Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Basra Security still Fragile;
Offensive Planned in Diyala;
Will Petrodollars Resolve Iraq Crisis?


Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Iraqi government is about to send troops into Diyala in an attempt to tamp down violence and combat local militias there, just as was done in Basra, Maysan and Mosul. I have begun to wonder whether the secret of these campaigns is not so much the show of military force as the behind-the-scene bribes given by the government to insurgents to go find another line of work. It still boggles my mind that Mosul could be taken without a shot (though it has suffered from terrorism strikes in the aftermath.

The periodic waves of euphoria that wash over the political class and some of the media in Washington cause serious security risks in Iraq to be forgotten. Al-Maliki sent some troops to Basra? OK, Basra is fine, we can forget about it. In fact, the situation there, while improved, is far from stable or assured. I suspect trying to do more to ensure that this key province does not go south (it is the source of most of Iraq's petroleum wealth and the site of two major ports, without which Iraq would be landlocked) is one reason PM Gordon Brown has decided not to pull out of Iraq, and, indeed, to send a few more troops there to train Iraqi soldiers.

Finance Minister Bayan Jabr Sulagh argues that Iraq's newfound windfall from greatly increased petroleum revenues can help the country grow its way out of crisis. I hope so, but a word of caution is in order. Iran and Algeria are also oil states, and one had a revolution and the other a sanguinary civil war. It isn't that you have petroleum income. It is how exactly you deploy it.

Alexandra Davis points out that Iraq's election law is still incomplete, casting doubt about whether provincial elections will be held this fall. Not only that, but cabinet-level decisions such as whether to allow the display of photos of religious personages in connection with political campaigns will now be review and possibly changed by the parliament.

Zavis also reports that Baghdad is putting in solar-powered street lamps. It is hoped that they will reduce crime and violence. The regular electricity grid is unreliable. By the way, the LAT quotes a general suggesting that solar electricity generation is six or seven times as expensive as with fossil fuels. Isn't that estimate out of date? I thought it was down to only three times. Engineers, please weigh in.

Baghdad joins my own city of Ann Arbor in this project of solarized street lamps.

"At least 16 Iraqis were killed and 20 more were wounded in the latest round of violence. One U.S. soldier died from a non-combat related incident as well," according to antiwar.com. Worth thinking about are these items:


' In Baquba, an IED wounded three members of the local Awakening Council. . .

Peaceful marchers in Hawija demanded that Kirkuk's provincial elections take place on schedule. . . [To interpret this item we have to know if they were Kurds, who are trying to take over the province and incorporate it into the Kurdistan Regional Government.]

Fallujah is under a curfew following yesterday's pair of bomb blasts targeting local officials. . .

Two high-ranking army officers were kidnapped in Kirkuk. . .

Labels:

7 Comments:

At 3:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Solar power for street-lighting is small-scale so the cost is not that important.

Solar power for grid electricity is the opposite: cost is everything. But we are comparing apples and oranges here since solar does not need fuel, but high capital investment.

The German have made extensive studies, see for example:

http://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2885/4422_read-6588/

They estimate that solar's capital cost will drop from $5.50 per watt in 2000 to $2.83 in 2010. Gas costs $0.45 but it is on 24/7. If solar produce on average 30% of peak (very optimistic) then we have nearly $10/W vs $0.45 for gas. Then there is the additional cost in electricity storge for solar (unless it is only needed at peak solar radiation.) So we are talking about an enormous difference.

The fuel cost for gas is not fixed and depends on the market. We also need to define the life-spans of the capital investment, and the cost of borrowing, to make a good comparison.

 
At 6:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Imagine if a US candidate had been depicted(in the New Yorker cover) as an Orthodox Jewish settler with an Uzi machine gun in the West Bank, the hue and cry that would ensue." That's an excellent observation Professor Cole.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

There are big differences between what Algerians and Iranians can spend their oil wealth on, the latter being unjustly subjected to an economic war of Sanctions. The Iraqis are also hobbled in a different, yet similar manner.

Meaanwhile, the Metropole's financial house of cards is wobbling precipitously, and its further collapsing will handcuff the next elected Emperor into an either/or decision about the US Overseas Empire versus the Continental as its Overseas expansionism directly treatens the solvency of the Metropole. Imagine the DOW being close to 8,000 by November and the domestic events that would take it there and you get a good idea of the stakes involved with the either/or question. What we are witnessing is the Classic Collapse of an Empire as depicted by Kennedy in real time. What is lacking are the frantic howls from the Imperialists for measures to shore-up the Empire's failing finances--the very basis for its being--and thus re-invigorate its strength. Their muteness on this very fundamental issue reveals the utter bankruptcy of their program and its ideology--they are drowning themselves in Grover Norquist's bathtub.

 
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Bruce Sims said...

Here is the primary reason why more American's are thinking 'the war can be won' and why "The periodic waves of euphoria that wash over the political class and some of the media in Washington cause serious security risks in Iraq to be forgotten."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/14/embedded_photojournalist_accuses_us_military_of

"So, with the power to disembed journalists this easily, it basically gives the Department of Defense free rein over the information that comes out of Iraq."

 
At 2:44 PM, Anonymous ivorybill said...

Regarding Hawija,

Peaceful marchers in Hawija demanded that Kirkuk's provincial elections take place on schedule. . . [To interpret this item we have to know if they were Kurds, who are trying to take over the province and incorporate it into the Kurdistan Regional Government.]

Hawijah is completely Arab. It is a town in the southwestern section of Kirkuk. The residents were prominent supporters of the Ba'ath Party, this community is alleged to have sheltered Izat ad-Duri. They are campaigning for provincial elections take place, because they feel that their representation may increase. While Hawijah residents support new provincial elections, they are solidly against holding a referrendum on Kirkuk's future, as such a referrendum would probably result in inclusion of Kirkuk within the Kurdistan Regional Government.

 
At 6:52 PM, Blogger Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

Ann Arbor has the good fortune of buying ordinary solar panels.

The story indicates that the U.S. military, in contrast, is installing bulletproof solar panels in Iraq (a sensible choice given the circumstances). The story indicates that the bulletproof solar street lights cost $6,200 each, while the ordinary ones cost $1,800 to $2,000.

This probably accounts for the increased cost.

 
At 7:45 PM, Anonymous Mark Konrad said...

This is likely the real reason for the W. Bush, Cheney, McCain et al foot-dragging and excuse making on why the Americans won't withdraw troops from Iraq immediately and as rapidly as possible ("The Iraqis are becoming very good soldiers but they're not quite ready to be turned loose on their own yet..."):

Maliki's Balancing Act

15 July 2008

....Stephen Biddle, an adviser to General Petraeus, says that US government officials are buzzing about the possibility of a coup by the army against Maliki. "It's something that's being talked about," said Biddle, an Iraq watcher at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Only the presence of US occupation forces in Iraq is restraining the Iraqi army from getting rid of Maliki, he suggested. "If we were to leave you could easily imagine a situation in which the military as the most effective institution in society decides to take over," Biddle said. "The parliament is the least respected institution in the society."

Full piece Here.

.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home