The Associated Press is reporting that Iraq's financial free ride may be over. Both sides of the aisle are looking looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up more of the tab, particularly for rebuilding buildings and infrastructure.
"I think the American people are growing weary not only of the war, but they are looking at why Baghdad can't pay more of these costs. And the answer is they can," said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
What do you think? Phil Fullerton of Fresno, a retired lawyer, makes the case that Iraq absolutely should pay its own way. He sent me his thoughts in an e-mail last week:
The United States should be assessing Iraq and the Sunni Arab lands at least a part of the costs of the current and future occupation and for the prior war. To not do so is fiscal irresponsibility.Recent press coverage has indicated that Iraq is amassing a huge surplus from its oil revenue, coupled with the inability to spend it due to the violence. Meanwhile, the companion coverage tells of huge US cost, including a recent book by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz indicating the cost could go to trillions of dollars. So why shouldn’t some of this Iraqi surplus be used to pay for the US protection?
Likewise, the Sunni Arab lands like Saudi Arabia and the Arab Emirates are amassing huge profits behind our military shield.
The assessment of moneys by one dominant power upon another subordinate land has an ancient history. Athens in the Fourth Century BC and four centuries later Rome charged its satellites for the cost of its military protection. (“Give onto Caesar,” etc.) And the whole British and French colonial systems were designed to bring proceeds to the powerful central nation.
If this is offensive, as many would find it, belying our protestations of altruistic motives, then there are many examples of nations paying financially where there was not such a dominant relationship. In World War I we charged nations for our help and they incurred debt to pay for it, although admittedly, only Finland paid its debt. During World War II we called help to Britain “Lend-Lease” at least implying that there would be a return of the items or their payment. And the first Gulf War where Kuwait was liberated from Saddam was almost totally paid for by the Arab lands.Of course, there are odious examples as well: the reparations charged to Germany after World War I are often blamed for World War II. Or the stripping of German factories after World War II by the occupying Russian forces left bitterness in the defeated land.
The charge to Iraq could be twofold. While our troops were there, it could be as much as 50% of their oil revenue. After all, we are basically providing most of the protection and many services to the land as well. And, if and when we leave, then the payment could be reduced to a modest royalty to extend over many decades.
Iraq is not a nation stricken by poverty but a land with rich resources which are now being harvested for their benefit (and some say for the individual benefit of its leaders).
Of course, Iraq is a democracy and they would have to vote to approve such a payment. However, they should be told that they must pay, or we would depart. People like John Murtha, Congressman from Michigan, have argued that we should threaten to withdraw to clear the heads of the leaders of Iraq and to force them to their long-delayed reconciliation. By demanding payment, we would achieve the same head-clearing experience without withdrawing.
In the possible event that they refuse, we would have a clear answer to our remaining there: a refusal on their part to pay would indicate a total lack of support for our troops and would justify a withdrawal based on their wishes. And such payment would also hasten their wish for us to leave, something to be devoutly wished.
Of course, there is the argument that this is a war of choice based on totally false intelligence and therefore not their fault, a weighty argument. However, we are there. And the current government has only attained power due to our invasion, and is a democracy replacing the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The reality of the situation therefore indicates that we are benefitting this regime, and most claim are necessary for the stability of the land.
There is a false feeling among Americans that our wealth and power are limitless. In reality, we cannot afford all that we are doing and are incurring huge dual deficits: our national budget and a trade deficit. It is this feeling of grandiose power that I think has kept us from demanding payment. Sort of like an aging impoverished Godfather arrogantly demanding the dinner check. We should not be too proud to ask for financial assistance.
It is time for the US, instead of imperiously acting as if we could afford all of this Middle East warfare, to humbly take hat in hand and to search for money and financial benefit to help with our disintegrating national and trade deficits.Indeed, in the same spirit, one can argue that we are damming a Shiite flood eminating in Iraq, Iran, and Syria from overflowing and destroying the Sunni oil producing nations, like Saudi Arabia and the Arab Emirates, and that they should be contributing too. They are harvesting huge oil profits and should surely contribute for their protection, as in the first Gulf War.
I would agree with Mr. Fullerton's analysis as far as requiring Iraq to pay at least a portion of the costs of this continuing occupation (it hasn't been a "war" for some time now). If we do, however, we should give up our misguided insistence that they privatize their oil industry (and allow much of the profit to flow to non-Iraqi corporations).
I don't think his argument about getting "Sunni Arab lands" to pay will fly, though. He argues that we are "damming the Shia tide" from overflowing their lands. But Saddam was doing a fine job of doing precisely that before we intervened. So where is the argument for making them pay?
They should absolutely pay for a large portion of rebuilding their infrastrusture as they have done much of the damage themselves and continue to do damage daily because of the insurgents. There is a price for democracy. We have had to pay for the attacks in our country.
This is insult to injury Phil, you dont seem to have a clear vision of the reality in Mesopotamia. You didn't for example mention the 5 million Iraquis who fled the chaos, (not of their making), only to be told by the U.N. not to return, because the camps they're staying in, have better infrastructure than the country they left. I'm sorry, but when speak of "fiscal responsibility" it sounds very, very cold-blooded. You perhaps need to know that Iraq is the only country in the world that doesn't meter it's oil lines, at any point, ... they figure it out only at the end of it's journey, by measuring how many inches the tankers sink after being loaded in the Gulf, it's a system that is fife w/ corruption and theft but oddly, doesn't get any complaints from exxon/molil or texaco or haliburton or the occupation forces , or our state department...hmmm also Phil, if You look at your mutual funds or IRA or ANY investments you'll see that this war is a big player in everybodys portfolio, and so, I see your "fiscal responsibility", and I'll raise you your own "fiscal karma"... bomb them and tax them, because the Romans set the precident? a compelling case for Empire, but aren't we better/differant than that? I'm surprised that you have forgotten Iraq was a democracy before Allied forces, bombed every inch of those poor peoples infrastructure, and, by the pentagon's own admission and with no small amount of glee, went out and did it over and over and over again... Ronnald Reagan used to praise Saddam AND his democracy, it was a democracy with an excellant infrastrure, where many religions co-existed, including orthadox catholics, but sometimes democracies have tyrants too. Theirs was provided by the U.S. and Britain, ... Saddam may have swiped an election or two, so, yeah, they had a leader that was less than perfect, and now they have millions of ghosts, maybe you could tax them too, have they not also "benifited by the occupation"?...these may not be "weighty arguments", Phil, but I find your premise ghoulish in the extreme...it made me cry.
Again we as Americans ask the wrong question. The question should be "Why isnt Iraq not paying for its own damages from the war ALREADY?". Where are all of their oil profits going? Why does the US taxpayer (and not the elites and big corporations) still paying for everything? People keep saying "we" are paying for this war as if to say it is all Americans. That is not true as the Americans that own companies like big oil are not paying for anything while we (the middle class) as taxpayers shell out $2 billion every week. They are just getting rich. Our US troops are free security forces for big oil and big oil interests like Haliburton. But again we as common citizens need to ask the RIGHT questions. Yes, where is all the oil and oil profits going that so many brave Americans gave and continue to give their lives going to.
Well put, Terrance.
Maybe when you invade a country on false pretense, “accidentally” kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, cause 20% to 25% of its citizens to flee, destroy all infrastructure, maybe, just maybe, you should pay for it (for repentance if nothing else). Then get the hell out.
Sounds like all you stooges have personally visited the area and have first hand knowledge of every possible aspect of this action.Right? Sounds like you might want to flee to Mexico or Canada.Sounds like another methane release.
...a methane surge?