Grim,

My apologies ahead of time - but your article reads like a fantasy. There is just so much ignored, or taken for granted, by this post of yours.

Quickly - any comparison of Germany/Japan, to Iraq, is absolutely ludicrous, and not worth the electrons I view the comparison with.

The food integration stuff - wow. I don't know - perhaps, but link to authoritative articles discussing this. You know, both the centers of where this activity will show up, the capacity of those centers, how they would compete economically, and then the social arrangements both in and out country, to make this possible.

The main thing is, there is such a large gap between what you see "is possible", and where Iraq is now, you'd have to show how to get there.

The 2nd thing is - a lot of what you see "is possible", as much as it is possible, will happen in Iraq and other Arab countries, as successes like UAE, Al Jaazeera, etc, have on the Arab world. These are advancements by modernity, that CAN and DO impact the Arab world, and make more likely integration into the modern economy.

And whether we occupy Iraq or not, will be moving on irregardless - in fact, if we are smart, we can use withdrawal of Iraq, smart engagement with Ira, to help speed up some of this engagement.

The main issue, as always, is that oil producing countries, who rely on this as the main export, gives the advantage to the internal elite who control that resource, and contributed to the suppression and control of the rest of the populace. And as long as the rest of the developed world needs that oil, we aren't going to be advancing these oil producing nations to economic integration.

If we want to advance the Arab world to economic integration, put the hundreds of billions that we pour into Iraq into developing an alternative fuel source for the modern economy.

You've always been more of a cynic than I have, Mr. Totten -- that can be an admirable quality, in keeping you tied to earth. On the other hand, cynicism -- even the most well-founded cynicism! -- can also lead you astray. For example, on the evidence of the poverty-ridden peace in Europe following WWI, one would not have imagined the boom in Europe following WWII. You'd have had great evidence for an expectation of deep difficulty.

The difference was American investment. We're talking -- in terms of the McCain plan, which is for sustained involvement -- of investment over time. Iraq is enjoying such investment -- the 'wrenching cost' of the war includes quite a bit of investment in Iraqi infrastructure. We are regularly laying in water treatment plants, pumps, schools, generators, and so forth. I won't belabor the point with you, since I know you've been out to see some of it. Nevertheless, these investments continue every month, with every division, brigade, and battalion of Coalition forces engaging in capacity-building work in cities and towns across Iraq.

Many of these are small-scale projects that make no visible change at once, but serve to create small pools of capital in communities. Such pools of capital -- to invoke another analogy you might find fantastic -- are similar to those created in early America by Hamilton's policy of honoring state war debts at full face value. This was also a wrenching cost, for the time, but it paid off. The creation of these small pools throughout the country sparked the beginning of the development of the American economy. CERP microgrants into chicken farms, fish farms, and agriculture generally, are investments of this type. They have a tremendous potential.

You ask for authoritative articles, but I'm not sure that there have been any. I'm not sure, in fact, where you would look for any: the fact that there has been a fairly serious war in much of the area recently has taken a lot of the area out of range for academic work. Nevertheless, we have the evidence of history for the fertility of Mesopotamia -- I don't believe that is in dispute. We have also the evidence of history for the productivity gains possible with reasonable capitalization of agriculture, in a region currently lacking it.

I'm not talking about what can be achieved in a year -- although, a year ago, we'd have thought it fantastic to believe that we could see a 90% drop in coalition casualty rates, as we did from May 2007 to May 2008; or anything like the drop we've seen in Iraqi civilian deaths. Even in that short a scale, we see that cynicism is not always the best guide.

I am looking down the road, toward a policy of long-term alliance of the sort envisioned by McCain. Since he's been asked here to explain how such a policy could recoup the costs, I think we can talk about the long term. I see no reason to believe that any of these goals are out of the range of possibility, or even likelihood, given a sustained American commitment to partnership with the Iraqis.

By the way, with equal apologies, I must add that your assertion --that what is keeping us from having 'alternative energy' is a lack of government investment -- likewise strikes me as a fantasy. There are a number of reasons why we haven't seen a viable alternative energy developed, but I can't believe that lack of government investment is among them.

First of all, we're not the only government on earth, and a number of them pursue it vigorously: if they were showing strong results, we'd have noticed before now. Secondly, the benefits of developing such an alternative are so obvious that it should be easy to get private sector investment, assuming you could show a reasonable percentage on success.

I'm in no way opposed to alternative energy. However, the idea that -- if only we'd quit wasting money on Iraq! -- the government could just make it happen, that strikes me as pure fantasy.

If we're going to spend the billions elsewhere to equal effect, it might be on USAID programs. Those have a good effect. We might spend it on expanding the State Department and USDA to have a greater expeditionary function. But alternative energy? I'm not seeing it.

With due respect -- I mean that. Your reporting has always been excellent, and I have a great deal of interest in your opinion, even when we disagree. You're a valuable member of the American polity and the community here, and nothing I say above or in this comment is meant to suggest otherwise.

Mmm, Grim, that was not Michael Totten in #1, but rather one of our resident lefties. Michael tends to be rather more fact based. Nice reply, though!

Unless you know something that I don't....

Heh. My apologies to Mr. Totten (whom I met in Iraq, as it happens). This is what happened:

My eye spotted (on the front page) a comment from him replying to HR. It then saw this comment from HR here. Somehow, my brain cheerfully connected the two together, in a short that probably burned off some of the hairs atop my head.

That explains the smoke smell in the office this evening.

I am not interested in our government or our armed forces being engaged in missionary work. I don't think we shoudl be bringing democracy anywhere by armed force no matter how it is dressed up as morality.

The present debacle was based on a wrongheaded Neocon view of force as an instrument for morality. I think that force is an instrument for coercion, which, by the way, I am perfectly fine with.

What I object to is the missionary zeal which permeates our relations with the Middle East. It is not our business to save anyone in the Middle East by occupying it.

Grim, a couple of problems with the article.

So I'll point to three things, each of which individually justifies the cost in my opinion.
Unfortunately, the cost is not stated by those who wish to stay. Either in lives, or money, or time(let alone continued internal fissions). 3 years at the current rates of each? 5? 10? Each of those is a possibility as a cost, and has never been spoken about. Not because of the often repeated line of "then the terrorists will know when we're going to leave", but because informing the majority of Americans of this would likely not go over well.
At some point, the costs no longer bear out the outcome of a moderate friend who has a bunch of bad memories and still angry people.

There is no doubt that the potential economic boon to the world economy will, over time, repay the cost of the war, by creating new wealth that does not now exist.
The world is a different place now - China is the manufacturing engine that did not exist when those other countries rose up, national industries are much less bound internally, and Iraq's relative location as a single country devastated by war vs. the others being surrounded, and being driven by a baby boom after. If there is a boom in the next 5 years, quite possibly. I would guess no, until the refugees are largely back.
The only potential boon is from oil/NG, and that really needs about $50-$100B investment, without including security or new pipelines. If we're seeing the new floor prices, the boon is only to limit the amount of wealth extracted to Saudia Arabia and Russia. And corporations.

One more thing
although, a year ago, we'd have thought it fantastic to believe that we could see a 90% drop in coalition casualty rates, as we did from May 2007 to May 2008;
A month by month comparison isn't exactly the best way to do this, and in June 2008 we have pretty much matched May already, and May of last year was one of the most violent months.
Also - the 90% drop is in fatality rates, not so much on the 'wounded' or ISF+coalition deaths.
And, without accounting for the presence of 5000 MRAPs, which also make things safer.

Foreign Internal Defense missions are a form of military force, but they aren't coercive in the sense TOC means. Yet they are highly successful: look at the mission of the JSOTF we have in the Philippines, for example. If Iraq never becomes Germany or Japan, and never completely defeats the insurgencies in the way that the Philippines has not -- yet Baghdad could still be as successful as Manila at generating wealth.

These kinds of missions are what Iraq is transitioning into: it's already the case that the ISF are doing most of the fighting and taking most of the casualties, and we are increasingly doing training, support, and capacity building. I think Baghdad could one day be a Berlin, and Iraq a Germany; but if it is only a Manlia, with some hinterland terrorists and insurgents like the Philippines, that's still a prodigious amount of wealth to be generated.

How much wealth? The 2006 GDP estimate is close to half a trillion dollars, which isn't bad for one year. The creation of wealth means potential markets for our products, investment opportunities for our money, or -- if we want investment ourselves -- potential investors from their new moneyed class.

There is another sense, though, in which the wealth benefits the United States. It creates a system that rewards education, which is a hedge against extremism. It creates a government that has something to gain from the stability of international trade, which means that it has a firm reason to support the US Navy, the guarantor of that trade. It also is a government that can address terrorism in its own backyard, which reduces the need for us to do it. In an age when terrorists can hide anywhere in the world, we can't police the whole world. So we need allied local governments, partners, who can and who have reason to do so.

Iraq has a lot of potential in those areas. If it prevents a war inside its own borders that would be more expensive than finishing the war we're fighting now, it pays for itself. If its alliance with us gives us a partner in FID missions outside Iraq, in other Muslim or Arabic-speaking countries, it may prevent wars beyond its borders. It would do this by helping to stabilize regions that could otherwise fall into war. Again, even one such avoided war could pay for the project.

There are those for whom "cost" is mostly about money, though: so, there will be money too. Even if it's "the next Philippines" rather than "the next Japan" or "South Korea," there will be plenty of money.

Grim, this is somewhat off topic, but I would like to mention it anyway and it is not aimed at you solely. It is as follows.

The pacification and nation building that took place in Japan and Germany after the war should in no way be compared to Iraq or any place else for that matter.

The lack of an effective insurgency in both places had to do more with the utter destruction of Germany and, for that matter the rest of the Europe, to the point that Europe experienced famine after the war. The Economy of the continent was utterly laid to waste, add that to the terror the Germans had of occupation from the East and you have relatively pacified territory for occupation.

One need only see the footage, which was shown repeatedly in the 50's of an American Bomber flying over Berlin for minutes filming the scene of hulks of building and rubble for as far as the eye could see. When I first went to Europe, in the mid sixties, the infrastructure had not been fully repaired and the Economic Miracle in Europe did not really kick in for a quarter of a century after the end of the war. In southern Italy burros, as a means of transportation was relatively wide spread.

Japan's recovery took more or less the same trajectory. Japan experienced the same sort of economic devastation as Germany, with the added fact that they felt the impact of the complete immolation of two of its largest cities.

No one, in either place, had the stomach for resistance. (I am aware of the very, very small number of attacks on occupation forces that continued sporadically for a few years after the war.)

Iraq is a different matter for innumerable reasons. The most telling is that we had the will and the power to extirpate those parts of the German and Japanese cultures that did not please us. It took a prolonged and murderous onslaught to bring about those conditions against both military and civilian targets and populations.

This has to be taken into account before we talk about our successes in Nation building in the former Axis Powers being copied anywhere else.

I also think that laying a world view that we have (In hyperbole and Shorthand) that everything can be solved by economics over the the Middle East is rather dubious considering the deep and widespread influence of religious belief in the everyday life of the people.

It took hundreds of years for the Religious wars after the Reformation to end in Europe. On the other hand, the nearly 1350 year face off between the Shia and the Sunni since their Schism, has never shown any signs of abating.

The nation building and integration of Germany and Japan into the world political and economic system took place under circumstance that both had never existed before in history nor, do I believe will ever exist again.

_"A month by month comparison isn't exactly the best way to do this, and in June 2008 we have pretty much matched May already, and May of last year was one of the most violent months.
Also - the 90% drop is in fatality rates, not so much on the 'wounded' or ISF+coalition deaths."_

Ok, here's january through may 2007 & 2008:
KIA, coalition 2007: 501
KIA, coalition 2008: 183

Wounded, january through April 07, 08 (only available through April 08):

2007: 2437
2008: 1098

Iraqi security forces and civilians deaths, Jan-May:

2007: 11,594
2008: 3458

all from icasualties

TOC:

I've heard variations on that theme for several years. It is true that we have not treated Iraq like we treated Germany or Japan. On the other hand, reread this:

"It took a prolonged and murderous onslaught to bring about those conditions against both military and civilian targets and populations."

From 2006's Samarra bombing to the summer 2007 Surge campaign, Iraq's civilian population suffered "a prolonged and murderous onslaught." It wasn't brought about by us, but by internal factions: but the murder was all the more well-targeted and relentless for that reason.

Insofar as we are talking about having a people exhausted of war, Iraq is far closer to Germany and Japan than you might think. The fact that we haven't been the ones massacring civilians isn't the issue. There have been gracious plenty civilian deaths. The Awakening was largely about people being tired of that, and ready to work with the Coalition and GoI if we could help stop it.

It's not just Americans who are tired from the war -- we've suffered the least of any of the parties to the conflict, excepting some of the Coalition nations who didn't serve on the line of fire. It's important to remember that the various parties in Iraq are worn down too.

#12 from Grim at 8:12 pm on Jun 18, 2008

Unfortunately, it is my feeling that a regional war in war in the Middle East may have just begun and having our troops in the middle of it is not good strategic thinking nor is it the best use of our resources. I tend to believe in the efficacy of the British system of indirect rule rather than the French belief that the purpose of their Empire was to bring Civilization and a superior French Culture to their colonies.

The less involved we are directly in the scores that need to be settled there the better. I think applying selective pressure and keeping factions turned against each other rather than turned against us is a more intelligent way to handle an area that has always been explosive.

#1 Hypocrisy

Hey, lighten up! I like the fantasy...it reveals a good imagination.

The problem for me (and I bet a lot of other folks) is that it is wildly misdirected.

Let's just do a bit of re-calibration and take another look at the issue.

"Developing Iraq and its forces into an ally has the potential of stabilizing regions where the poor are kept in poverty and denied good governance by terrorists and extremists."

Me: Developing life-saving vaccines and treatments for human diseases has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives.

"There will be a tremendous economic boon from a stabilized Iraq"

Me: There would be a tremendous economic boon from investing in US infrastructure, not to mention a safety and quality-of-life benefit to Americans.

""There is no doubt that the potential economic boon to the world economy will, over time, repay the cost of the war, by creating new wealth that does not now exist."

Me: No doubt? Great. Where's my $3000 of tax money that has already gone into the war?

"That hope lives in the Iraqis I met over there, and many others besides. I believe it also justifies the costs, both what we have spent and what remains to be spent to finish what we have begun.

Me: I can show you tens of millions of people that "hope" we can use our vast resources for good, not destruction. I can name thousands of individuals who could go much further to fulfill that hope by directing our resources to social welfare in America instead of in Iraq. I can name a hundred worthy causes here in the US that deserve attention.

I can also name delusional and desperate people who will likely spend the rest of their short time on earth trying to find some shred of justification, some wispy rationale, to excuse their atrocious and selfish judgment on this war. I'd certainly hate to waste my time in such a worthless pursuit, but thankfully I have no need to: I've been and remain opposed to this fiasco from before it started, and see no reason (nor find any solace) in having history prove me right.

I agree that developing vaccines is a great idea. Which country does most of that? Maybe we should be more like them.

Investing in US infrastructure is a fine notion too. I heard a plan today to build 45 new nuclear reactors, and another one to build a bunch of new offshore drilling rigs. That's the kind of stuff you're talking about, I imagine. It's fine to spend money on the needs of the nation's infrastructure.

That said, I don't really get the $3,000 complaint. I paid multiples of that last year alone, just into Social Security. When I retire in a few decades, following the Boomers Social Security and Federal pension payouts, how likely is it that I'll see a return on that 'investment'?

If we could each pick a government program to which we would not contribute, I know which one I'd choose. If you gave me the option of not donating to the Iraq project, or keeping the money I'd put into FICA, it'd be no contest at all.

As you say, I imagine that goes for a lot of others, too.

Grim, your outcomes in Iraq forgot to mention that in addition every Iraqi gets a pony.

Just this week the Dirty Effing Hippies' narratives about Bush-approved torture, about the folly of stripping forces from Afghanistan, about the manifest speciousness of "Curveball"'s WMD allegations, and about the turnover of Iraqi oil to American companies are reinforced. The conservatives' predictions of "victory"?—not so much.

To follow up with a link on Andrew's comment:

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

See,we lefties, clearly we were CRAAZY to think, maybe, this particular occupation was largely (though not fully) about oil.

No it was about, what? FREEDOM! WHISKY! SEXY! Or something like that.

1. Don't pay attention to those no-bid contracts to the oil companies!

2. Don't pay attention to the Army generals stating that the U.S. committed war crimes!

3. Don't pay attention to the troops involved in their 4th and 5th rotations!

4. Don't pay attention to the bogus reasons given to go into Iraq, that didn't pan out!

5. Don't pay attention to the civil war that spawned in Iraq, killed half a million!

6. Don't pay attention to the trillions of dollars, and billions of dollars siphoned off, to parts unknown!

All of the above - ALL OF THE ABOVE - are well documented, well reported, through the last 5 years.

But yes - there is much to be won in Iraq.

"See,we lefties, clearly we were CRAAZY to think, maybe, this particular occupation was largely (though not fully) about oil."

Maybe not crazy, but certainly ignorant of how business works. Note- 'servicing oil fields' does not equal sticking a spigot in the ground and running a pipeline to Crawford.

"The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament. "

Not exactly "I DRANK YOUR MILKSHAKE".

I also wish you guys would decide if Iraq's elected government was in Iran's back pocket or ours. Bouncing back and forth when it suits your gripe of the day isnt particularly enlightening.

Mark,

Just one man's opinion - although shared with the majority of the people in Iraq, in the United States, and in the world - yes, the six reasons above make a joke of anyone claiming the "good effects" of invading and occupying Iraq.

I mean, really.

You implicitly admit this, of course, with your sideways objection, to a point I never made.

I am NOT saying this is the return of the Big Five Oil, in all it's glory. Still, if the opportunity presents itself, you won't find the administration of Big Oil objecting.

Although, it is INTERESTING that other companies, from other countries, didn't get the nod on this, isn't it? That wouldn't have anything to do with us being the occupying power, would it?

As I've said here, many a time, the U.S. having the control and the guarantee of the flow of oil from Iraq, is the only motivation that actually has made sense, throughout the invasion and occupation. Everything else has fallen away. So all your snark aside, it's been the only CONSISTENT reason, that has withstood the test of time, and that, as an objective, has been consistent with the policies pursued. From the beginning, when the highest priority of the invasion was SECURE THE OIL MINISTRY, which our forces did immediately, while the rest of the country was horribly looted, falling into chaos.

If you can't see this consistent theme - and what has been given priority by the ACTIONS of the Bushies - well, you really trying.

hr,

Although, it is INTERESTING that other companies, from other countries, didn't get the nod on this, isn't it? That wouldn't have anything to do with us being the occupying power, would it?

I'm with you in general---there are lots of legitimate reasons to oppose the US invasion & occupation of Iraq--but I don't think this makes a strong argument. I believe that Total, BP and Shell are not US companies--at least not in their entirety. I think they are mostly French, British and Dutch. (Total may have some Italian ownership).

Oil was certainly part of the equation is choosing to go to war in Iraq (notice how freedom's not so important in Burma, Zimbabwe, Darfu and China) but mostly because the profits from oil were going to enemies, not because we wanted to be selling it. We are obviously quite happy to buy oil from just about anyone.

The Iraqi economy is growing at a rate of at least seven percent. Oil production is expected to be above prewar levels by the end of this year, but that requires investment. We could make the investment ourselves -- "THE COST OF THIS WAR IS SO HIGH!" -- or we could let oil companies do it -- "EVIL OIL COMPANIES! WAR FOR PROFIT!" -- or we could just not, and let the Iraqis suffer until they come up with the money themselves, though their GDP is under $90 billion a year -- "YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE!"

Any stick is not good enough to beat America.

I understand: you really wish we hadn't done this. But we are here, with Congress having voted to authorize it and to fund it at every step along the way, so this is a mission that belongs to all Americans. Like it or not, we are responsible for what happens in Iraq. We can't morally walk away.

There are goods left to be achieved, not only for Iraq and America but for the world at large. There are also evils to be avoided, especially for the people of Iraq. Michael Totten's post talks mostly about the evils to be avoided; I've talked a bit about the goods to be achieved.

The Iraqi goverment and security forces have come far. The Iraqi economy is beginning to take off. We need only finish what we have begun. This is something that will repay us, both morally and -- in the long term -- in terms of tangible goods as well, for those concerned about that. It is our duty, because America -- all of America, through our representative democracy -- took this responsibility on ourselves in 2003.

Oil production is expected to be above prewar levels by the end of this year, but that requires investment.

A month before the April 1 [2004!] deadline set by Iraq and American officials for restoring the industry to prewar levels, the country is producing 2.3 million to 2.5 million barrels a day, compared with 2.8 million barrels a day before the war.

The American taxpayers invested over $1 billion in rebuilding the oil system alone, except, of course, much of it is unaccounted for. Perhaps some of that money will be recycled in for profit by the oil companies. Someone got rich.

I think the evidence is clear that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq because it's run by crazy people. The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they're getting them back "36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries' assets if it's dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military. Our troops can "curb Iranian influence" and provide "stability" all of which is good for business. But don't call it imperialism, we're there to help!

drat, can someone close that anchor tag

I think I fixed what you were wanting repaired. Let me know if it's still not right.

Speaking as someone who was living in Iraq until April, I'd have to say that there has been substantial progress at political repair. If you want to go by The Pentagon Channel and watch COL Ferrell's interview of today, he's talking about an area I know a bit about. The State Department's EPRT leader is there, and fields a question from NPR's Tom Bowman on the subject of reconciliation progress in the area, both in the last six months and looking forward to the provincial elections.

As for the SOFA, I have no doubt that there will be one negotiated that reflects both Iraqi and American interests. The rhetoric about it is hot, because Iraqi political negotiations always involve hot rhetoric. Nevertheless, just as with the provincial elections law -- it'll never pass! It passed! It was vetoed! Overridden! We'll participate! We withdraw! We'll participate again! -- it will sort itself out. Iraqis have an honor and shame culture, but they are still rational actors, as much as any of humanity is.

Meanwhile, whatever else the price of oil is doing to the world economy, it's certainly helping Iraq's economy. I wouldn't be too sure that you won't see substantial growth in that sector, going forward.

Well, Mr. Grim, if you have a financial stake in the Iraq war (as your last comment suggests it might) then I'd think it would be necessary to disclose this so that we can understand the context of your positions.

I had thought it well known, both here and at BlackFive, that I was in Iraq as a civilian advisor to the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters. I have no investments in Iraq -- indeed, no investments at all except for a very small Roth IRA.

Grim,

Sorry to say, but it sounds like your paycheck comes from the Iraq occupation, am I correct, in your advisor status?

It's not an unpaid position, surely?

I actually hate writing that, of course - but the old adage applies - if someone's paying depends on a certain outcome, then that person's analysis will often reflect that outcome.

I often wonder - especially in the case of someone like Armed Liberal, our host here, Marc, how much of his business is with the military. It's "rude to say" of course, but I it's something to take into account.

Grim, I actually do appreciate you being upfront about your vested interest here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your integrity and transparency about how you are personally impacted is admirable.

hypo - a fair question, assuming of course that you open the kimono and tell us who pays your bills as well.

Other than the vast sums I make from this site (kidding...), I make a paycheck from a national consulting company that does no (as far as I'm aware) business with the military or the government or major military contractors. I have been approached by the VA about doing some work for them, but that's not even at the level of a prospect.

You?

A.L.

No - my work has nothing to do with politics at all. Work for an ASP - application service provider, around Human Resource issues. Think Salesforce, but much smaller, and HR focused.

So if someone sits behind their keyboard and supports the war, they're a chickenhawk.

If they actually put their ass on the line and go over there to render a needed service, then they've got 'vested interests'.

Nice. Or at least nice if your intent is to shut down discussion.

Tim,

Not my view, really. Still, it is a datapoint that must be taken into account, must be given some weight.

I'm fine with having the arguments speak for themselves.

But in any other situation, you would weigh this.

There has been a big discussion around how Democratic campaign people (such as Mark Penn) always seem to recommend political strategies, that maximize his own paycheck.

Real estate people - it's common knowledge that RE's will push loans that are, to put it mildly, NOT in the buying customers best interest - their customer - right?

It's just a data point, and you will notice, I said nothing about this obviating Grim's analysis.

I think Grim's analysis is obviated by my six points in a comment above, personally.

"That wouldn't have anything to do with us being the occupying power, would it?"

Im sure it has quite a bit to do with it. Here's one great reason- the American/Brit companies have doubtless got more insight and optimism that the 'occupiers' (UN and Iraqi mandated occupiers, if that makes sense) might be sticking around and not at any moment going to pull up stakes and leave a shattered husk of a nation (and investment).

The Russian, Chinese, French et al dont have a place at the table, by choice.

And wasn't there just an argument being made last week that the Iraqi government was showing us the exit and bringing the Iranians in the side door? Call it snark if you want, but how bout a little consistancy. Just who's puppets are the Iraqis anyway? God forbid they be given the credit for behaving in their own self interest.

HR:

Most of the advising I've done has been to PACOM/SOCPAC, where there have been no active wars. My real expertise, if I have any, is in that area. There is a counterinsurgency effort in the Philippines, in which we participate; another in Thailand, in which we do not, though we observe it with interest; I've lived for a time in China; and so forth.

I don't feel like my paycheck depends on the Iraq war continuing. What it depends on is the military feeling like it needs people with degrees in history, degrees in philosophy, and so forth. If Iraq is peaceful tomorrow -- a result that would please me more than is easy to explain -- and remains so forever, I will still have a job.

I'm absolutely a partisan to the conflict, of course: I make no bones about that. I'm an American first and last, and a willing participant in both its wars and its peace-oriented strategies. I offer my services with pride to our government in these matters. I want my country to succeed in its undertakings. I have spent a fair amount of time in the third world, and honestly believe that American engagement helps the world's poorest more than any other policy.

If I were to work the next twenty years in PACOM, on a policy that allowed us to increase engagement with China and its client states, in a way that avoided war and slowly but surely enriched the people of Asia, I would feel I had done well. I think that would be good for America as well as Asia; just as I feel that stabilizing Iraq, and bringing it into the global economic system, would be good for Iraq, for America, and the world.

So, yes, factor all that in. I don't pretend to be a neutral observer. I am certainly a partisan to the conflict.

Call it snark if you want, but how bout a little consistancy. Just who's puppets are the Iraqis anyway? God forbid they be given the credit for behaving in their own self interest.

"The Iraqi public at large's interest? Or our particular interlocutors?"

In a democracy, the differentiation is meaningless. After the next election a new government can happilly toss Shell et al out on their ears.

You seem to forget that little detail.

For that matter after OUR next election our next government can toss them out of Iraq.

Grim,

Appreciate the explanation. All the best to you.

"The Iraqi public at large's interest? Or our particular interlocutors?" In a democracy, the differentiation is meaningless.