Why the Iraqis are in no hurry...

So many people, Republicans and Democrats (especially Hillary), blame the Iraqis for the failure to stand up a government and especially (in the case of Republicans) to pass the Oil "Revenue Sharing" law.

I think what we have is a case of deliberate passive-aggressive resistance.  Follow me below the flip for why.

We all know by now that the American-written oil law is basically a permission slip for our oil companies to rape Iraq. How ludicrous that after the entire war was undertaken just to get at that oil, we now need the permission of a bunch of Iraqi politicians to take possession.  Damn laws are such an inconvenience!

So, faced with the most outrageous case of extortion by force of arms perhaps in history, what do the Iraqis do?  They refuse to sign away their oil to the conquerors, but instead of open defiance which would cause the support from the invader that keeps them in power to be withdrawn, they hem and haw and dissemble in the hope that they can run out the clock, which in this case is ticking away with the erosion of support from the American public for this criminal venture.

So they go on vacation, for two months, and seem not the least bit perturbed, while Bu$hco fumes.  And what can Darth Cheney et al do?  They can't engage in "regime change", they already tried that, and if they do it again it will rip away the already shredded veneer of self-determination that has been so laboriously applied and almost certainly trigger an escalation in the insurgency that makes what we have seen so far look like kindergarten.

So we shall see--can the Iraqis keep from blinking in this game of chicken?  Will the Big Oil sock puppets in the White House panic as time runs out and abandon any semblance of supporting self-determination in Iraq?

Stay tuned.

•  And the Dems passed a bill that cuts off aid

  if they don't pass the bill.

  Translation: Nancy Pelosi says that if you don't sign over the oil to us, we will make you suffer more and more until you do.  Makes me proud to be a Californian.

  by steveh on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:26:49 PM PDT

  •  I don't even think that it

    has been explained to the American public that "Cheneys Oil Bill" gives 70% of all Iraqi oil profit to his oil company buddies, with no-bids, and that Iraqi oil is easily accessible.  Our government makes it sound like the Iraqis are only feuding over dividing it up among each other.  This is so deceitful.  Also, it does seem like some of our democrats are in on the ploy with the republicans.  They need their asses kicked for not exposing this blatant, attempted extortion. Unless, the Iraqis are supposed to give their oil away as a thank you present for our bombing their country to pieces.

    by mjd in florida on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:44:02 PM PDT

    •  Title "Revenue Sharing Bill" is like "Blue Skies"

      One of those Rovian tricky names!  70% going to Cheneys select corporate buddies is hardly sharing.  It is a heist!

      by mjd in florida on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:53:46 PM PDT

•  And what can Darth Cheney et al do?

  He can threaten to have individual PMs 'disappeared' (tortured with electric drills and shot in the head) if they don't sign, and offer them a few million $$$ and American passports if they do.

  Because that's how the Cheneys of this world do business.

  by Kingsmeg on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:29:21 PM PDT

•  No open defiance?

  So, faced with the most outrageous case of extortion by force of arms perhaps in history, what do the Iraqis do?  They refuse to sign away their oil to the conquerors, but instead of open defiance which would cause the support from the invader that keeps them in power to be withdrawn, they hem and haw and dissemble in the hope that they can run out the clock, which in this case is ticking away with the erosion of support from the American public for this criminal venture.

  Are the roadside bombs and guns not clear enough?  Or maybe the parliament signing bills to have the U.S. leave?

  I guess I'm missing your point.

  by LithiumCola on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

  •  It is not open defiance...

    by the "Vichy" government.  By the insurgents, yes.  But by Maliki, no.

    by Wintermute on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:56:38 PM PDT

    •  Not by Maliki, no.

      by LithiumCola on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:06:44 PM PDT

•  Wintermute!

  You every frequent William Gibson's Blog and Messageboard?

  HERE

  Buncha crazy people there, that I love to pieces.

  Saw your handle (Wintermute, the AI in Neuromancer) and figured you might like to take a look. You would be most especially welcome.

  I'm Trogdor there, by the way.

  For all I know, you might already BE one of those crazy people.

  by Fishgrease on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:09:31 PM PDT

•  Overly simplistic

  The Iraqi oil law is just fleabite compared to the disfunctionality of the so-called Iraqi government.

  For all intents and purposes, there is no Iraqi government. Maliki is a puppet of the Shia powerblocks. The Iraqi police are Shia militias in official uniforms. The Iraqi Ministry of Health is a Shia organization that refuses services to Sunnis. Every ministry of the Iraqi government is like a little mafia family, with abject corruption.

  The Iraqi Parliament doesn't meet because they haven't been able to consistently get a quorum -- half of the members aren't even in Iraq.

  This is all just the public face of a power struggle among three groups (Shia, Kurds, and Sunni) who can't reach compromise because they are all trying to win an all-or-nothing battle for power.

  The "benchmarks" for the Iraqi goverment are shams and everyone knows it. Why do you think Bush is so determined to not have benchmarks? The Iraqi government cannot meet the benchmarks because the underlying consensus is not there. Why do you think Senator Levin is determined to have benchmarks? Because he knows the Iraqi government can't meet them and benchmarks become a mechanism for getting out.

  by hwc on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:09:56 PM PDT

  •  The oil law is a sham

    Forget the deal for the Western oil companies. It's the underlying stuff that is impossible.

    For example, there is supposed to be sharing among the regions of Iraq. But, the structure of regional governments was never addressed by the constitution because they couldn't agree. It was left til later...and there is still no consensus.

    These are fundamental constitutional issues related to the power of the central government versus the power of the regions in Iraq. They have not been decided and are in no danger of being decided anytime soon...really, not until the Iraqi are done killing each other.

    by hwc on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:15:17 PM PDT

•  we cannot forget one thing

  we STARTED this fiasco and living nightmare for the Iraqi people -- Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

  Colin Powell had the Pottery Barn rule down pat
  "you break it - you fix it"
  we broke it --- why should the iraqis want to fix it -- -they didnt ask to be invaded.

  i hate this president and this war  -- i want us to leave tomorrow --- but there is no incentive for the iraqis to clean up their acts as long as they know they didnt even start it and feel like "we owe them"

  back to the bad movie

  by distributorcap on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:11:16 PM PDT

  •  Fair enough

    We did break it. That's something that we will have to live with for a very long time.

    On the other hand, let's not pretend that life was a bed of roses for the majority of the Iraqi people under Sadaam Hussein. The comparison of his authoritarian rule over the Shia to Hitler is reasonably apt. He was an truly despicable leader.

    Look, what we should have done, if we were determined to topple Hussein, was immediately cut a deal with Allatollah Sisatani for a Shia government and allowed the Shia to basically "cleanse" the Sunni Bathists. That was the only avenue to a semi-functional government in post-invasion Iraq. Then, we should have gotten the hell out by the end of 2003.

    At the same time, we should have responded to Iran's desperate overtures in 2003 to normalize relations. Then, sat back and started playing our Sunni allies in the region against our Shia allies.

    The part of the equation that was so stupid was the insane neocon notion of democracy in Iraq.

    by hwc on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:21:29 PM PDT

    •  you didnt

      see the roses and chocolate being tossed at us?

      you sound like you know a lot about mid east politics, a lot more than me

      from my vantage point --- saddam was truly despicable (but then again so is George Bush) --- and i am sure most Iraqis are glad he is gone -- but what they have now (thanks to George Bush) seems worse --- thousands dead or missing or injured, you cant walk outside, pent up hatred unleashed, a non working govt, a destroyed infrastructure, a professional class that has fled, and youth growing up in a world of destruction and hatred -- that will forever be aimed at the US....

      for what it is worth -- i cant imagine anything we would have done would have made the situation turn out right there
      thanks George Bush....

      there is a special place in hell for you as well

      by distributorcap on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:31:57 PM PDT

      •  Mahdi militia

        see the roses and chocolate being tossed at us?

        Hah. Remember the live video of the Sadaam statue toppling? Well, it turns out that the mob in that square dragging down the statue were Mahdi militia members. They were chanting, "Long live Al Sadr!"

        for what it is worth -- i cant imagine anything we would have done would have made the situation turn out right there

        You could have had a Shia theocracy in fairly short order after the invasion. The country is 80% Shia and Ayatollah Sistani had tremendous leadership clout at the time. If we had let the Shia wipe out the Sunnis Bathists for us, things could have at least stabilized. Sistani was extremely restrained early on. The Shia were thankful for toppling Sadaam. There was the basis for a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" working relationship. We needed to do the deal with the Shia and get out. Declare victory and then quickly cut n' run.

        But, a Shia theocratic government was unacceptable to us...that's why G. Bush the First didn't proceed to Baghdad in 1991.

        by hwc on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:46:12 PM PDT

        •  like iran...

          But, a Shia theocratic government was unacceptable to us...that's why G. Bush the First didn't proceed to Baghdad in 1991.

          dad must be SO proud of his scumbag son.......
          
          the one that served 'proudly' in the military

          by distributorcap on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:49:35 PM PDT

•  I have always maintained -

  that it's in the Iraqis' best interest to wait....stall......wait....think about it some more....watch paint dry.....observe grass growing...

  There are very few incentives for them to "hurry up" and sign the damn paperwork, versus infinite stalling.  That's why Cheney had to jump on a plane and smack a cattle prod on their backs and basically plead with them not to take a 2-month vacation.  I bet you the Iraqi parliament called each other on the phone, and this is what they discovered:

  Benefits to Rushing

  • Cheney gets his oil contracts, Iraq gets sliced up like a side of beef hanging in the meat locker.  

  Benefits to stalling

  • The US goes bankrupt, trying desperately to finance this Wild Adventure to the tune of $8 billion per month.  None of it's been paid for in current funds; it's all been borrowed from the future.  
  • With each passing day, the Americans get more sick of the war.  Congress people and Senate-type dudes will get thrown out next year unless they promise to get us out.  In their own passive way, they are changing the course of history in this country.
  • The oil legislation won't get signed.  That means the oil company executives go crazy in the meantime.  
  • Iran becomes the biggest, baddest power in the region.  The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more the balance of power shifts to the Shi'as + Iran.

  They can get us out by simply sitting on their hands.  Now if that isn't an incentive, I don't know what is.

  by Cliss on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:34:48 PM PDT