Centerfield

Nice to see that Hillary's finally listening to me! :-)

How long have I been pimping the "Alaskan model" oil trust for Iraq? Oh, yeah, since Glenn Reynolds first pumped up the buzz after Lou Dolinar proposed it. As in three and half years now. (Hillary claims she was recommending it three years ago--she was just really quiet about it for a couple of years afterwards...)

Welcome aboard, Senator Clinton.

I have been saying this for as longer than the Wall Street Journal. I believe Tully has suggested something along these lines. Want to win in Iraq? Use a better approach. Details of this idea were also examined years ago in Foreign Affairs.

Perhaps a policy of urging is better.

Yes, welcome aboard Hillary. Your husband supported regime change for good reason. I defy anybody to paint a better and realistic picture of the world WITH Saddam.

We would have little ability to stop Iran's nuke program. Zero ability to stop Saddam's WMD programs. Little ability to help Abbas or investigate Syria. By all measures, including death, the world would be a far more dangerous place. Instead of Bush bugling we would have the Russians and Chinese (with alittle help from France, Chavez, North Korea etc.) supporting WMD build up in both Iraq AND Iran. I can just imagine the media outrage. There is a big difference between messing up a job and a bad idea to begin with.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"I have been saying this for a longer time than the Wall Street Journal."

sorry, typos.........

"The first is dictatorship by one faction or sect over all the others: a solution that has been exhausted by horrific failure. The second is partition, which would certainly involve direct intervention by all its neighbors to secure privileges for their own proxies and would therefore run the permanent risk of civil war. And the third is federalism, where each group would admit that it was not strong enough to dictate terms to the others and would agree to settle differences by democratic means. Quixotic though the third solution may seem, it is the only alternative to the most gruesome mayhem—more gruesome than anything we have seen so far. It is to the credit of the United States that it has at least continued to hold up this outcome as a possibility—a possibility that would not be thinkable if the field were left to the rival influences of Tehran and Riyadh."

Quite true. As many have pointed out: if Iraq is almost the geographical center of extremist Islamists, where else should we redeploy? What signal would our exhaustion send?

The Navy plans to beef up posture against Iran. Pressure is being applied on Sunni moderates and even the EU has taken a sharp tone against Syria and Iran (even Russia). Yet the Democrats select an Intelligence Committee head that does not know AQ is Sunni. They are ready to INVESTIGATE. Gee.....I feel much safer.

Reid supports a "surge" into Iraq. Perhaps Murtha would prefer redeployment to Iran?

I like it for many reasons. (1)It is smart diplomatically in the sense it allows us to say to the world that it wasn't about the oil. (2)It seperates Hillary from the lets throw our hands in the air, give up, and avoid all responsibility crowd. (3)It shows she has gravitas in an area where her main political opponents for the nomination are lacking. And, (4)it shows what part of a political solution could look like, which is something that those who have called for a political solution have failed to articulate.

Despite the truth of Tully's comment, ideas like this needs gutsy politicians to propose them. Although I will not go as far to say this is a bold move, it is a smart policy proposal at the right time. Furthermore, it shows the policy wonk side of Hillary Clinton that I have always liked, despite my disgust for the political side.

I've always said that regardless of what you may think of her as a person, Hillary Clinton is absolutely without doubt one of the sharpest pols of the current era. Do not EVER underestimate her.

Yep Tully. And I would like to know why McCain, Hagel, Warner and others did not advance this policy from the start, including Hillary. IF you are going to promote Democracy, there must be some incentive for Iraqis not to attack either their infrastructure or their institutions. Who totals the revenues, protects the oil and distributes oil money to HOUSEHOLDS? The Iraqi government. This policy might have put to rest the idea we were in Iraq to steal oil (Thank you Mr. Moore). I was startled by the republican lack of interest in Post invasion Iraq until it got bloody. In 2003-2004, there was little Republican examination of policy and performance.

Still, Hillary is taking a gamble in confusing the issue. I simply do not see how she can really retract regime change. My understanding is that HOW we invaded Iraq (the plan, coalition, troop strength, etc.) was wrong. I did not hear her talk about an Iraqi Constitution that protects oil revenues for the Iraqi people. I did not hear her talk about Federalism, non-debathification, disbanding the whole Iraqi army or even the disbanding of the opposition Iranian insurgency force in Iraq.

There are over 100.000 contractors in Iraq and I didn't hear about her comment about their deployment either. I did not hear her suggest that a Saddam removed means less support for Palestinian terrorists, that an Iraqi nuclear program is alive and well in Syria or any worry about how Iraq would play out in terms of our ability to counter Iran. Nor has she railed against an EU incapable of helping much in Afghanistan (see her remarks above).

While I appreciate her leaning to center, I don't like bending to the polls when the emerging issue is whether we are going to continue some resistance to the designs of those who mean us harm.

Yeah, I'm well aware it wasn't Hillary's brainstorm. I too have thought it a move well worth trying from the time of the first insta-buzz.

Bottom line, this bandwagon could use more passengers, especially movers and shakers, so I am glad Hillary is on board. I continue to wonder why more folks aren't on board, why the idea doesn't get more traction.

Any speculation out there on that. Have some prominent (or at least credible or wise) folks staked out a "here's why this could be a really bad idea" position? If so, I've missed it.

I'm glad that Senators Clinton and Ensign have elevated this proposal to the national level, but in fairness, this is something that officials on the ground in Iraq have been toying with for quite some time. The reason it's been DOA thus far is quite simply that the Iraqi political leadership just doesn't want it-- there's really no Iraqi political party, group, or leader that's championing the initiative.

The national government believes it would destroy their ability to effectively govern the country, since oil is about their only source of revenue, and they rely upon it to fund the Iraqi security forces, essential services, and infrastructure development-- all of which are badly neglected. SCIRI, for that matter, doesn't even believe that government should respond to the Iraqi people, but rather to the Muslim elites (whether the ummah or the ulema should control the process is one of the primary schisms between Da'wa and SCIRI). The tribal sheikhs and leaders also believe it would undercut the source of their own local-level legitimacy and authority, which- as they see it- isn't altogether that different from US machine bosses in the 19th century.

Believe me, I'm not against it, but the Iraqi elected leadership is, and if it's going to happen, it's going to take "ugly Americans" sticking their fingers in the Iraqi leadership's chests and telling them what to do and how to do it. And if you haven't been paying attention, the perceived arrogance of American diplomats and our perceived mistreatment of our Iraqi partners (i.e., not letting them guide their own destiny, but rather telling them what they will do whether they like it or not) is precisely why many of them resent us today.

It's going to be a tough sell if this is something Washington wants us to deliver.

Bobby,
Hope things are well. I wonder what you think about doubling down or even a modest 50,000 increase in Marines and Army. Is the Navy beefing it up in the Gulf? Seems like a bit more floating targets…..

Most “oil” plans I have seen suggest first writing a clause into the Constitution that gives a certain percentage of oil revenue to every Iraqi Household. Are you suggesting that Shiites don't want the Sunnis to have this right, or "Iraqis" in general? Another proposal has this right for a decade and this can be amended after that date.

I understand why some Iraqis might not like finger poking, but it is clear those private supplies of oil and even the destruction of the oil flow helps a corrupt government and terrorist's/militias fund their violence and influence.

If the Iraqi government wants to stop the civil war by defunding it, wants to avoid de facto partition, or simply seeks to give Iraqis some hope, why is our pressure wrong? Isn't it wrong when our tactics produce violence and right when they produce stability and peace? Funny how a no brainer here translates into arrogance over there. However, I thought we are playing out the last gasp. If so, then why not try reasonable solutions or bring heat on those opposed by GOING INTERNATIONAL with REASONABLE plans? The US has such POOR PR. How would the leadership like every Iraqi to know these guys do not want to give such a rebate? No who is steal what from whom?

I guess you know far more about the real Iraqi dynamics, but from here, I see only the bad getting worse or possibly better if we try something smarter. The idea regarding oil is to give perhaps only 30% of oil revenue as rebates (or as free gas?). I do not see how this would bankrupt the government IF oil attacks slowed, terror funds dried up, people wanted the infrastructure protected. It certainly would make Iraqi Institutions something of value beyond a target. Are the Tribesmen going to protect their followers when the crap hits the fan?

P.S. Should I be encouraged by the Iranian vote?

Thanks as usual.

LOL I meant; "Now who is stealing what from whom?"

Max,

It isn't necessarily Kurds or Shi'ites wanting to deny Sunnis access to "Kurdish" or "Shi'ite" oil-- although there is some of that. And it isn't just corrupt government officials wanting to make sure they get their graft- although there is some of that, too.

It's elected officials and their supporting bureaucracies being fully aware that the oil revenues are the Iraqi government's only real source of income for the state (like banking and the economy, taxation is more or less non-existent right now, although there are various fees and assessments in place)-- if the oil money flows directly to the people, how would the Iraqi government fund big budget expenditures that have to be resourced-- like the Iraqi security forces, for example, or infrastructure reconstruction? These things have to be funded or the trust will be for nothing when the government collapses and the militias and insurgents fill the vacuum.

It would almost certainly be in the long-term interests of Iraqi democratization if they could get the oil money into some kind of a public trust; unfortunately, there are very real short-term obstacles that they first have to overcome to get there.

Bobby,
I understand. Perhaps a public trust might bridge the gap. I sense corruption, militia black market oil activities, sectarian rejection of Sunnis being included in oil rights are part of the short-term obstacles. And of course, short-term problems can sink the ship.

I wonder if the international community could do more to finance Iraqi recovery and help create a public trust, or lend resources to allow the Iraqi government to deliver more to its people and thus be more supported. Perhaps. our leaders can discuss what those obstacles are and move the international community to act.

Seems like a surge may be coming.

I suspect that the fatal flaw of a "public trust" is right there in the name. Is there an institution, or even a handful of individuals, whom all Iraqis would agree to trust to oversee _their_ money?

Yes, I know controls and oversights can be implemented. But you'd be building those, and their reputations, from scratch, too. And doing so in a tribal culture (everybody is expected to be out for his own tribe alone) is a lot harder than doing so in a culture where the standard perception is "most people are mostly honest most of the time."

The need for revenue to fund current endeavors is obviously crucial to the governmnet's prospects.

So it makes sense for any program of payments to the citizenry to start out as small and largely symbolic. Perhaps it could come with a committment to increase the payments if and when the economy improved/diversified/grew.

Brian,

That's definitely one way of making it more viable. If and when Iraq has a functioning income tax system up and running, then an Oil Trust will be able to do a lot more-- every Iraqi citizen would get their share of the oil revenues, but-- dpeending on their individual tax liability-- some would pay most or all of it back into the public treasury where it could be used to fund the larger expenditures. But they have to get the tax system up and running, and we're not there yet.

Max,

I wonder if the international community could do more to finance Iraqi recovery and help create a public trust, or lend resources to allow the Iraqi government to deliver more to its people and thus be more supported.

Some countries are actually doing just that-- the Japanese Embassy recently started a $3.5 billion "soft loan" program (no interest or payments the first 10 years, then 20 years at less than 1% interest), and that's going to be very helpful in supporting the Iraqis in developing economically viable industries and enterprises that will enable to country to move forward with economic development. But by and large, most countries are sitting this out, militarily and economically.

It's kind of frustrating, really. The Europeans are convinced that the "root cause" of terrorism is the economic underdevelopment of the region, and the lack of opportunities presented by this underdevelopment. And yet they've been largely unwilling to do anything to address those economic shortcomings, and instead seem to prefer just criticizing our interpretation of the "root cause" (i.e., the lack of freedom). If they truly believe that it's economics, you would think they'd be more willing to support developmental assistance programs, but that's just not the case. At least not in Afghanistan or Iraq.