"Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq

Major Variola (ret) mv at cdc.gov
Fri Apr 11 12:17:17 PDT 2003


(resent)
At 10:51 PM 4/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>>
>> Ok, the Iraqis will work in the 7-11s which serve the yankees.
>> Some Iraqis will do better.  They will inspire others.  They will
>> also be used by psyops to argue for "the american dream" for
>> Iraqis.  And although exploited by psyops, I think all humans
>> want to improve their circumstance.
>
>You're arguing for what you would like to see, whereas what I'm talking

>about is that there is unlikely to be any surge in employment in this
>hand-out nation.

Not what I'd like to see; what the US will encourage.  The US
(or its puppets) will use .iq's oil money to pay for .iq reconstruction
jobs,
and then steady-state jobs.  To think otherwise is to ignore the
motivations and means of the USG.

>There simply is no prospect that significantly more than the small
>fraction of Iraqis who now service the oil industry will be employed.
>Doubling oil production, which is essentially impossible, would only
>double a small number...or not quite double, as newer facilities will
>be even more automated.

So use oil money to create agricultural projects which use lots
of labor.  Iraq has water.  (When we take Saudi Arabia we
can build desalination plants..)

I'm saying that if the problems you describe arise, the USG
will try to reduce them, for the USG's benefit.  I don't see
how you can ignore the 800 lb gorilla with the A-10 backup.
I don't see how observing this makes me socialist.  Analyst,
maybe, socialist, no.


>Meanwhile, most of the nation's 20,000,000 will continue to rely on
>handouts.
>I said that no major ghetto/slum area, whether Calcutta or
>South-Central LA or Baghdad has ever, in memory, gone to nearly full
>employment. I'm a libertarian, not a do-gooder:

So am I.  But I recognize the existance of non-libertarian agents
like the USG and their ability to use resources (oil) for social
placation.  Social placation which favors USG interests.

Shit, a lot of Americans will admit (if pressed) that USG domestic
welfare
is to prevent the South Centrals from rioting.  And Iraq is not even
burdened with those US pathologies or the US constitution.

>> Yes, the US could keep the Iraqis poor.  But its not in the USG
>> interest.  The USG wants MTV in every Arab home. (Albeit this will
>> piss off the Islamo Fundies, but they're
>> already majorly pissed.)
>
>You're showing your statist/idealist roots. It's not a matter of "the
>US could keep the Iraqis poor." No more so than the U.S. is keeping the

>South-Central LA negroes poor, or the Calcutta natives poor.

You grossly misunderstand.  The US now owns Iraq.  The US can
physically keep Iraqis poor if it wishes ---put them all in internment
camps, feed them a meal at a time.  (How is this statism?  Its a
statement
of brutal fact, a consequence of who has the biggest guns.)

The US can also give them all satellite TVs & trust funds if it wishes,
using either your taxes or Iraq's oil sales money.

Now my claim is that 1. the USG interest is in Americizing Iraq, and
that
2. (having the guns) they will do so, whether the Iraqis want it or not.

My claim is also that the oil is easier to spend than US tax dollars
in the long run.  I have yet to see you refute any of these.  I also
fail
to see how this makes me statist.  *Recognizing* state actions doesn't
mean I endorse them.

I suppose I'm also making a claim that the entire population there isn't

permenantly, chronically South Central LA, i.e., that the US
manipulation
will work to some extent.

>I suppose the U.S. could order Iraqi National Oil to hire tens of
>thousands of people to polish the pipes, wipe down the derricks, spoon
>up the spilled oil, and other make-work jobs. Still a drop in the
>bucket.
>
>Basically, Iraq went through a standard Turd World birth boom, doubling

>its population and then doubling it again in just a couple of
>generations. Look at the statistics on how many Iraqis are under 15.

Yep.  But you realize that the high-youth populations of various arab
nations are succeptible to Americanization, and that the USG
knows this, right?  And will exploit this for the USG's ends.

>They dispersed handouts to the breeders, who now number 20 million,
>crowded into several major cities and a dozen smaller cities.

You are also aware of how, after a population gets Americanized, they
start using birth control?  Chicks wanting college, more money per
family
member the fewer there are, no need for agricultural labor.  [Alas
world-Americanization is happening too slowly and the population bomb is

slowly detonating]

>Modern refineries cannot afford to have people running around with
>wrenches and screwdrivers, tweaking and reading gauges. The plants
>either run with few people or they are doomed.

Ok.  Perhaps I am wrong about the number of pipe-polishers and
folks employed in satellite industries (incl. the Iraqis who repair
Halliburton Mercedez).
Then the USG will create labor-consuming 'reconstruction' projects then.

Using your or Iraqi resources,  it doesn't much matter if its not an
election year.

I'm stating future history, not what I personally want, Tim.  I think
I've stated clearly enough that this the USG acting (without serious
opposition)
in pure USG interest.

>Finally, for now, a friend of mine for the past 28 years is the son of
>a former Chevron head of research and development (at the Bay Area
>refineries...also lightly staffed). This V.P., Dr. John Scott, told me
>many years ago just how few people it takes to run the crackers and
>distillation towers.

Ok, then only a few Texans will be over there.  Smaller exposure.
Fewer targets.  Still, the USG will create native jobs out of USG
interests.

>It's good for Iraq that they have oil. Having oil is always better than

>not having oil. But any notion that any expansion of the oil business
>is going to magically employ millions of Iraqis who are not now
>employed is silly. Do the math.

Every arabian kingdom with oil has little but oil money.  That the
monarchs of the region use it for welfare (and thus their own
security) is no different from the USGs plan.

Only folks it doesn't work on are the Fundies, as the Shah (et al)
found out.

>> the US imposed 'interim' govt will tax this to
>> fund things (like jobs, or even sinecures) that win favor. Why?
>> Because the govt worries more about Iraqi/Arab backlash more
>> than Halliburton's profits.   For a while, anyway.
>
>Silliness. Prices are set by markets.  No one is claiming that
>Halliburton will get the bulk of the oil profits. But Halliburton will
>not do its thing (drilling services, extinguishing fires, etc.) except
>at prices they find acceptable.

Of course, a company is rational, xor extinct.  What I mean is,
the new USIRAQ will "own" the oil, much like the Saudi
kings do.  They may let others pump it, refine it, move it
(all those parties making a profit), but USIRAQ will
use its take for Americanization.

>You seem to have some kind of fantasy going on about Iraq's oil economy

>somehow giving jobs to millions of Iraqis who have no skills, no work
>experience. Optimism has blinded you. Do the math.

Not optimism, mere modelling of agents and their means
and motivations.

>>  If you liquidate the towelhead kings
>> of the region, you might find a lot of distributable wealth
>> (I'm not a socialist, neither am I an admirer of monarchy.)
>> which the US conquerers would distribute.  A great way
>> to curry favor with the populace.  Libertarian ideals don't
>> prescribe a way to distribute land-based wealth in the region,
>> though I'd love to be corrected.
>>
>
>"Redistributing the oil wealth" will not do anything except lead to a
>further doubling and tripling of the population.  The moral hazard of
>handing out free stuff is itself enough to derail real markets.

But it won't be *free*, the Iraqis will have to work for
the dinars with George's face on them.
A sinecure counts as work, geopolitically, as long as
the oil is there to pay for it.  (And the bricklayers and
fibre-laying crews will be busy with real work at first.)
For psyops-dignity control the jobs can't be *too* fake.
Do not import street-sweeping machines if you need
to employ lots of street-sweepers.

A doubling takes more than a decade.  You can do a lot
of social manipulation in that time.  Free birth control at
the oil-paid-for clinics.  TV time for agreeable clerics,
jail for disagreeable ones.

Odd to see you underestimate the capabililties of a
blood & oil crazed US unencumbered by even shreds
of a bill of rights.

...
...our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid

possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force,
often seems less reasonable to others than to us." -- Winston Churchill,

January 1914





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list