16th April 2003

Postwar Objectives in Iraq

by Erich Marquardt -- Source: www.pinr.com

With the fall of Saddam Hussein from power, the United States government is busy preparing for its postwar occupation. Current plans call for putting U.S. officials in charge of Iraq under the name of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq led by former U.S. general Jay Garner. Their stated objectives are immense, and, until they have been achieved, Washington will be forced to keep its occupation in place.

Once in command, the U.S. government will work to stabilize Iraq and prevent the failures so evident in Afghanistan, where regional warlords are frequently involved in firefights and larger battles throughout the country. There are already reports coming out of Iraq indicating that new militia groups are arising, hoping to gain the favor of the U.S. and achieve power in the unstable environment there. In order to prevent Iraq from falling into a low intensity civil war -- very possible due to its heterogeneous society -- the U.S. will attempt to eliminate these groups, while working to create a powerful central authority located in Baghdad.

Washington will also work to keep Iraq's oil spigots flowing, evidenced by the speed with which coalition forces secured many key oil fields in the opening days of the war. The U.S. will want to use profits from Iraq's oil exports to rebuild the country, in addition to keeping the global price of oil from rising. The Economist stated on April 08 that the "faster Iraqi oil production comes back on stream, the sooner will be its impact on the world economy."

Once Iraq's oil production has been stabilized, the U.S. government will then work to increase Iraq's oil output by upgrading Iraq's dilapidated oil infrastructure. While before the Gulf War Iraq was exporting 3.5 million barrels per day, it is now predicted that Iraq may be able to produce as much as 5 million bpd with the right U.S. assistance. With any increase in the amount of oil on the market, energy blocs like OPEC will have a harder time controlling the price of oil. Moreover, it is doubtful that a new Iraqi government, which will be very dependent on Washington, would stray too far from a policy sensitive to U.S. interests, thus allowing the U.S. further control over the amount of oil flowing to the world supply.

Indeed, Larry Lindsey, former top economic adviser to President Bush, stated last fall: "When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

In recent days, the Economist has taken the same approach, writing that, "In the short term . cheaper oil would be beneficial for the world economy. At a time when recovery is at best sluggish, anything that helps boost demand would be welcome."

But the process of greatly increasing Iraq's oil supply will take time, with energy analysts predicting between 5 to 10 years before Iraq is capable of reaching the output numbers mentioned by Lindsey. During this time period, it can be expected that the U.S. will play an important role in Iraq, either directly or, if a suitable government takes control, indirectly.

In addition to the important oil concerns, the U.S. may also use Iraq as a strategic base for the continuation of its policy of power politics, brought into the fore with the election of the Bush administration. Administration officials have come out openly criticizing the governments of both Syria and Iran, two states that border Iraq.

Syria will be less inclined to take positions counter to U.S. interests as a result of U.S. troops amassed on its border, along with a major U.S. ally, Israel, to its south. Syria will also lose negotiating power in terms of the Golan Heights, which have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. Part of U.S. policy in the region will be to assist its ally of which many U.S. government officials -- from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith -- have been outspoken proponents.

The U.S. will also be able to apply significant pressure to Iran's government in Tehran. The U.S. currently has military forces on Iran's eastern border in Afghanistan, but now Iran will face U.S. forces to its west, too, in newly occupied Iraq. The U.S. will exert pressure to keep Iran docile in terms of its ongoing threats against Israel, along with weakening Iran's ability to control global oil prices, as previously outlined.

If U.S. plans go ahead as scheduled, these tactics will go into effect. The U.S. will be able to become a significant force in the Middle East, adding to its plethora of bases in the region, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Qatar. It will also lessen the chances of any one state that houses U.S. bases to prevent U.S. foreign policy; this danger to U.S. policy was made evident in both Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's refusal to directly support U.S. desires to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

Finally, there is the possibility that a more radical shift in U.S. policy will occur. Certain members of the U.S. administration, often labeled the "neo-conservatives," mostly from among the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, have expressed their desire to actually "reshape" the Middle East. This would entail removing the governments of autocratic Middle Eastern states such as Syria and Iran, and even the governments of U.S. allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The State Department, along with much of the administration, has reacted coldly to such drastic policies and it is unlikely such a policy would be completely put into effect. Although a recent poll mentioned in Reuters on April 09 showed that "half of the United States population supports U.S. military action against Iran if it continues to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria if it were helping Iraq." Such polls would seem to indicate that, with the right set of evidence, it is quite possible that such attempts at "reshaping" could very well take place.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com