential briefing on possible “end states” in Iraq was prepared by officials under the command of Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarielli, who until a few weeks ago led the day-to-day operations in Iraq. It suggested the dark vision of a divided nation that haunts the administration.
Unless the United States persuaded the Iraqi government to change course, those who prepared the briefing foresaw an Iraq run by a relatively weak central government, which would include a largely autonomous nine-province Shiite region in the south and a Shiite-dominated Baghdad. The Kurds would retain their autonomy in the north. The Sunnis would essentially be relegated to the western Anbar Province and other enclaves.
The briefing posed a question: was this an outcome the United States could live with? If so, what could the United States do to minimize the bloodshed? If not, what should be done to alter this course?
Mr. Bush still insists on talking about victory, even if his own advisers differ about how to define it. “It’s a word the American people understand,” he told members of the Iraq Study Group who came to see him at the White House in November, according to two commission members who attended. “And if I start to change it, it will look like I’m beginning to change my policy.”
There you have it - this preznut has no endgame plan, no idea how to alter the current course of violence and bloodshed, no way to force the Shia to stop disenfranchising the Sunni, no way to keep Iraq from essentially breaking up into three different states.
All he has are his empty words.
Comments:
<< Home
The reason there is no definition of "victory" in Iraq is that Bush is unable to admit the real reason he ordered the invasion in the first place -- to put control of a sizeable chunk of Middle East oil under the absolute control of American companies. Until he can admit to that incredible greed publicly, and admit that his objective was to set up a puppet state in Iraq that could be controlled from Washington and Houston, there's no defined endpoint, and no way out.
# posted by 
: 10:50 AM
: 10:50 AM
Remember when Wolfowitz told us the war would be paid for by oil revenue from Iraq? Instead Iraqi oil output is a mess because of the violence and the insurgency. Sheesh! But I guess they're looking long-term.
But Wofowitz actually said that they would be able to "pay for their own reconstruction, virtually immediately".
I saw it live and had a beer spit moment. It is forever burned into my brain, that bit of hubris.
I saw it live and had a beer spit moment. It is forever burned into my brain, that bit of hubris.
Thanks for the quote, pt. And hubris it was. I wish the hubris would have left the administration by now after all they mistakes have made - but nope.
praguetwin, you wrote:
"But Wofowitz actually said that they would be able to "pay for their own reconstruction, virtually immediately"."
Assuming oil was trading at $30 a barrel at that time and that Iraq was producing two million barrels a day (low estimate), the daily cash flow would equal $60 million -- or more than $20 billion annually.
That's enough to finance plenty. Of course that simple mathematical fact doesn't account for the extraordinary self-destructiveness of muslims out to ruin everything for everyone.
The willingness of muslim opponents of prosperity and freedom to damage pipelines and prevent modernization of Iraq's mismanaged oil industry is a simple example of the muslim idea of moving everyone to a level playing field -- instead of muslims catching up with a world that has left them in the dust, they would rather destroy the medium for their salvation and spread misery.
They would rather destroy and undermine the prosperity of others, causing everyone else to sink to the muslim level of squalor.
"But Wofowitz actually said that they would be able to "pay for their own reconstruction, virtually immediately"."
Assuming oil was trading at $30 a barrel at that time and that Iraq was producing two million barrels a day (low estimate), the daily cash flow would equal $60 million -- or more than $20 billion annually.
That's enough to finance plenty. Of course that simple mathematical fact doesn't account for the extraordinary self-destructiveness of muslims out to ruin everything for everyone.
The willingness of muslim opponents of prosperity and freedom to damage pipelines and prevent modernization of Iraq's mismanaged oil industry is a simple example of the muslim idea of moving everyone to a level playing field -- instead of muslims catching up with a world that has left them in the dust, they would rather destroy the medium for their salvation and spread misery.
They would rather destroy and undermine the prosperity of others, causing everyone else to sink to the muslim level of squalor.
kicksiron fantasizes:
"...to put control of a sizeable chunk of Middle East oil under the absolute control of American companies."
I guess conspiracy theories are as popular in the US as they are in the middle east.
However, if capitalists were in charge of a big chunk of middle-east oil production, production rates would rise from current levels and prices would fall.
I suspect you don't believe oil trades on a world market where prices reflect FUTURE supply and demand movements.
"...to put control of a sizeable chunk of Middle East oil under the absolute control of American companies."
I guess conspiracy theories are as popular in the US as they are in the middle east.
However, if capitalists were in charge of a big chunk of middle-east oil production, production rates would rise from current levels and prices would fall.
I suspect you don't believe oil trades on a world market where prices reflect FUTURE supply and demand movements.
The big problem with all the other excuses that have been put forth for invading Iraq don't even begin to pass the smell test. WMD? -- Everyone with some access to the facts before the invasion was saying it was highly doubtful that any existed. Saddam's a bad dude and the world's a better place without him? -- Granted, he wasn't someone I would invite to dinner, but was getting rid of him and his sons worth the hundreds of thousands of other lives that were lost as a result? Defending Israel? -- Come now, since when is it our holy obligation to defend Israel when it's going to cost us a trillion dollars or so to be paid by our children, and God only knows how many American lives. Iraq was a threat to neighboring states? -- They were so weak militarily (although that was not generally known) that they couldn't even have staged another successful invasion of Kuwait. Establish a bastion of democracy in the Middle East? -- And we are how close to accomplishing that now.
The excuses are all bullstuff, pure and simple. That leaves oil, which is at least logical and of some potential benefit to the US, or at least its oil companies.
That's the challenge -- come up with a plausable explanation for the invasion of Iraq that doesn't involve oil. Note I said plausable, and I mean in terms of the facts available in March '03. Since the only one I have heard that is even close is that GWB just wanted to prove he had a bigger johnson than his father, so maybe I need to restrict explanations to those that don't make you want to throw up.
The excuses are all bullstuff, pure and simple. That leaves oil, which is at least logical and of some potential benefit to the US, or at least its oil companies.
That's the challenge -- come up with a plausable explanation for the invasion of Iraq that doesn't involve oil. Note I said plausable, and I mean in terms of the facts available in March '03. Since the only one I have heard that is even close is that GWB just wanted to prove he had a bigger johnson than his father, so maybe I need to restrict explanations to those that don't make you want to throw up.
# posted by : 2:35 PM
: 2:35 PM
I would argue that there was a "plan for victory", but it was for domestic political victory and that too failed.
Meantime the world is left with the Iraq debacle, increasingly stirred up 'terrorists' and no solutions.
I am almost amused that some still have the gall to defend the whole mess.
Meantime the world is left with the Iraq debacle, increasingly stirred up 'terrorists' and no solutions.
I am almost amused that some still have the gall to defend the whole mess.
kicksiron, you wrote:
"Defending Israel? -- Come now, since when is it our holy obligation to defend Israel when it's going to cost us a trillion dollars or so to be paid by our children, and God only knows how many American lives."
Oh. So Israel is in such danger from muslim assaults that a trillion US dollars are necessary to secure it. That's one hell of a threat you've described.
Since you think it would cost a trillion bucks to safeguard Israel, you must believe muslims and their maniacal regimes represent a huge threat to the world, or at least the US and the West, along with Israel.
You wrote:
"Iraq was a threat to neighboring states? -- They were so weak militarily (although that was not generally known) that they couldn't even have staged another successful invasion of Kuwait."
As boneheaded as muslims are, it's not likely we were about to witness a replay of that episode. Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti military is non-existent. Why would you ever assume the country had the power to repel any invaders? I'm pretty sure an army of penquins could seize Kuwait.
You postulated:
"Establish a bastion of democracy in the Middle East?"
Yes. Obviously. Iraq is in the middle of the middle east, a good site from which to export democracy to the neighbors and to draw in the muslims from surrounding states who would embrace freedom and the chance to prosper in the new Iraq; it possesses vast oil reserves, which are more than adequate to finance a societal and economic leap of epic proportion; and its population isn't quite as fanatical as the muslim populations of nearby states.
You ask, hoping to be taken rhetorically:
"And we are how close to accomplishing that now."
Following the end of the shooting in WWII, it took 7 more years before the US pulled out of Germany and Japan, where it left behind two of today's most powerful democracies.
You opined:
"The excuses are all bullstuff, pure and simple. That leaves oil, which is at least logical and of some potential benefit to the US, or at least its oil companies."
Oil is a global commodity. The faster other countries of the world have easy access to oil, the faster they will grow and the richer they will become. The rising tide of oil floats all economic boats.
The idea that a coven of evil-minded string-pullers can control the world's oil supplies is pure Hollywood, pure comic book.
Moreover, it's not even a goal that would maximize profits for your imaginary group. The group that comes closest to fitting your profile is OPEC. But no matter how hard OPEC tries, it can't control oil prices. It can nudge them here and there. But it can't control prices. Neither can international oil companies.
Twice in the 1990s oil traded at roughly $10 a barrel -- both times AFTER the first Gulf War. OPEC was helpless to stop the slide.
You wrote:
"That's the challenge -- come up with a plausable explanation for the invasion of Iraq that doesn't involve oil."
Oil is the vitamin that powers all advancing economies. It is certainly part of the equation. And a democratic Iraq would probably see its oil production rise from its current 2 million barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day.
At even $50 a barrel, that's $300 million a day, or more than $100 billion a year. That's enough to finance everything a growing democracy of 25 million citizens needs.
"Defending Israel? -- Come now, since when is it our holy obligation to defend Israel when it's going to cost us a trillion dollars or so to be paid by our children, and God only knows how many American lives."
Oh. So Israel is in such danger from muslim assaults that a trillion US dollars are necessary to secure it. That's one hell of a threat you've described.
Since you think it would cost a trillion bucks to safeguard Israel, you must believe muslims and their maniacal regimes represent a huge threat to the world, or at least the US and the West, along with Israel.
You wrote:
"Iraq was a threat to neighboring states? -- They were so weak militarily (although that was not generally known) that they couldn't even have staged another successful invasion of Kuwait."
As boneheaded as muslims are, it's not likely we were about to witness a replay of that episode. Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti military is non-existent. Why would you ever assume the country had the power to repel any invaders? I'm pretty sure an army of penquins could seize Kuwait.
You postulated:
"Establish a bastion of democracy in the Middle East?"
Yes. Obviously. Iraq is in the middle of the middle east, a good site from which to export democracy to the neighbors and to draw in the muslims from surrounding states who would embrace freedom and the chance to prosper in the new Iraq; it possesses vast oil reserves, which are more than adequate to finance a societal and economic leap of epic proportion; and its population isn't quite as fanatical as the muslim populations of nearby states.
You ask, hoping to be taken rhetorically:
"And we are how close to accomplishing that now."
Following the end of the shooting in WWII, it took 7 more years before the US pulled out of Germany and Japan, where it left behind two of today's most powerful democracies.
You opined:
"The excuses are all bullstuff, pure and simple. That leaves oil, which is at least logical and of some potential benefit to the US, or at least its oil companies."
Oil is a global commodity. The faster other countries of the world have easy access to oil, the faster they will grow and the richer they will become. The rising tide of oil floats all economic boats.
The idea that a coven of evil-minded string-pullers can control the world's oil supplies is pure Hollywood, pure comic book.
Moreover, it's not even a goal that would maximize profits for your imaginary group. The group that comes closest to fitting your profile is OPEC. But no matter how hard OPEC tries, it can't control oil prices. It can nudge them here and there. But it can't control prices. Neither can international oil companies.
Twice in the 1990s oil traded at roughly $10 a barrel -- both times AFTER the first Gulf War. OPEC was helpless to stop the slide.
You wrote:
"That's the challenge -- come up with a plausable explanation for the invasion of Iraq that doesn't involve oil."
Oil is the vitamin that powers all advancing economies. It is certainly part of the equation. And a democratic Iraq would probably see its oil production rise from its current 2 million barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day.
At even $50 a barrel, that's $300 million a day, or more than $100 billion a year. That's enough to finance everything a growing democracy of 25 million citizens needs.
n_s, you quibble about a trillion-dollar figure for the total cost of the Iraq war. Given that we have already spent or committed about half that, and are shelling out money at $100 billion a year (a rate which will continue at least another two years under Bush, unless Congress revolts), and we haven't even thought about the costs of re-constructing Iraq and replacing all the military supplies that are (or will soon be) worn out, a trillion doesn't sound too far out of line -- I've heard estimates of twice that.
Given that the only rosy scenario you were able to come up with has oil flowing a-plenty, I say QED.
Given that the only rosy scenario you were able to come up with has oil flowing a-plenty, I say QED.
# posted by : 11:05 PM
: 11:05 PM
kicksiron, you wrote:
"n_s, you quibble about a trillion-dollar figure for the total cost of the Iraq war."
I took issue with your claim that the muslim threat facing Israel would cause the US to spend One Trillion Dollars.
As I said, an expenditure of that magnitude must come in response to a huge threat.
Meanwhile, the US is not waging war in Iraq for the specific purpose of defending Israel. Therefore, a Trillion-Dollar outlay in defense of Israel -- which is what you stated -- says those muslims are dangerous hotheads.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt Israel would experience enormous benefits from a democratic middle east -- as would the entire world.
The only people who refuse to see the obvious are those who -- in effect -- want the US to lose in Iraq.
Losing in Iraq means Iran becomes a nuclear power sooner rather than later; Iran expands its control of Syria and Lebanon; the so-called palestinians receive further encouragement and financial backing to attack Israel instead of actually building an economy; OPEC gains more control of the world oil markets through increased pricing power; middle-east muslims remain mired in retarded economies run by crumbling or corrupt dictatorships; muslim women continue to live as third-class citizens or worse, as chattel slaves.
As I've said, the oil matters. But that's because oil is crucial to the whole world. And a more prosperous world is the goal of US policy.
I'm sure you would admit that if huge oil reserves were found beneath Israel, the Israelis would develop a first-rate oil industry aimed at selling oil to every country that sought it, and that no backward-minded morons would succeed at damaging the industry and preventing oil supplies from reaching the market.
"n_s, you quibble about a trillion-dollar figure for the total cost of the Iraq war."
I took issue with your claim that the muslim threat facing Israel would cause the US to spend One Trillion Dollars.
As I said, an expenditure of that magnitude must come in response to a huge threat.
Meanwhile, the US is not waging war in Iraq for the specific purpose of defending Israel. Therefore, a Trillion-Dollar outlay in defense of Israel -- which is what you stated -- says those muslims are dangerous hotheads.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt Israel would experience enormous benefits from a democratic middle east -- as would the entire world.
The only people who refuse to see the obvious are those who -- in effect -- want the US to lose in Iraq.
Losing in Iraq means Iran becomes a nuclear power sooner rather than later; Iran expands its control of Syria and Lebanon; the so-called palestinians receive further encouragement and financial backing to attack Israel instead of actually building an economy; OPEC gains more control of the world oil markets through increased pricing power; middle-east muslims remain mired in retarded economies run by crumbling or corrupt dictatorships; muslim women continue to live as third-class citizens or worse, as chattel slaves.
As I've said, the oil matters. But that's because oil is crucial to the whole world. And a more prosperous world is the goal of US policy.
I'm sure you would admit that if huge oil reserves were found beneath Israel, the Israelis would develop a first-rate oil industry aimed at selling oil to every country that sought it, and that no backward-minded morons would succeed at damaging the industry and preventing oil supplies from reaching the market.
Woops, sorry for taking so long to get back.
no_slappz,
Since when did every penny of oil equal revenue? You still have to pump it, move it, store it, sell it. The revenue is only a fraction of the actual cost of a barrell of oil. I shouldn't have to tell a know-it-all like you that.
Secondly, even if they did get $20 billion a year, which would be nice, it is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would need to secure and rebuild the country. The U.S. spending $8 billion a month in Iraq currently.
Yea, who knew that the local population would sabatogue the infrastructure to bog down the Americans (I did)? And who knew that the Americans would be so woefully pathetic in protecting the oil infrastructure? Even the most cynical of the "blood for oil" crowd expected them to protect that. Well, exept for those who think they want the oil infrastructure to be damaged so that Haliburton can get contracts.
no_slappz,
Since when did every penny of oil equal revenue? You still have to pump it, move it, store it, sell it. The revenue is only a fraction of the actual cost of a barrell of oil. I shouldn't have to tell a know-it-all like you that.
Secondly, even if they did get $20 billion a year, which would be nice, it is a drop in the bucket compared to what they would need to secure and rebuild the country. The U.S. spending $8 billion a month in Iraq currently.
Yea, who knew that the local population would sabatogue the infrastructure to bog down the Americans (I did)? And who knew that the Americans would be so woefully pathetic in protecting the oil infrastructure? Even the most cynical of the "blood for oil" crowd expected them to protect that. Well, exept for those who think they want the oil infrastructure to be damaged so that Haliburton can get contracts.
praguetwin, you wrote:
"Since when did every penny of oil equal revenue?"
Since always. I guess you don't know the difference between the top line of an income statement -- revenue -- and the bottom line -- net income. And then there's everything else between the two.
Iraq owns the oil. Iraq sells the oil to corporations that handle the drilling, lifting transportation, refining and marketing.
In the simplest terms, Exxon's revenue, for instance, is calculated by the totaling the funds received for sellling gasoline and diesel fuel to operators of cars and trucks. Exxon sells lots of other producst, but let's keep it simple.
Assume for a moment that gasoline is $3.00 a gallon. Assume a barrel of oil -- 42 gallons -- converts into 40 gallons of finished products (it's actually a lot less).
On that basis, the barrel of oil that is sitting underground is purchased for $60 a barrel. After refining, the finished product is sold for $120 a barrel.
Thus, there is a margin of $60 a barrel with which the company can work. Out of that $60 it pays all the costs you mentioned: drilling, lifting, transporting, refining, storage and so forth.
When all the costs are added up and all the taxes are paid, the net after-tax profit margin is 10%. That's 10% of total revenue. That's not earthshaking.
Nevertheless, Iraq collects the $60 a barrel Exxon pays to acquire the oil. That's pure profit to Iraq.
My example isn't exact, but it's close enough. The middle east oil nations collect huge payments for winning the geographic lottery that only exists because a growing part of the world is advancing and desperate for more energy.
In places like Iraq, the lifting costs are about a dollar a barrel. In the US they are quite a bit higher. But when you're in a region, like Iraq, where women walking around in high heels can strike oil, it doesn't cost much to lift it.
You wrote:
"You still have to pump it, move it, store it, sell it. The revenue is only a fraction of the actual cost of a barrell of oil."
Go take an accounting course and then take a brief seminar in oil industry facts and finance.
Post a Comment
"Since when did every penny of oil equal revenue?"
Since always. I guess you don't know the difference between the top line of an income statement -- revenue -- and the bottom line -- net income. And then there's everything else between the two.
Iraq owns the oil. Iraq sells the oil to corporations that handle the drilling, lifting transportation, refining and marketing.
In the simplest terms, Exxon's revenue, for instance, is calculated by the totaling the funds received for sellling gasoline and diesel fuel to operators of cars and trucks. Exxon sells lots of other producst, but let's keep it simple.
Assume for a moment that gasoline is $3.00 a gallon. Assume a barrel of oil -- 42 gallons -- converts into 40 gallons of finished products (it's actually a lot less).
On that basis, the barrel of oil that is sitting underground is purchased for $60 a barrel. After refining, the finished product is sold for $120 a barrel.
Thus, there is a margin of $60 a barrel with which the company can work. Out of that $60 it pays all the costs you mentioned: drilling, lifting, transporting, refining, storage and so forth.
When all the costs are added up and all the taxes are paid, the net after-tax profit margin is 10%. That's 10% of total revenue. That's not earthshaking.
Nevertheless, Iraq collects the $60 a barrel Exxon pays to acquire the oil. That's pure profit to Iraq.
My example isn't exact, but it's close enough. The middle east oil nations collect huge payments for winning the geographic lottery that only exists because a growing part of the world is advancing and desperate for more energy.
In places like Iraq, the lifting costs are about a dollar a barrel. In the US they are quite a bit higher. But when you're in a region, like Iraq, where women walking around in high heels can strike oil, it doesn't cost much to lift it.
You wrote:
"You still have to pump it, move it, store it, sell it. The revenue is only a fraction of the actual cost of a barrell of oil."
Go take an accounting course and then take a brief seminar in oil industry facts and finance.
<< Home
