The political and military change of direction is having some MAJOR good results this week. None of which you will hear pass through Katie Couric’s lips.
Iraqi Cabinet Approves Draft Oil Law – AP
The Iraqi Cabinet approved a long-awaited draft oil law on Monday, sending it to parliament for consideration, the prime minister said, calling the agreement “another founding stone in state-building.”
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government had promised a new oil law by the end of 2006 but missed the deadline due to objections from the Kurds, and it faced pressure from the Bush administration to come through. Many of Iraq’s vast oil reserves can be found in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south, and the Kurds wanted a greater role in awarding contracts and administering the revenues.
Al-Maliki said Monday’s agreement was an important step toward encouraging investment in the country’s battered oil industry.
“This law will guarantee for Iraqis, not just now but for future generations too, complete national control over this natural wealth,” Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said.
Iraqi PM To Shakeup Cabinet, Arrest Extremists – MSNBC
Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday he will reshuffle his Cabinet within two weeks and pursue criminal charges against political figures linked to extremists as a sign of his government’s resolve to restore stability during the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad.
US Troops Enter Sadr City – MSNBC
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers entered the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Sunday in the first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month around Baghdad.
Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches through the densely populated grid of squat two- and three-story buildings, but met no resistance in a district firmly in the hands of the Mahdi Army militia led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said Lt. Col. David Oclander.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, told Al-Arabiya television U.S. officials spoke daily with community leaders in Sadr City before entering the stronghold.
Wow… it is really too bad that the majority party controlling Congress is so invested in creating American defeat. Otherwise, they’d be issuing press release after press release this week praising the progress in Iraq. But we know what Queen Pelosi and her supporters really wants — America to fail.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Thanks, Bruce.
I wish I could be more hopeful, but I don’t think this conflict will end until Iraqis decide to quit fighting one another and see themselves and each other as Iraqis rather than Kurds vs. Them or Shiites vs. Them or Sunnis vs. Them. (The end of our involvement is another and very complicated though related matter.) For example, the distribution of oil revenues shouldn’t be based upon the distribution of reserves but on national interests (transport systems, national defense, etc.) and representation (distribution of population). I haven’t read up on this development (though I plan to), but the snippet you quote implies that the Kurds want greater control over ‘their’ oil reserves. This is exactly the mindset that must be recognized, understood, confronted, and resisted; Balkanization is at the heart of the problems in Iraq (and virtually every other nation with civil strife) — mixed with a highly explosive religion and history of retaliation, it seems only a tyrant could hold it all together. It is important that its tendency be addressed while Iraq is still in the process of forming its government institutions and laws.
I know it’s early on, but I think this war has been handled pretty badly and it worries me that while we preach about spreading democracy (a dubious undertaking in my estimation), we allow old resentments to control policy in a newly-born nation. Even the United Kingdom which (prior to being the U.K.) gave us John Locke and our national philosophy has a distribution of oil revenues that the Scottish have always thought unfair. This may or may not be justified, but Scottish nationalists (secessionists) point to the North Sea as a possible component of future economic viability because like the Kurds, they think it ‘theirs’. Resentment will remain alive as long as it is taught, revered, and regarded as the crown jewels.
#2 – And to think that everyone who opposed this war thought it was being fought for oil.
It’s $2.45 a gallon here in Houston for regular unleaded. So much for the “war for oil” argument.
Regards,
Peter H.
I thought the Iraqis were supposed to be in the lead for this.
So everything was well-coordinated with the Sadrists. That suggests to me it’s all for show. It sounds increasingly that the escalation is going to be made to look like a success and with the potential meetings with the Iranians and the Syrians this month, Bushco is getting ready to internationalize it all, declare victory and leave.
That suggests to me it’s all for show.
In a way, you’re right. Remember how we dropped leaflets into Fallujah and other enemy strongholds to announce “we’re coming”? We did so to minimize civilian casualties and to disarm anti-war douchebags. Same song, different verse I suspect.
“It sounds increasingly that the escalation is going to be made to look like a success”
That is fine with me. Its nice to see that Bush has come to his senses and has begun talks with Syria and Iran. Who knows? Perhaps he will finally realize you can’t win this struggle with brute force! And the oil law is very vague and seems to give a lot of leeway to multi-national firms. Sunnis and Shitie groups will be screaming about imperialism but it does give significant amount of autonomy to the Kurds to sign their own contracts and possibly spread their wealth as they see fit. It appears they are in Iraq under name only. Its only amount of time until they declare a state…
#7 – 401k has been cutting-and-pasting again. His argument is replete with DU talking points, paragraph breaks and minimal spelling/grammar errors.
“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump
Regards,
Peter H.
#7: The whole oil deal/ripoff is going to last about as long as the US occupation and/or the Maliki government.
I wish there was some way to expose how Democratic politicians feel about wanting to lose.
If I had access to a pollster, I’d stick in a question like:
“Would you be more likely to vote for a Republican President if, before the election, you saw major improvement in Iraq as compared to now?”
The obvious 180 degree opposite is that people who say yes to this, will be more likely to vote for Dems if they perceive things as going badly. Not that there’s anything wrong with that–it’s perfectly reasonable to decide whether or not to pull out based on whether you think the war is still a good idea. In fact, that’s the best criterion on which to base the decision.
So I’m not bashing people who vote that way. But look what it obviously means for the Dem candidates: they will get more votes if Americans perceive the situation in Iraq as going badly. So they have a brilliantly obvious incentive to attempt to convince Americans that things are going badly.
It’s no big secret Dems are campaigning on the platform of pulling out ASAP. Obviously they want the American people to think we should pull out ASAP (if we agree with that, we will vote for them–if not, we won’t). And convincing us of that will require that we believe we’re not winning/making progress. If you dare to bring this up in polite company, people freak out (it’s worse than calling Edwards a f****t or wishing death on Dick Cheney). But it’s so obviously true!
Further, I don’t think any of the Democratic candidates (not even St. Obama) are capable of maintaining the position that they want us to win, they want the situation to get better, but also want us to pull out. No politician is skilled enough to walk on that razor blade. They will slip up, there will be a gaffe, and we will see that they’re really hoping for failure to give them cover for their cut and run plan.
For a war to be a World War, doesn’t it have to significantly involve at least several countries from around the world? Just wondering.
#7
Turn-your-head-and-keogh, what color is the sky in your world?
Heya jimmy, the WOT is supported by 91 nations and the UN in a significant fashion or another according to the NYT 2006 count… an added 18 muslim nations support bringing al Qaeda to justice via anti-terrorism measures and cooperation (that’s C-O-O-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N) with American and Western nations.
Ouch, how much does it hurt when you’re decidedly wrong, over and over? Oh, I see… you meant only the WOT-Iraq and not the broader effort, right? Nice dodge but the reality ball still hit you square, bubba.
keogh writes: “Its nice to see that Bush has come to his senses and has begun talks with Syria and Iran.”
ok, keogh… time to put down the snow shovel and go back and learn who is “sitting down” with Iran and Syria and who called for the Middle East summit… that would be our democracy loving friends and constitutionally elected govt leaders in Iraq… and the US agreed to attend.
Does that mean Iran can take our participation in a braoder summit as proof we’ve withdrawn from the NoTalks til nuke weapons production ends position? No.
We’re helping out our Iraqi allies. Simple as that.