Colonial Domination
By Hakim Joe
I have written about how the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will create a strategic void that could prove detrimental to the security of the Iraqi people there as this vacuum can only but create a raging battleground for the many warlords and political factions vying for eventual control of a country.
So, who is going to be victorious in this war of attrition between the many different blocs and the US-sponsored Iraqi government? The answer is very simple. It is the group that US backs that will eventually become the “real” Iraqi government, and not anytime soon.
Even though the US military and its war machinery are packing up and slowly leaving the country, a lot of personnel are being intentionally left behind. In a speech at the Cairo University, President Obama pledged to withdraw all military forces from Iraq by 2011. What he failed to mention was that these combat personnel are being relabeled as trainers and advisors. Technically, what Obama said is true as these people will not be uniformed, hence they do not constitute as being military. Most of the sophisticated hardware will be moved back to the States but a majority of them will be “transferred” to the Iraqi Army (under US control) and some will be stationed in neighboring countries. Another one of the US resolution is the withdrawal of all US troops from the Iraqi cities by June 30th. Technically, this has also been achieved. Case in point: Camp Victory which houses almost 20,000 American soldiers, which is about 15 minutes drive away from the center of Baghdad will stay put as the city boundaries have been redrawn to exclude this part of town from being inside Baghdad.
Why the camouflage and disinformation thenceforth? Just ask yourself one pertinent question. What does Iraq has that US needs (this is a no-brainer question)? Oil, Black Gold, Petroleum. Iraq currently produces almost 2.4 million barrels of it daily with a potential of tripling it once all its oil fields come online (as compared to Petronas’s 750K barrels a day). And what does the US need to do in order to get it without overtly showing so? Support the group that’s pro-US and keep them in power while continuing to wield influence over them (without being seen to doing so). Not a straightforward and easy assignment to accomplish but it isn’t everyday that such windfall presents itself. It is akin to the US doubling their oil production (USA produces almost 7.5 million barrels a day but requires 21 million barrels a day) instantly. Iraq has undoubtedly, without their consent, become a US client state.
On the 30th of June General Raymond T. Odierno of the US Occupation Forces in Iraq said that Iraq will become “a long-term partner with the United States in the Middle East.” And to cement such thoughts, the US had built a US$740 million (RM2.6 billion) embassy in Baghdad, the largest US embassy in the world which is capable of tenanting over 1,000 occupants within its compound. Their one and only task is to ascertain that the US trainers and advisors continue to remain significantly embedded in Iraq’s political, economy and military structure. (BTW, the KLCC cost about US$700 million to build.)
Along with the largest embassy, the US has also built another enormous building which is used as its administrative HQ for the governing of the locals. Other structures include water purification plants, communication centers and a few electricity generating plants, all for internal use only. By the way, the Americans import all their food and create their own transportation system whereby roads are “repossessed” exclusively for US and UN use only. Additionally, all US personnel affiliated with the reconstruction of Iraq are automatically bestowed diplomatic status meaning they enjoy immunity from local laws and are only subjected to US laws. Because of this, even the FBI has formally set up shop in Baghdad.
What all this points to is that Iraq is slowly and surely being “colonized” by the United States of America. Don’t believe me? Let us look at what traditional colonialism characterize and judge whether it applies here. Ultimate decision making? Yes, the US as the occupying force makes the real decisions and not the US-sponsored Maliki government. Different sets of conforming laws? Yes, the US personnel are subjected to US laws while the locals are subjected to both US and Iraqi laws. Changing of social, government and legal structure? Yes, the US totally controls the fabric of Iraqi society, from the issuance of permits to settling of disputes. Economic slavery? Yes, even though the Iraqi revenue goes into the Development Fund for Iraq which in turn is set up by the UN and controlled by the UN-sanctioned International Advisory and Monitoring Board, one must understand that this panel of experts is initially fully appointed by the US government. The bank that manages this account is also conveniently located in the US.
Let us look at the downside of things if the US really left the country to its own devices. One, the Iraqi military and civil forces are not projected to be sufficiently strong enough to enforce the pacification of the warlords for another decade. Every military operation by the Iraqi armed forces now (against the warlords) is not only supervised by the US forces, they are fully assisted by the US air support, US artillery and US resupply. Even the transports they use to get to their destinations are US supplied. This is because almost all of the Iraqi hardware was destroyed during the war.
Two, simple policing of its citizens are also fully supported by the US forces. Armed US soldiers accompany Iraqi police on its daily rounds in Baghdad as a “projection of power”. There is also a critical shortage of Iraqis who want to become policemen owing to the fact that being in close vicinity with US forces attracts bullets from all directions.
Three, Iraq is unable to kick start its oil production without US funds and authorization. These are the facilities that were destroyed during the Iraq War. No oil production means no funds to reconstruct Iraq. At present estimation, US$52 billion is required to fully bring all the oil fields online.
Four, amongst the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq is the administration of oil revenues. Working constructively with the US means a higher chance of controlling how and where it is spent and this means that all the political factions need to behave themselves. Zero funding means an ultimate political death.
Five, the elected Iraqi government is presently incapable of safely and successfully governing the country without US aid and support. Remember, Iran is just across the border and there are the different sects involved.
Six, who is going to protect the Kurds from the Shiites? What about the Sunnis and the Shias?
Seven, the oil revenue now being shared between the different groups of people is managed by the US, and until it is formally endorsed by each and every group in Iraq, it cannot be legalized. Without legitimacy, no funds can be distributed and only by force (from US) are such funds now distributed.
Eight, the US forces are the only armed forces within the region that possesses enough clout to stop a civil war inside Iraq from happening. Even the Iraqi security forces admit that such an event is totally beyond their control hence their proposal to delineate Camp Victory from the city boundaries.
Nine, both Turkey and Iran will not readily permit the US-sponsored Iraqi government to establish democracy because it might undermine their types of governance respectively. With a population of 72 million (Turkey) and 66 million (Iran), those currently in power do not want to see democracy successfully implemented in Iraq as this could encourage their own citizens to opt for the same. Without the US forces manning the frontlines, either or both would have charged through the borders.
Ten, there is the Al Qaeda threat to confront as well. With Afghanistan out of commission and Pakistan almost following suit, Iraq might look like a good potential nation to base its operations of international terrorism.
What the US is trying to do is to significantly reduce its military forces in Iraq without reducing its influence. To do this, they need to keep those Iraqi politicians that are supportive of US intervention, in power and to keep those Iraqi politicians that are non-supportive at arms length. This can only be accomplished by a show of military power. Since this is no longer feasible, the other way is to convince the Iraqi lawmakers to change their laws (now) to allow greater foreign control of its natural resources. High on the list is one that deals with “production-sharing” whereby the agreement would grant foreign oil companies effective control over Iraq’s oil fields. Not that it is really a matter of grave concern but the enacting of such laws now would mean less trouble in the foreseeable future. Such documentation is merely administrative as the US must be seen to be impartial and abiding to Iraqi laws but somehow it is not deemed critical because the things the US wants done will be accomplished anyway.
