Archived: Dec 10, 2007

> Editorial

The Iraq situation

Geopolitical implications of withdrawal

By Johanan Raatz

The experts know this would be a disaster and are unwilling to give the people the catastrophe they unwittingly are asking for.

There has been a lot of talk in the last year about pulling out of Iraq. A majority of people want out of Iraq, and many people who want this think that this is somehow the enlightened educated view.

I don’t hold this view. Recently the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an article which reported that 8 out of 10 college students were incapable of answering three simple questions about current politics. Unfortunately, most people do not seem to have a basic working knowledge of politics. Judging from that, I would take their opinions on complex geopolitical issues with a grain of salt.

To see if withdrawal from Iraq would be a good idea we should look at the consequences. Let’s imagine what would happen if we did pull out of Iraq without the Iraqi government achieving stability.

We pull out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is powerful enough to maintain security. Without our military to prevent infighting and instability, Iraq will become prone to attack from outside. In all likelihood, this will cause far more bloodshed than if we had stayed there in the first place.

In the Middle East, religious affiliation holds more sway among people than national affiliation. Thus it is likely that neighboring states will want to annex Iraqi provinces that share their religious beliefs.

Iran’s state religion is Shia Islam, which is shared by the neighboring Basra province in Iraq. Since Iran has been actively opposing our goals in Iraq, and they share religious affiliations with Basra, it is not unreasonable to assume that Iran would annex Basra if it had the chance.

What happens if Iran were to annex Basra? Basra produces 50 percent of Iraq’s oil. In turn Iraq holds the second largest oil reserve in the world. Iran doesn’t like us very much, and they would like to undermine our political power. What is the best way they could do that? Iran couldn’t go toe-to-toe with the U.S. on military terms. However, they could try to undermine our economy and thereby our overall geopolitical power. They could do this by causing the dollar to deflate by selling all of their oil in euros instead of dollars.

This is what is called petrodollar politics. How exactly does this work? Well, let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that we have a country that produces 100 candy bars and prints 100 dollar bills. The value of the candy bars in dollars will expand or contract to fit the number of dollar bills in circulation. Likewise the value of the dollar will expand or contract depending on how many candy bars are bought and sold with dollars.

So let’s take 50 candy bars and sell them in euros. What happens? The value of the dollar contracts to fit the number of bars being sold in dollars. With only 50 remaining candy bars it will now take $2 to purchase one candy bar, whereas before the cost was only $1.

This same principle applies to oil. As it stands now, much of the world’s oil is bought and sold in US dollars. With the dollar already slipping, Iran could push us over the edge by grabbing Basra and selling its oil in euros.

The result of this would be catastrophic. Oil prices would spike, and our economy would go into a recession. In turn this would spell a down-turn in the world economy as it would affect our ability to purchase other countries’ goods.

This gives a hint as to why politicians of both parties, think-tank intellectuals and other policy makers seem unwilling to abandon Iraq despite the general populace supporting a withdrawal. Having more knowledge about geopolitics, the experts know this would be a disaster, and are unwilling to give the people the catastrophe they unwittingly are asking for.

So to sum up, if we did go ahead with a withdrawal right now we would end up with a bloodbath in Iraq, even higher gas prices, an economic decline and a dramatic decline of U.S. geopolitical power. Unless you think this is good, I would suggest that pulling out from Iraq before it is stable would be foolish and ill-advised. Perhaps we should leave the policy up to the experts who understand this.

> Comments

Aaron Jeske on Dec 11, 2007 at 08:35 AM:

Well Put Johann. I'm glad someone can see past the "war is bad" aspect of this situation to understand the true consequences we face in Iraq.

^ on Dec 11, 2007 at 08:37 AM:

sorry for the double post, but my spell checker automatically changed your name Johanan. My apologies.

Johanan Raatz on Dec 11, 2007 at 08:53 AM:

Thanks. Yeah that's something many people can't do. They say things like "Bush lied, people died." as though that somehow adresses the situation now. It doesn't, and I wish people would stop to think about the policies they want implemented.

Benjamin Clark on Dec 11, 2007 at 06:01 PM:

Too bad people couldn't see the consequences of the war BEFORE it started....

Die for oil, suckers...

Aaron Jeske on Dec 13, 2007 at 10:52 AM:

Show me one story from a credible source that US soldiers were sent to Iraq to secure Oil

Alan Greenspan on Dec 13, 2007 at 02:54 PM:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Johanan Raatz on Dec 14, 2007 at 08:08 PM:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

What a lot of people don't realize though is that oil and terror are linked. Many states fund terror through the revenue they get through oil. Saddam for one did this. He was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel for committing homicide bombings, and was able to do this because he had a large supply of money coming from Iraq's oil revenue. Needless to say he isn't doing this anymore.

Faja Klaus on Dec 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM:

Oh give me a break, you can't really believe that the only reason any of the Iraq War architects were that concerned about oil is because they did not want it being used to fund terrorism. With the supply continuously running low, and us the most powerful nation on earth?

Johanan Raatz on Dec 19, 2007 at 01:17 PM:

"Oh give me a break, you can't really believe that the only reason any of the Iraq War architects were that concerned about oil is because they did not want it being used to fund terrorism."

Well that was certainly part of it. The other part would be the fact that Saddam had managed to trick the outside world into thinking he had WMD's.

With the supply continuously running low, and us the most powerful nation on earth?

"With the supply continuously running low, and us the most powerful nation on earth?"

First of all even if this was the reason who cares? Saddam needed to be removed eventually anyway.

Secondly assuming this is a different (secret reason) for the war is really short-sighted. The two reason(us getting the oil to increase our power and us preventing them from using the oil to decrease their ability to support terror are really two sides of the same coin. If we gain a geopolitical advantage from having the oil that in turn translates to more american power which in turn translates into a better ability to fight terrorism and protect our citizens by preventing rogue states from undermining our dollar and our economy.

Imperialism is bad on Dec 19, 2007 at 06:41 PM:

"The other part would be the fact that Saddam had managed to trick the outside world into thinking he had WMD's."

Either that or the US disregarded the UN inspectors who said that Iraq didn't have any, and then used the media to dupe the public into accepting an illegal war. Word on the street is that the USA has WMDs, however.

"First of all even if this was the reason who cares?"

The innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed, for one- unless you want to argue that they can't care because they're dead now.

"Saddam needed to be removed eventually anyway."

Then why did the US support him all through the 70's and 80's?

Imperialism is good on Dec 21, 2007 at 09:08 AM:

"Either that or the US disregarded the UN inspectors who said that Iraq didn't have any, and then used the media to dupe the public"

No the Silbermann-Robb and Butler reports debunked that consiracy theory. The conclusion of those reports confirmed that the government did not have foreknowledge of Saddam's lack of WMD's

"into accepting an illegal war."

No congress and the president authorized it so it couldn't have been illegal.

"Word on the street is that the USA has WMDs, however."

So? The CIA doesn't identify us as a rogue state so it isn't a problem.

"The innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed, for one- unless you want to argue that they can't care because they're dead now."

Yes they would be happy. The dictator that had mass-murdered them is now dead. The innocent Iraqi's that are still alive are happy because they have been liberated.

"Then why did the US support him all through the 70's and 80's?"

To help oppose the regime in Iran as they were a problem back then in a way Saddam wasn't yet. Duh!