Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

Everyday, I visit a website that gives US troops death and casualty list in Iraq. if the trend continues, comes October 2007, the number of US soldiers to die in Iraq will pass 4,000 and we won't be any closer to any peaceful solution. Quite the opposite despite what officials may think...

Apart from a couple of peaks in May and November 2004 — and troughs in April 2004, April 2005, April 2006 and August 2006 — the trends of death and casualties is a curve going upwards, increasing the average from 2 to 4.5 death per day. Yesterday (26/05/07) was no exception. Five US soldiers were killed, none were reported in the main media. None of the brave made front page... Looking closely at the trend of the curve, come May 2008, the number of US soldiers dying per day could be around 6.5 and no solution in sight... Come May 2009, the average could be as high as 10, by May 2010 as high as 30... and still no solution in sight.

Every-time a US soldier dies, one has to count 8 US soldiers badly injured, on average. Thus yesterday could have seen about 40 US soldiers injured. No report was made. At the same time, the clashes with militias, the car bombs etc, the revenge killings, etc combine to an average about 100 Iraqi dead per day. countless injured...

Would violence increase if the US army left?... Yes, there would be a short peak of atrocities.

But soon after, the Iraqi would heal their wounds between themsleves. They would cooperate as a single people... Hard work needed sure, but they would do it. They can do it. At the moment, the presence of US troups is preventing the healing, like someone scratching a bad wound constantly. The presence of US troops provides the wrong focus and the wrong dynamics of progress: too many profiteers, too many corruption, too many conflicts... But this could be the true desire of the US administration, so it can weaken the Iraqi government for the US to get Iraqi oil on a platter.

Whoever started this silly war should be court-marshaled. Some of the culprits are on the cartoon at the head of this line of blogs...

May 2007, so far the third highest US troop casualty count in Iraq since the beginning of the war, March 2003. As the figures are released, we should be aware that things are not going well for the windmilling coalition.

Presently, the latest day of casualty officially recorded was 10 US soldiers on 28 May. The "Surge" of Bushit is only doing one thing... Surge in the number of US soldiers dying, unfortunately.

The talks between the US and Iran might slow things down a bit but I am not confident. For this meeting to be working properly, a "de-surge" (a progressive withdrawal) of US troops is necessary.

Note: In the blog above I mentioned 5 US soldiers killed on 26 May, the full count by end of day was 9.

Bloody month for US troops in Iraq

May has been the deadliest month for US troops in Iraq since the battle for Falluja in November 2004.

The US military on Thursday announced the deaths of six more US soldiers taking the toll to 122 for the month.

As the bloody month drew to an end, the operational commander of US troops in Iraq revealed that officers were being empowered to seek local truces with Iraqi fighters.

Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno said that about 80 per cent of those fighting US forces were thought to be ready to join Iraq's political process.

He said: "We're talking about ceasefires and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces."
US commanders hope to convince local Iraqi resistance groups to split from groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"We have organised ourselves to be more aggressive in this area," Odierno said.

---------------------

Gus: based on statistics, May would have also been a "high" month for injured US soldier. Although the data based on the Department of Defense release shows only 116 injured soldiers, compared to previous months averages this figure is likely to shoot past 800. (average of 8 injured soldiers per 1 death). Meanwhile the Iraqi forces only lost 188 in May compared to more than 300 the previous month, with a similar ratio of soldiers injured.

War is not a game.

Instead of "We have organised ourselves to be more aggressive in this area," it would have been slightly more encouraging to hear Odierno say: "We have organised ourselves to be more amenable and fair in this area..."

June 2007 started badly for the invasion forces in Iraq.

While the president Bushit is rattling the Korean solution for Iraq (still in its infancy in Korea after 45 years... another 50 years to go?) in the first three days of this month, 17 US soldiers have died already in Iraq. It can be assumed (using the current average of 8 badly injured for each death) that nearly 136 US soldiers have been injured so far in the first three days of this month. the average so far is 5.7 Us soldier dead per day... Another day, another 5 dead soldiers and the US will pass the next magic figure of 3500 US soldiers immolated at the altar of Oil... May god bless the liquid stuff. Blood at 65 bux a barrel, Oil? Priceless...

Of course this won't be fully reported, but we'll be thrown a bit of fudge about the economy and all that Jazz, by our own Rattus, designed to make us forget that we are murderers having taken part in the illegal war, but "living well" due to the resources boom and being flogged raw for our own good, albeit with a "safety net" to minimise being totalled. Thank you Johnnee...

Note: The final official tally for May was 127 US soldiers dead...

Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal
By DAVID S. CLOUD and DAMIEN CAVE
Published: June 4, 2007

BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “to protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

Yes Gus, the usual nonsense from the bushit purveyors of “fractured fairytales” ….

from the Center for American Progress

50 Years of War

In 1964, when the Vietnam War "was only a small dark cloud on the very distant horizon," President Lyndon Johnson privately told National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, "I just stayed awake last night thinking of this thing, and the more that I think of it, I don't know what in the hell -- it looks like to me that we're getting into another Korea. It just worries the hell out of me." For President Johnson, Korea was the model he privately feared. For President Bush, Korea is the model he has publicly embraced. The White House announced last week that it "would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea," where U.S. troops have been stationed for over 50 years. (Never mind that in June 2006, Bush said, "I've told the American people I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible.") Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed the "Korea model" on Thursday, and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who oversees daily operations in Iraq, called it a "great idea." In fact, modeling our Iraq strategy off the U.S. experience in Korea relies on a grossly inaccurate historical comparison, and runs directly opposite Americans' view that the U.S. should disengage from Iraq.

IRAQ IS NOT KOREA: "In no meaningful way are these two wars, or these two countries, remotely similar," military analyst Fred Kaplan writes of Korea and Iraq. "In no way does one experience, or set of lessons, shed light on the other." To begin with, "we intervened in South Korea as a response to an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to contain Communist aggression. We intervened in Iraq as the instigator of an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to expand unilateral American power." Second, in South Korea, there is something concrete to defend -- the border with North Korea. "In Iraq, no border divides friend from foe; no clear concept defines who is friend and foe." Jonathan Alter adds in Newsweek, "The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century are protecting oil supplies (reflecting a pessimistic view of energy independence) outside the normal channels of trade and diplomacy, and projecting raw military power. These are the imperial aims of an empire."

PERMANENT BASES OUT IN THE OPEN: The Iraq Study Group advised, "The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq." Yet for the first time, the Bush administration "is beginning publicly to discuss basing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come," the New York Times reported yesterday, noting that the subject is "so fraught with political landmines that officials are tiptoeing around the inevitable questions about what the United States' long-term mission would be there." In public, administration officials are mostly silent. "But when speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, they describe a fairly detailed concept. It calls for maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared." This report comes despite the fact that the Iraq spending bill just signed by Bush includes a provision prohibiting any U.S. funds from being expended to "establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq."

IRAQIS DO NOT WANT THE KOREAN MODEL: Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last week observed another crucial difference between Iraq and Korea: the U.S. military presence "has engendered stability on the Korean peninsula because 'the South Koreans welcomed us,'" and the United States was viewed as a force for good. In Iraq, an ABC News poll earlier this year found that 78 percent "oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil"; just one percent of Iraqis "want the US military presence to go on without end." Thus, Brzezinski noted, "the US could never hope to sustain an enduring presence unless American leaders resigned themselves to facing enduring resistance." Indeed, the prospect of permanent bases is a significant threat to U.S. forces, "because the specter of a permanent military presence in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the most inflammatory incitements to Iraq’s ever-growing anti-American insurgency," and may even be destabilizing to the region. "The president and vice-president like to say that insurgents in Iraq listen to what we say over here," said Jon Soltz of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group VoteVets. "If they do, there's no question that this morning, those who seek to kill our troops are buzzing with talk that America plans on occupying Iraq forever. The bulls-eye on the back of our troops just got a whole lot bigger, and the president is to blame."

‘The Iraqi parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.’

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End to Occupation