|
Obviously it's time for the Iraqis to fork over the money. The war was about oil, therefore according to Bush's Plan (TM) that money is ours anyway.
Seriously, this type of complaint strikes me as hilarious on a certain level. A certain number of people (this Times editorial is safely anonymous) will decry the avaricious nature of the war and at the same time expect the folks they consider the victims to foot the tab.
What I do not expect to see is any acknowledgment from the ideological left that Iraq possessing excess millions of oil revenue serves as at least some indication that Iraq was not invaded so that the U.S. could seize Iraqi oil.
The Iraqis get the oil. The Iraqis sell it at market price. The Iraqis get the money from the sale of the oil.
The Times cries foul:
The opposite's true.
Iraq is slow to spend its oil profits because the government has not yet agree to a plan for sharing oil revenue. Doesn't even the casual observer of events in Iraq realize that? The government is doing the only responsible thing it can do at present: Avoid blowing the cash until they can do so fairly and effectively.
It will likely take time to Iraq's many political factions to hammer out a revenue sharing plan. And even then corruption is likely to color the process.
But as for the United States and expenditures in Iraq there are more important thing to worry about than pressuring the Iraqi government to spend on infrastructure. Things like pressuring the Iraqi government to arrive at a revenue sharing plan (imagine that!) and making sure that the nation is strong enough to provide for its own security.
I find it frankly shameful that the Times can omit such concerns from its editorial.
Seriously, this type of complaint strikes me as hilarious on a certain level. A certain number of people (this Times editorial is safely anonymous) will decry the avaricious nature of the war and at the same time expect the folks they consider the victims to foot the tab.
What I do not expect to see is any acknowledgment from the ideological left that Iraq possessing excess millions of oil revenue serves as at least some indication that Iraq was not invaded so that the U.S. could seize Iraqi oil.
The Iraqis get the oil. The Iraqis sell it at market price. The Iraqis get the money from the sale of the oil.
The Times cries foul:
There is no good answer to that question beyond the fact that we're getting rooked.Perhaps not in the eyes of underinformed Times editors, anyway. Iraqis, Times editors apparently believe, live in an idyllic world free of government partisanship as well as free of the risk of corruption.
The opposite's true.
Iraq is slow to spend its oil profits because the government has not yet agree to a plan for sharing oil revenue. Doesn't even the casual observer of events in Iraq realize that? The government is doing the only responsible thing it can do at present: Avoid blowing the cash until they can do so fairly and effectively.
It will likely take time to Iraq's many political factions to hammer out a revenue sharing plan. And even then corruption is likely to color the process.
But as for the United States and expenditures in Iraq there are more important thing to worry about than pressuring the Iraqi government to spend on infrastructure. Things like pressuring the Iraqi government to arrive at a revenue sharing plan (imagine that!) and making sure that the nation is strong enough to provide for its own security.
I find it frankly shameful that the Times can omit such concerns from its editorial.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.