1:52AM
Column 117
Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 1:52AM Helping Iraq cut economic deals with others
With American combat troops now slated to depart Iraq by 2011, our intervention moves into its final phase, with the crucial goal being the expansion of economic opportunity for ordinary citizens. Our--and Iraq's--success here will determine the likelihood of our military's return down the road under less favorable circumstances.
Much is made of Iraq's seeming unwillingness to spend its oil profits on infrastructure, the assumption being that Baghdad is milking American taxpayers. Let me offer another explanation: Iraq lacks sufficient "counterparty" capacity to negotiate, conclude, and manage the necessary deals with the outside world.
Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.
Reader Comments (7)
In this regard, it appears as a most excellent and most important prize -- to be won by either of the opposing sides.
Formulas/techniques that achieve, henceforth, a magnificent success in Iraq might well preclude the need for military action in other Gap regions in the future.
If a magnificant success is achieved, other Gap nations might be moved to volunteer for -- rather than resist -- a quick, efficient and successful modernization process.
It's nice to be a bit player in your own story--a fundamental reality of grand strategy and strategists. The only way it works is if thousands of people come to the same conclusion--best on their own.
(2)I don't know enough about Buffet to understand that comment, but it's intriguing to hear. Please explain.
(3)Bill, Of course it did. Were you under any other illusion? I would say that was the essence of their buy-in--such as it was. The Gulf's oil goes overwhelmingly to the East (over 50% now to Asia alone and we expect that to climb a lot in coming years). That was the MINIMUM success. More maximal is the example/demonstration success, which I maintain comes more naturally with markets first, then real pluralism later.
Not sure if you caught this WaPo article on the $3 bil Chinese oil deal with sovereign Iraq--the first foreign country to do so. (Here.)
They did have a deal under Ba'athist Iraq as well, so they were bolder than your average corporation. (A large, powerful state can, of course, go to bat against a Gap country in a way that most corporations can't.)
I presume that Enterra is in the business of building this kind of counterparty capacity in Iraq. Any possibility that you would be able to blog about this new and growing corporate sector?
You hint at the domestic nature of building this kind of capability, but it is unclear what role, for example, culture plays compared to expertise in the development of human capital (the former must be self-learned, the latter can be imported).
The next problem flowed from the first mistake. The bureaucrat minds used the right words, but just translated their big war, big organization thinking.
The next problem was using top down Washington oriented type thinking from technology through people things in field operations. What is usually needed is a bottoms up approach in which we start by learning what the local folks think, value and trust and then help them transform, with some nudging, towards a more effective operation that is better than their old one and suitable to them.
The JFK era SysAdmin worker bears understood this situation, but the bureaucrat type leaders and staffs did not understand or value the worker bears insights. First they continuously shouted Are We There Yet? Then they brushed the worker bears aside for the Shock & Awe methods of that time. We know how that solution worked.