Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

With House Poised to Spend $163 Billion, More Argue Iraq Should Use Oil Money to Pay for Reconstruction

By Jim Lobe, IPS News. Posted May 8, 2008.


"The argument that Iraq should use its oil revenues to pay the U.S. sounds like the ultimate proof that we invaded Iraq for mercenary reasons."
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, May 7 (IPS) - Growing impatience in Congress over the enormous costs being racked up by the Iraq war, as well as the Pentagon's belief that it needs more troops in Afghanistan to fight insurgents there, is putting the vaunted success of the George W. Bush administration's "surge" strategy to the test.

Although the House of Representatives appears poised to approve an additional $163 billion Thursday for military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year, most observers believe that Congress will impose unprecedented conditions on Iraq-related spending. This could include requirements that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pay substantially more in reconstruction and related costs than it has to date.

The argument that Baghdad must bear more of the burden gained momentum last week when the Pentagon's Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that Iraq's oil revenue in 2008 should exceed $70 billion, twice as much as had been forecast just a few months before.

That report, which comes amid growing concern here over the weak domestic economy, has fueled efforts by a bipartisan group of senators to halt virtually all U.S. funding for major reconstruction and infrastructure projects in Iraq.

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted unanimously last week to approve a bill that would ban the Pentagon from funding any reconstruction or infrastructure project in Iraq that costs more than two million dollars. Similar legislation is expected to be taken up by the House.

"This is the first significant bipartisan change in our policy toward Iraq," declared Republican Sen. Susan Collins, one of the sponsors of the legislation after last week's vote, while the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin said Iraq's failure to pay reconstruction costs was "unconscionable (and) inexcusable" given the windfall it has received from the stunning rise in world oil prices.

Another provision of the same bill would require Iraq's government to pay the salaries and training costs of the predominantly Sunni militias, or so-called "sahwa" or "Awakening" councils, on which the U.S. has been spending roughly $27 million a month.

Despite U.S. pressure, the al-Maliki government has strongly resisted integrating the vast majority of the estimated 90,000 members of these militias -- most of which were previously part of the Sunni insurgency -- into the army or police for fear that they will eventually turn their guns on the regime.

The result has been growing frustration on the part of the militias, frustration that reportedly was significantly enhanced last month after al-Maliki enlisted thousands of members of the Badr Organization into the government's security forces during fighting with Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad. The Badr Organization is the armed wing of the Shi'a Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the strongest party in the coalition.

Both the intra-Shi'a conflict between the Sadrists and the government and the growing anger of the sahwa militias -- most recently dramatized by a series of strikes and public protests and by an increasing number of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces in al-Anbar province and other Sunni strongholds where the militias have kept the peace for most of the past year -- have resulted in a sharp rise in both Iraqi and U.S. casualties over the past two months, threatening the security gains made by the surge.

The surge, which was initiated in February 2007, was aimed at pacifying both al-Anbar province and the capital by adding some 30,000 U.S. troops to the 140,000 already deployed to Iraq to stop and reverse the drift to sectarian civil war between Sunnis and the various Shi'a militias. Its strategic aim was to foster a climate of peace and stability that would encourage all factions to make the political compromises necessary for national reconciliation.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraqi oil, iraq war, nouri al-maliki, awakenings

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Really.....
Posted by: Captainmagic on May 8, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what...the bully comes in through your front door...ransacks cities and murders peoples....drinks your wine, spits in your face fully expects to have it's way with your life and then the bully says get F@#ked, clean it up yourself....The same bully is proposing to let NATO hold a bucket of shit whilst it screws Iraqi at the trough. What kind of diabolical race of people have such a bully at "their" wheel? Mmmmmmmmm. The U.S.of A is still very much asleep at the wheel.

SSssshhhhhhhhh Just leave....

Captain OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The destroyers must pay
Posted by: phindrup on May 8, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't really matter whether oil goes to $US100 per litre --- The US led coalition destroyed Iraq and the lives of most Iraqis.
If there is any justice, eventually those who caused the destruction will be forced to pay for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The destroyers must pay Posted by: Crazy H
Oil money
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 8, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That oil money was never for the American people. They underwrote its acquisition for the major oil companies. That's Exxon Mobil's money. Americans have to pay Halliburton and Blackwater out of their own pockets, if they have any money left after filling up at the pump (did I mention that that was Exxon Mobil's money, too? Now cough it up.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would you mind paying for that bomb I just dropped on you?
Posted by: rge817 on May 8, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole idea is so infuriating and hasn't received enough scrutiny. It's ridiculous how politicians just latch on to the latest argument without thinking about the morality or the long-term consequences.
Here's a good post that breaks it down and also shows how Iraq doesn't actually have this so-called "surplus."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

** IRAQ ** should pay? what?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 9, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ah... the point of war reparations is that the aggressor pays for the damage.

I love how the US is trying to wriggle out of it.

... typical... My, how the worst possible expectations seem to be too high a bar to reach...

"we're not to blame for anything"

So you wanna just move on to Iran, too?

"Bomb Iraq into the Stone Age... " then "NEXT!"

War reparation$ have been $TUDIOUSLY ignored by even tho$e group$ demanding the U$ leave Iraq.

why? you tell me.

I'm dying to know how Americans could even pretend to justify how Iraq should pull itself up by its bootstraps (pssst: go stand over THERE , grab your socks & LIFT... when you're a few cm off the ground, drop us a note to let us know how well that worked)

War reparations efforts from the US to Japan **was good for everyone**... asking Iraqis to pay for their own destruction, then asking them to pay for their 'Americanized' reparations...

well, that is just the icing on the cake, isn't it?

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Head banging fist thumping ROFL!
Posted by: Paxmana1 on May 9, 2008 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zionist fingers everywhere .. whatever next?

Let us not forget that America is also responsible for the Palestinian Genocide .. they fund that as well .. stand by .. the Palestinians must fund their own genocide .. justice must be done.

All those in favour say "Aye"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]