Iraq's Cost of Occupation

Oil, Oil and Oil. May the US Economy flourish. :slight_smile:

Plan: Tap Iraq’s Oil

U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says :eek:

Washington – Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq’s oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war,” according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it’s all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].” :wave:

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice Department has doubts,” he said. He said department lawyers are unsure "whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in trust for the people of Iraq.”

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq’s oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.

Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal policy discussions.”

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real … objective of the war is not the democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism,” he said. "That is how they [Mideast nations] would perceive it.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an occupation could last 1-1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the world only to Saudi Arabia’s. But how much revenue could be generated is an open question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8 million a day, with 80 percent of the revenues going for the United Nations Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption. The remaining 20 percent, worth about $3 billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling and much of it goes to support Saddam Hussein’s military. In theory that is the money that could be used for reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more. By some estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore Iraq’s oil industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in 1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow. And, of course, it is impossible to predict the price of oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference in November on the economic consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference participants deliberately avoided the question of whether Iraq should help pay occupation or other costs.

"It’s a very politically sensitive issue,” he said. "… We’re in a situation where we’re going to be very sensitive to how our actions are perceived in the Arab world.”

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq’s oil could defer some of the occupation costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could increase [oil production] and how long it would take to reinvest in the infrastructure and reinvest in additional oil.”

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S. Special Forces in the global war against terrorism, among other issues. Part of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source who helped prepare the report. He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.” :eek: He said the briefing was delivered to the office of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense and one of the administration’s strongest advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center’s director of budget studies, said he could not remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it would only have been "a passing reference to something we did.”

Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a spokesman, said, "We don’t have any official comment on that.”

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing.”

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. "It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,” he said. **"… They’re not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq’s purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don’t think they’re planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.” **

What should be debated is the human tragedy that millions of Iraqis will face from another futile war instigated by the power hungry and corrupt Bush Administration. Analysts predict the initial casualties will be over 500,000 Iraqi lives.. and here the Bush administration hawks are already discussing ways of paying for the cost of their unjustified and illegal war using Iraqi oil.. :nook:

The best sollution for all concerned would be for Hussein to take his family and leave the Iraqi people in peace,then no one needs to die.

The best solution is for Mr.Bush to stop his personal ambition to overthrow Sadam and take over Iraq Oil PLC, which would do wonders for the US economy.. :nook:. He should instead work for a peaceful settlement of all issues as demanded by the world community.. the Iraqi people have suffered enough from two futile wars and the most draconian sanctions regime imposed anywhere in the world. The Iraqi people deserve peace not further death and destruction.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
The best sollution for all concerned would be for Hussein to take his family and leave the Iraqi people in peace,then no one needs to die.
[/QUOTE]

Oh my so much love for Iraqi camel jokeys ppl but no concern for N. Koreans.....

both saddam hussein and george bush are wrong. they are putting their personal bullheadedness ahead of interests of the people in both countries. I used to think that bush was just a fool who had the heart in the right place but if something like this (taking iraqi oil as spoils of war or even to compensate for war expense) I will be very ashamed to have thought bush is any different from saddam hussein.

enough is enough bush. sack the oil lobby and the defense contract lobbies that you call your cabinet and get some real statesmen to give you some proper advise.

Heres more about the Humanitarian Disaster that would be unleashed by the war mongers upon the beleaguered Iraqi people.. :nook:

U.N. Sees 500,000 Iraqi Casualties at Start of War](http://www.globalissues.net/article/252) Reuters (Global Issues) 08 Jan 03

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - **As many as half a million Iraqis could require medical treatment as a result of serious injuries suffered in the early stages of a war on Iraq, U.N. emergency planners said in a document disclosed Tuesday. The total includes some 100,000 expected to be injured as a direct result of combat and a further 400,000 wounded as an indirect result of the devastation, according to estimates prepared by the World Health Organization, the document said. **

The confidential U.N. assessment was drafted a month ago but an edited version was posted Tuesday on the Web site of a British group opposed to sanctions on Iraq (Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI))

U.N. officials confirmed the authenticity of the document, which assumes that unlike the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), a new war in Iraq would develop beyond an initial aerial bombardment into a large scale and protracted ground offensive. “The resultant devastation would undoubtedly be great,” the U.N. planners concluded. The estimates were based on material from several different U.N. organizations.

The U.N. staff has been quietly planning for months how to cope with the humanitarian fallout from a conflict in Iraq. But the process has been kept largely under wraps for fear it might be interpreted as a sign the world body had concluded the weapons inspections now under way would fail to avert war.

The confidential assessment assumes that Iraqi oil production would be shut down and the Iraqi electricity network, railway and road transportation systems would be significantly damaged. U.N. officials had previously disclosed that as many as 4.5 million to 9.5 million of Iraq’s 26.5 million people could quickly need outside food to survive once an attack began.

HUGE HOMELESS PROBLEM

War would also produce a huge refugee problem, driving some 900,000 Iraqis into neighboring countries, with about 100,000 of those requiring immediate assistance as soon as they arrived, according to the U.N. estimate. Another 2 million could be driven from their homes but remain inside Iraq, where access by relief agencies would be a particular problem due to the fighting, the planners say.

The U.N. arms inspections resumed last month, after a four-year hiatus, under a U.N. Security Council resolution giving Baghdad a final chance to eliminate any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or face “serious consequences.” Chief arms inspector Hans Blix is due to provide an interim report to the Security Council on his findings Thursday. His first in-depth report is set for Jan. 27.

President Bush (news - web sites), who favors a “regime change” in Baghdad, has threatened to disarm Iraq through force if it fails to act on its own, although Washington says no decision has been made to go to war. According to the assessment, Iraq can be expected to have four months’ supply of basic medical supplies on hand at the start of a conflict. However, some key supplies would still likely be in short supply or nonexistent, it said.

**Children under 5, pregnant women and mothers who are breast-feeding their infants “will be particularly vulnerable because of the likely absence of a functioning primary health care system in a post-conflict situation,” it said.

“Furthermore, the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely,” it said. “Diseases such as cholera and dysentery thrive in the environment … When determining the requirement for pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, these factors must be considered.” **