It doesn't matter how fair it is, the Democrats, Europeans and the MSM will almost certainly decry this. But perhaps that is just my cynicism streak. As for me, I think that it is an idea with strong merit.

Oh, and that's not Libertarian Socialism. Its revived classical progressivism.

Sounds a bit like the Alaska Permanent Fund to me. And as a moderate leftie, I say great idea. In fact, why not do it like the APF which (if I remember right) issues an annual check, instead of this withdrawal stuff that would just take more overhead and take more money out of the citizens' hands. I know you libertarians out there are all about people being in control of their own money.

But then, how would the US get our share of the oil profits to repay the war? wasn't that one of the assertions that the administration made, that Iraqi oil revenue would more than pay for the war?

Interesting dilemma.

It's a great idea. Why didn't Bremer do this?

In a War Forum at the Ornery American, in March 03, I advocated this (along with others). Before my blogging addiction took over.

I prefer "libertarian paternalism" (see the AEI-Brookings paper) as a term, generally, though socialism seems pretty accurate in this case.

A related idea is to promise every Iraqi city/ town that, after local elections, the US will underwrite a municipal bond ($1 000 / per person?) so that the newly democratic city will immediately have cash to start making budget decisions about. And then it would be Iraqs rebuilding Iraq, and the terrorists would be destroying Iraqi "built" stuff (with borrowed, not given, cash).

But start with the Trust Account, and "pay" folks to register. I prefer monthly or quarterly, not yearly, disbursements.

It's a great idea.

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!!...

Okay, Michael, sorry but I'm about to hijack your thread. I normally wouldn't do something like that, but this, well this is worth it:

Everybody go to jibjab.com, again. There's a new sequel to "This Land" up! Set to the tune of "Dixie", I give you "Good To Be In DC".

You may now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.

The trust thing is a potentially progressive idea that won't happen.

The US govt did not shell out $120 billion and counting to see this sort of thing happening.

As for libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialist ideas have a history at least as long as the more authoritarian strands of Marxism.

Michael J Totten

I have not read your blog for a while because I was moving.

Have you decided yet if you are going to vote in the US Presidential election? If so, who for?

Thanks.

I think this is a profoundly awesome idea, in the short-run at least. The short-run, probably being the next 5 or so years.

After that, if the country did manage to pull itself together and keep from erupting into civil war (very much in response to such an offer), once the economy actually got stabilized it would be a profoundly horrible idea to keep a vital and fully functioning industry nationalized in such a way.

So, the question becomes: If an emergency plan like this did actually do its job and unite the country, how would you go about turning back from socialism down the road and ask the people to give up their common investment in it?! Private industry, properly regulated, would be in their best interests but I can't imagine the Iraqi people being that open to the idea of it. In other words, the country would pull together to the point of stabilization because of the socialist oil-plan and then quickly rip itself apart when the socialized oil-plan managed to destroy their economy. It would be one hell of a double-edged sword and wouldn't work beyond a certain point unless the industry was then privatized. I seriously doubt the Iraqis would so willingly abandon the former for the latter.

If someone can tell me a way to sell this plan to the Iraqi people without effectively hooking them to the addiction that is socialism over the long haul, I'll be its #1 supporter. As is, hell, any plan like this that has a serious shot at stabilizing the country and keeping them from civil war is better than nothing. But I still see the plan as unsustainable with big problems down the line, and no way to avoid them.

Right now, Iraq is quickly falling into chaos. The plan proposed here would most likely work in halting the rapid descent, but would make for a possibly worse cure than the disease in the end when Iraq would die and slow and painful death due to the lack of capitalism. Pick your poison, I guess. I'd still support the plan, though, if only to get the ball rolling.

This plan initially seems downright horrible. Good intentions are not sufficient. It boils down to this: if everyone owns something---then nobody really owns it. This is a recipe for a disaster. What about a revenue sharing plan similar to that of Alaska’s? Now that might work. But outright socialism is never successful. Those who really do the work must be compensated, or they will sit on their hands and do nothing. That’s called Economics 101.

Gee, Michael, for someone who claims not to like political boxes, you hang a lot of your writing off the labels that you stick on others.

GREG...

Fuck our share of the oil profits, Greg. Do we deserve a handsome share? Yes. Would it be far more valuable if we refused to take it, though? Absoultely. It would be an act of grace and a skillfully crafted PR move, similar in spirit to the Marshall Plan, that would net us far more than any amount of oil money ever could.

MAGNANIMITY ought to be a higher priority in our efforts over there than the selfish pursuit of debt repayment via oil profits. That's the great spirit of America, I think.

That sounds like a very good idea indeed.
Very Third Way, as a Blairite I approve!

N

To add to what I was just saying about the Iraqi oil profits, Woodrow Wilson refered to his vision for the immediate aftermath of World War 1 as a "peace without victory". He wanted to do everything he could to see that the Germans got their country rebuilt for them. Europe fundamentally decided to punish them instead, and we wound up having a Second World War because of it.

The lesson here is not to punish your defeated enemy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt got it right, the second time around, and if we refused to take oil profits we'd be living up to that great and most successful tradition once more.

MJT,

If Bremer, Bush or their puppet Allawi proposed it, the Democrats would find some way to condemn the proposal. We're not dealing with honest people here.

Grant, if the Iraqis do this, and in 5 years they're much better off, it's not at all clear to me that nationalized extraction industries AND little or no income taxes, is really worse.

Further, note that most redistribution in American has a "to the needy" component, in words anyway, despite the dishonesty in practice (since most gov't cash goes to the middle class and the rich). Imagine an Iraqi gov't with NO pressure to "help the poor" -- since they are all already getting "plenty".

1. It's an excellent idea. My brother lives in Alaska, so I'm familiar with the concept. In Iraq, it's very vulnerable to fraud and cheating, but hey, what isn't?

2. MJT -- why are you posing this as a challenge to the left? The lefties are not the ones running American policy in Iraq (and neither is the Blogfather). In fact, the best to torpedo the idea for more lefties to start calling for it. If Bush had actually proposed this, then maybe we could knee-jerk ABB at work. But the challenge should have been the people in charge, and made a year ago.

3. To call this idea "war-winning" is going way too far. The terrorists will not be impressed.

It would be far better to take the oil revenue and give it to reconstruction of industries that rebuild the infrastructure so that all that need a job have one and at the same time they're doing something for their country.What has welfare ever done for someone who never worked except ensure they never will. The people should be the government like the US was before the disgusting effects of liberalism that makes Americans think they need to be governed because they're not smart enough.

This sounds, in general outline, like a half-formed idea I had many months ago: declare the oil itself to be communal property; let the oil companies make enough profit to reward those who actually do the work of finding, extracting, and exporting it; divide the remaining revenue between the government and the people, with each person having an equal share.
On further reflection, though, my notion of having the government fund its operations directly from oil revenue, before distributing the remainder to the people, would have the nasty side effect of hiding the cost of government. Better, then, to distribute all the money, and take some of it back through some form of progressive taxation.
As a first approximation, figure this would put the base per capita gross income at $1500. This is on the order of half the current salary of a middle-class professional, from what I remember reading the last few months, and quite enough to live on, at least until the increased money supply drives up prices. Some people might choose simply to live on their oil money, but I expect most would work to upgrade their lifestyes.
Having the baseline income as a safety net might actually encourage entrepreneurship over wage slavery - if there's money in your oil trust fund account, quitting your day job and trying something new isn't such a risk.

There must a separate component of the fund for the traditional bribes to the UN, the French, Russians and sundry international others; prewar status quo must be restored to some degree.

Many moderate liberals, such as myself, will find this idea attractive. But Oberon is correct; we are not in charge now, and the Republicans are almost sure to hold Congress and have a decent chance to win the White House again. We are not the ones who need to be convinced.

"For starters, it would dispel the fantasy that this war was waged by the U.S. to somehow steal Iraqi oil."

Yeah, strange isn't it? That the actual policies of the Bush administration seem to be intent on perpetuating this fantasy.

I too agree with Oberon, and Brooklynite. The point Michael, is not necssarily to challange the left with this idea. But rather to ask, why the hell isnt the Bush administration thinking along these lines? Just what exactly are they trying to accomplish there, really...

Come on, lefties. This is right up your alley. Let’s see if we all can agree on what might be good for Iraq for a change.

Michael,

in case you haven't noticed, what's good for Iraq isn't what's good for the Lefties.

Michael,

I've been advocating a variant of this idea from the get go of our Iraq adventure. The changes I would make to what you describe are (1) I would grant tradeable stock, not a revenue share subject to movie studio style accounting shenannigans, (2) I would create distinct corporations for northern and southern fields, as well as critical central pipeline infrastructure, and grant each citizen a share in each, and (3) no allegiance pledge.

If we are Hell-bent on exporting something, we should export capitalism and classical liberalism, not democracy. By giving each Iraqi a share in the future of each region's oil, we teach them about capitalism; we make them less dependent upon their government (Proceeds spent on government bonds! That's a tyrant state's dream scenario.); we provide incentives to physically maintain, protect, and allow access to the pipelines in the less oil blessed Sunni regions; Iraq will have a strong incentive to respect the property rights of foreign investors in order to maximize their own retained share values; and the Iraqi people can decide for themselves whether to sell their stock to foreigners in order to fund their own, or other Iraqi's, businesses.

If Americans really believe the oft repeated line that "the oil belongs to the Iraqi people", then let's actually give it to them and let each Iraqi do with it what he will. There's nothing like personal freedom and material comfort in the here and now for getting people to set aside religious fundamentalism.

The best thing about this approach is our own dictocrats might learn something too.

That oil rightfully belongs primarily to the US. Western technology developed it, and Western wealth and blood has retrieved it from decades of looting.

Being born near it does not constitute a property right. See Locke.

Concessions to those who fantasize that civilization's self-assertion is immoral will not make the world a better place.

Yeah, strange isn't it? That the actual policies of the Bush administration seem to be intent on perpetuating this fantasy.

Tano,

one small detail obviously missing from your own fantasy: the U.S. pays good money for the oil it "steals".

Michael, why would you think this is a socialist concept? It isn't. It's very similar to the Alberta Heritage Fund, set up by the conservative government in Alberta.

But if you're taking a poll, sure, why not. But it ain't gonna happen...

...one small detail obviously missing from your own fantasy: the U.S. pays good money for the oil it "steals".

So if I head over to your place while you're out, take some stuff, leave fair market value in cash, I'm not stealing?

Now, I'm not saying that's what's going on in Iraq, as I'm unfamiliar with the terms that the interm government has made with oil companies and the coalition, but to simply say that paying annuls any stealing is off the tracks a bit.

Grant,

About WW1: A major contributing factor to the post war problems came from the fact that many Germans did not think they were really defeated in the war at all, but just were forced to accept diplomatic humiliation. Lesson: if you want to win, CRUSH your enemy.

As for the oil: I think it's the Iraqi's oil. But I'd try to provide some incentive for the Iraqis to harvest their oil in a responsible manner, so it doesn't suffer from the tragedy of the commons.

I had this idea a long time agao, with a small twist: give Iraqis fungible shares in the oil rights. The ones that are smart will keep them. The ones that are stupid will sell them off. And the ones that are the smartest will be buying them from the ones that are seling them off.

After that, if the country did manage to pull itself together and keep from erupting into civil war (very much in response to such an offer), once the economy actually got stabilized it would be a profoundly horrible idea to keep a vital and fully functioning industry nationalized in such a way.

What's to stop them from setting a mandatory 5-year limit on the program?

But then, how would the US get our share of the oil profits to repay the war? wasn't that one of the assertions that the administration made, that Iraqi oil revenue would more than pay for the war?

Also, I like the idea of the US forgoing its share as a sign of goodwill, but couldn't it also be set up so that the US is payed in installments over that 5 years off the top? The amount is open to negotiation, but not so much that what's left over to the Iraqi's isn't a pittance...

I think its a good idea. I don't think it will mollify the Islamic Extremists, they will likely continue terrorists activity. However, I think it would mollify the Insurgents (the Iraqi's fighting occupation), it would also be likely to dry up at least some of the heavy public support for the extremists.

Now of course, this poses an interesting problem. Bush and Allawi (and some on this blog) believe that the Vast Majority of the enemy are "Islamo-Facist" Terrorists, who have come in from other countries and that this is part of an "Islamo-Facist" plan. If thats the case, then all that we could possibly gain is the support of some Iraqis. The attackers would have no reason to stop. They might lose some supporters, but if its truly an Islamo-Facist plan, then the Iraqis who are Islamofacists will still support the attackers.

This conundrum is the very reason why I have long advocated a clear distinction between the Al-Queda operatives who are commiting acts of Terrorism as part of a Pro-Islamic agenda (I don't like made up Labels like Islamo-Facist), and the Iraqi Insurgents, who are fighting to protect themselves and their country from what they precieve as an Invasion and Occupation by western forces.

These two groups are ideologicaly seperate. The solution proposed in Michael's post today, would likely appeal to the Insurgent group, but not the Pro-Islamic group.

Thoughts?

So if I head over to your place while you're out, take some stuff, leave fair market value in cash, I'm not stealing?

double,

so are you saying it was Saddam Hussein's oil? The only Bush took some stuff from was Saddam, so I guess that is what you're saying.

Your analogy is piss poor, and it proves that what's in the interest of the Iraqi people is NOT in the interest of the Left.

correction: The only person Bush took some stuff from was Saddam, so I guess that is what you're saying.

so are you saying it was Saddam Hussein's oil? The only Bush took some stuff from was Saddam, so I guess that is what you're saying.

Once again, David, the nasty leftists in your head are yelling so loudly that you don't seem to be able to read what's in front of your eyes.

Please read my post again. Really really slowly. Possible aloud. Where, in my post, did I say anything about Hussein, stealing oil, Bush, or anything?

double,

I try to be brief, but that isn't working for you. So maybe you should try reading a little slower. Let me try again.

The only person who got any oil "stolen" from him was Saddam Hussein--- not the Iraqi people.

Clear enough?

David,

I understand what you wrote, I just don't understand what it has to do with what I said. It seem completely unrelated.

double,

ok, I went back and reread your second paragraph and I see the point you're making.

I would say that if we're purchasing Iraqi oil at world market prices, that's all the "terms" I need to be aware of to know whether or not we're "stealing oil." And I can say with certainty that under a democratic Iraqi government, the people of Iraq will have more access to those oil revenues than they've ever had under 30 years of dictatorship.

And I can say with certainty that under a democratic Iraqi government, the people of Iraq will have more access to those oil revenues than they've ever had under 30 years of dictatorship.

And that I would agree with and applaud.

These two groups are ideologicaly seperate. The solution proposed in Michael's post today, would likely appeal to the Insurgent group, but not the Pro-Islamic group.

There is evidence that some ‘insurgents’ (like the ex-Baathists) are not motivated by religious dogma, as Sadr’s and the Falluja Sunnis are. But, since all insurgent groups gain ‘support’ by targeting and terrorizing civilian Iraqis (when they’re not using them as human shields) that is evidence that they share one ideology – gaining power through terror and intimidation.

The people who ‘support’ these terrorist groups do so because they either hope to gain power in the long run – or they’re terrorized by them.
Remember in the beginning of the war, when right-thinking people were saying that we have to win ‘hearts and minds’ by building up the Iraqi infrastructure?

When we try to build up the police force and install modern sewer systems, ‘insurgents’ blow us and plenty of children up. They gain support through terror. Trying to win hearts and minds in Iraq by doing nice things will not gain support from terrorized Iraqis, the larger part of the population.

This proposal will win ‘hearts and minds’ in the US – except from Democrats who hate any proposal that comes from the VRWC – again, the larger part of the Dem population.

oops - that should be Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Falluja Sunnis..

The people who ‘support’ these terrorist groups do so because they either hope to gain power in the long run – or they’re terrorized by them.

Or because they have been wronged, or perceive that they've been wronged, by occupation forces. I think that a large aim of the insurgency and/or terrorists is to provoke military retaliation that also causes unintended civilian casualties, and further damages the infrastructure you mention.

Earlier this year, British military command was fairly critical of a US military tactic that the insurgency was exploiting. They would launch mortar attacks against US forces and hightail it out of the area. Radar would have tracked the launch position of the attack, and there would be a response by artillery or missile. At that point, all they would be doing was blowing up a civilian house, thereby creating victims for the insurgency to point ot, and more pissed-off neighbours and relatives.

Winning the hearts and minds is absolutely crucial, but is hard to do when fighting an insurgency of this size. And while talk of oil revenue profit-sharing is fine and good, electricity, clean water, and not having to worry about scraping your kids off the nursery walls is probably higher on the average Iraqi's list of priorities.

I frankly had always assumed that the new Iraqi government would HAVE to do something like this. A quick glance across the Middle East, and at other oil producing states (Nigeria, Venezuala) demonstrates one thing pretty clearly, oil wealth is as much a curse as a blessing. Nationalized oil wealth simply makes it far too easy for whoever controls it to accumulate control of everything. It's poison for any hope of real liberal democracy. The only way to avoid it is to disperse the use of that wealth among the population, and the only way to REALLY do that is to give genuine ownership interests in the wealth to the populace.

My own view is that the program laid out by Tech Central Station needs a bit of refinement. First of all, human beings being what they are, it sounds like it comes with a bit of risk that too many wastrels will fritter away their patrimony. Trust fund babies do that here all the time. Second, it probably makes sense to use this as an opportunity to teach the average Iraqi something about modern capitalism. Thus, rather than a trust, I'd prefer to see one or more (probably more to avoid monopoly) corporate entities set up, with the wealth distributed to Iraqis in the form of stock ownership, rather than simply the right to pillage a trust, which is nothing more than a pot of money. This will facilitate the longer term development of Iraq's oil wealth (because the corporations will have an interest in perpetuating themselves by investing in development) and teach Iraqis something about ownership. But it will also permit immediate tangible benefits to Iraqis (dividends) without the problems associated with "sudden wealth." Presumably the corporations will balance, as most do, the desire to provide dividends, with the desire to retain some earnings for future investment. Thus the owners/stockholders will get needed cash, but not be able to grab and waste it all at once. I don't mean to suggest all Iraqis would do that, but in any large population, a fair number faced with similar circumstances would. Finally, I think there need to be some limits on the "entire population" concept. Children? I'd go with distributing the stock to adults, or at a minimum, putting the dividends from stock distributed to children into individual trusts until they reach adulthood. The problem of people wasting their patrimony is only aggravated when the people in question are immature. Again, no different than what people do in their estate plans every day in this country. I want to benefit my 10 year old, but I recognize that if I keel over tomorrow, that 10 year old will not be sufficiently responsible at that age to handle what I leave him/her.

Sorry for the ramble, but how to do this has been bouncing around in my brain for a while. It presents an amazing opportunity to really present the arab world with an attractive model of their futures (one of the other huge benefits not mentioned in your post). Your post gave me an opportunity to get it off my chest.

I think that a large aim of the insurgency and/or terrorists is to provoke military retaliation that also causes unintended civilian casualties, and further damages the infrastructure you mention.

Do you have any links to prove that?

Is that why the insurgency consistently targets the civilian Iraqi police force?.

Another issue that's been occupying Iraqi hearts and minds is the number of people who've had family members or friends kidnapped. By slaughtering the police en masse, are the insurgents winning hearts and minds?

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no evidence that any insurgency group is trying to 'avoid' civilian casualties. They provide no warnings, they target populated areas and they use the general population as shields. We're dealing with people who hope to gain power through terror and intimidation. Every insurgency group shares that goal.

The proposal to share oil revenues is a good one, because it's reasonable, workable and fair.

But the idea of winning hearts and minds will never have any effect on a nation terrorized by groups like these 'insurgents'.

Works for me.

Btw, a variation of this idea was implemented in Alaska which for a long time had negative state income tax. (i.e. people in the state got a paycheck based on oil revenues.)

Mary, I think you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I said that the insurgency were trying to cause civilian casualties, and I never said or implied that they were avoiding civilian casualties. They obviously have no regard for their own population.

I said that the insurgency were trying to cause civilian casualties, and I never said or implied that they were avoiding civilian casualties.

Not only did I misinterpret what (or who) you meant by ‘unintended civilian casualties’, I messed up the italics and links. Thanks for not pointing that out.

I hope we’ve revised our methods for dealing with mortar attacks launched from civilian areas. And the Iraqis who supported the insurgency because of perceived wrongs may be changing their minds. Combined with the idea of sharing revenues, this could help win hearts and minds.

Like the Iranian mullahs, the insurgents’ cruelty usually winds up alienating most of the population. But the Iranian mullahs did gain power, and they’ve kept it…

Not only did I misinterpret what (or who) you meant by ‘unintended civilian casualties’, I messed up the italics and links. Thanks for not pointing that out.

No problem. My output tone must be whacked today or something, eveyone's reading my stuff wrong. Or maybe I'm being more centerist than usual and people aren't expecting it. Now, where did I leave my leftists pills, I'm obviously taking too low a dosage...

Mork: Gee, Michael, for someone who claims not to like political boxes, you hang a lot of your writing off the labels that you stick on others.

Since when is "libertarian socialism" a "box"? You have nothing else to say about this? You're getting more and more trollish every day.

Brad: Being born near it does not constitute a property right.

It's their country! No one owns our resources but us.

Oh, man! That is just about the most horrible idea that has been floated in this whole Iraqi mess. I can't believe that anyone could possibly think that a communal pot - with an annual check for anyone would be a good, much less great, idea. Ever hear of the American Indian? We already have a great example of 'tribal' mentalities and government monies (not even to mention monies earned through casinos) being divvied out to the people - it flat out does not WORK! Social and economic engineering is such a bad idea I can't even believe that this is a legitimate discussion, right now. The failure to the Native American culture as a whole is readily seen across the entire country and should be such a strong testament to the negative power of this idea that it should be considered DOA - and QUICK!

Da Pope

DaPope,

yeah, its such a huge failure in Alaska, I cant believe anybody would propose such a thing for the Iraqis.

Works for me, and I like the idea of linking release of the funds to registration to vote. Not for a party or anything like that, but just to vote. Proof of Iraqi citizenship, cross-check of eligibility to vote (felons, natch, shouldn't be allowed to vote - a BIG incentive to follow the rules follows), and you get your check. Start out with amnesty for most classes of convicted criminals (hey, there was just a war, stuff happens) but after that the rule becomes "kill or maim a human, lose the annual check".

It also provides an incentive to prefer the good of the nation to the good of the clan. The danger is that the income would provide a disincintive to work, (in Saudi Arabia, few Sauds actually do anything -- the real work is done by foreigners) but I doubt an Iraqi disbursement would be that large.

Seems on balance a very good idea. And in a few months it won't be our call, but the call of an elected Iraqi government.

Damn, we Americans are evil bastards!

"Ever hear of the American Indian? "

Good grief. Put the ideology aside for a moment and get practical.

Better yet put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi.

You have lived in Bagdad under a tyranical regime for almost 30 years. You have suffered a terrible war with Iran costing between roughly 1 to 1.5 million people. The regime additionally killed approximately 300,000 people (60,000 alone in Bagdad.) If you are lucky your cousins and extended family avoided a one way trip to an industrial shredder.

And you supposed to listen to some high and mighty purist from America about how it is unhealthy for your long term political growth to take an oil dividend from the government trying to instill democracy in a war torn land. And this is based on the state of affairs of the American Indian?

Hey double, pass around your meds.

Hey double, pass around your meds.

Found them. Hey Michael, there is a political term for the title of this post, "Libertarian Socialism" - Anarchism. Probably not what you had in mind though.

I don't think we'll win over the Iraqi people with a single sweeping gesture.

Remember the conspiracy theories that abound there. That's the product of a culture with little experience in self-government or personal responsibility. They can do it, but it will take time and effort and sacrifice.

Iraq doesn't have our libertarian tradition. For better or worse, they're starting as raving statists whose first loyalty is to a party (urban) or family group (rural). Transforming their political culture will be the work of millions of small steps made, individual to individual.

Put the ideology aside for a moment and get practical.

Sorry Bob, - My mother was born and raised on a rez; been there, done that. You call for me to get practical, but reality intrudes and shows absolutely, unequivocally that socialism is an abject failure. I will not discount your assertion that the people of Iraq have suffered terribly, but a gummint gimme-bag doesn't fit the bill. This is more complex on a whole host of levels than "Hey! I've got an idea, let's just give EVERYONE over there a big chunk of cash, we'll pat ourselves on the back for being so progressive and then go home to toast ourselves some more. - and HEY! The French might even like us, again." Doing something to make yourself feel like a do-gooder doesn't really solve many problems. Think deeper - and use history as the foundation.

By the way, how different is the situation of an American Indian in their own war torn land (thus moved to a reservation) much different?

Yes, pass around the meds.

Da Pope

History works for me.

The key here is to establish a base of political stability.
Giving handouts after a war to acheive a political objective is not exactly a new or bad idea.

A quote from a discussion on Bretton Woods and the Marshall Plan:

"From 1947 until 1958, the United States deliberately encouraged an outflow of dollars, and, from 1950 on, the United States ran a balance of payments deficit with the intent of providing liquidity for the international economy. Dollars flowed out through various U.S. aid programs: the Truman Doctrine entailing aid to the pro-U.S. Greek and Turkish regimes, which were struggling to suppress socialist revolution, aid to various pro-U.S. regimes in the Third World, and most important, the Marshall Plan. From 1948 to 1954 the United States gave sixteen Western European countries $17 billion in outright grants."

Using more recent history, the fall of the Soviet Union was quickly followed by a few people grabbing the capital assets of the country. I don't think the oligarch's were good for the politcal process and a fairer distribution would have given the capitalistic reforms in Russia a better chance of succeeding.

IMHO, the dependency risk is grossly overstated when weighed against the immediate gains of achieving political concensus around a government that is secular and trying to acheive some semblance of democracy.

But then, how would the US get our share of the oil profits to repay the war? wasn't that one of the assertions that the administration made, that Iraqi oil revenue would more than pay for the war?

Interesting dilemma.

Posted by Greg at October 14, 2004 11:08 PM
*************************************************
The potential for a working friendly democratic ally in the middle of the MidEast is worth more than we have spent so far. In real dollars.

Wow, I was at the usual fistfight in the MJT comment section, and a discussion broke out. How'd that happen?

wasn't that one of the assertions that the administration made, that Iraqi oil revenue would more than pay for the war?

More than pay for the war? No, that wasn't the assertion made. Bush said that Iraqi oil would help pay for the reconstruction.

The potential for a working friendly democratic ally in the middle of the MidEast is worth more than we have spent so far. In real dollars.

Turkey?

I'd say that libertarian socialism wouldn't be such a contradiction if control of the economy is vested more into the hands of the citizens, as is the case with what the TCS article describes, rather than putting it mainly in the central state's hands.

Of course, it's just my opinion.

OFF TOPIC

I read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3743446.stm
over at the BBC, it's an interesting view and one I hadn't thought of before.

The basic question discussed is "due to the 'tarnish' of the past four years, if Bush is reelected, will the neo-cons remain in control?"

I thought it was a good read.

You may not.

Bob,

I understand what you are trying to say with your latest post, and even agree with you to a point. Where I diverge is in the structure of culture, or human nature, itself; Western Europe DID show that the infusion of cash brought about the rebuilding of infrastructure and quelling of dissent in their countries during a fragile, post-war time. It also, however, was a likely catalyst which pushed forward socialism, turning Europe into a large grouping of failed social experiments that are now looking to band together as a larger failure to 'fight' basic democracy and self-sufficiency. - and these were countries that in a large sense 'understood' the basic elements of the rule of law and community in practical terms; Iraq doesn't seem to have much of that, tribal customs and tyranny being what they are/were. In a sense it seems that the tribe is a very powerful part of daily life for an awful lot of Iraqi's, which might very well be the ultimate undoing of any attempts at a homogenous government, oil trust accounts, or not. I am very excited for the Iraqi people and their first election in a 'new' country, but I feel it necessary (in my most high and mighty purism) to warn that 'gifting' people their democracy will not a democracy make.

Grants to governments in post-war Europe were not necessarily set up to be directly cashable checks in perpetuity, although that is what is being proposed here - in a single word 'welfare'.

Off to a meeting,

Da Pope

No one owns our resources but us.

Actually there's lots of foreign investment into "our" resources. That the resources are "ours" doesn't mean they're the property of Americans, just that American laws govern them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Japanese-owned company can purchase logging rights to a stand in Oregon.

The same should be true of Iraqi oil. Now that it has been transformed from booty into property, the ownership of those who turned it into property should be acknowledged.

What the heck does Iraqi oil have to do with the random Iraqi citizen? About as much as Alaskan oil has to do with me.

'Gee, Michael, for someone who claims not to like political boxes, you hang a lot of your writing off the labels that you stick on others'--Mork

Mork = Leftie !! ( in every sense of that perjorative)

My small contribution toward a better tomorrow.

I'd say that libertarian socialism wouldn't be such a contradiction if control of the economy is vested more into the hands of the citizens, as is the case with what the TCS article describes, rather than putting it mainly in the central state's hands.

As I said, libertarian socialism is better defined as Anarchism, where control of the economy is directly in the hands of the citizens without a state structure, but in a collective or syndicalist fashion. This is where it differs from right-wing libertarinism.

DaPope,

"warn that 'gifting' people their democracy will not a democracy make."

True enough, the first democracy of the French was a miserable thing, because the common people had no stake in gaining the freedom, they had no idea what to do with a democracy, or why they should care.

Jefferson wrote the following to Lafayette on Feb 14, 1815:

(partial quote)
A full measure of liberty is not now perhaps to be expected by your nation, nor am I confident they are prepared to preserve it. More than a generation will be requisite, under the administration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge in the general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independent security of person and property, before they will be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation. Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes, with an unprepared people, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or the one. Possibly you may remember, at the date of the jeu de paume, how earnestly I urged yourself and the patriots of my acquaintance, to enter then into a compact with the king, securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and a national legislature, all of which it was known he would then yield, to go home, and let these work on the amelioration of the condition of the people, until they should have rendered them capable of more, when occasions would not fail to arise for communicating to them more. This was as much as I then thought them able to bear, soberly and usefully for themselves.

The same may be true of Iraq, we may not see an Iraq that can fully embrace democracy for another generation. But, thats ok. Its all about baby steps. Democracy, will win in Iraq because the people of Iraq make it win, or it will fail and some other form of government will replace it. Nothing that America can do will 'gift' democracy on any nation.

I still think that our decision to invade Iraq, at the time that we did, was poor judgement. However, I hope with all of my heart that the people of Iraq will come to understand and embrace democracy.

Ratatosk

Stephen Cheng: I'd say that libertarian socialism wouldn't be such a contradiction if control of the economy is vested more into the hands of the citizens, as is the case with what the TCS article describes, rather than putting it mainly in the central state's hands

Yeah, I agree. (Pretend not to notice how Marxist that is.)

Brad: Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Japanese-owned company can purchase logging rights to a stand in Oregon.

Yes, that is true. But Japan did not invade Oregon to get one its company's those logging rights.

I guess you are saying our motives will be questioned less if we take nothing out of Iraq. That's true. But I think it is for others to question our motives until the end of time, no matter how enormous our sacrifice, and it is for us to know and validate our actual purpose.

If our leaders really were to start taking us on military adventures for booty, we'd need to vote them out. Besides our own conviction, there is no god to judge us, and global opinion is a poor substitute.

Michael:

Don't know that there's much "libertarian" or "socialist" about this national oil trust.

"Libertarian" implies every one for themselves, not every one sharing equally in the national wealth. Actually, I don't know that Libertarianism anymore is indistinguishable from Libertine, except for its willfully ignorant, Lew-Rockwellesque isolationism.

And "Socialism" implies the government redistributing "from those according to their abilities to each according to their needs", rather than turning each citizen into shareholders of the national enterprise, with all the priviliges and responsibilities pertaining thereto.

This Iraqi National Oil Trust idea seems more analagous to an employee-owned enterprise, albeit on a national scale. And, I agree, a brilliant idea.

--furious

Like others have said that is not socialism...

Tosk, exactly how do you deduce that the "neocons" are in "control".

Last I looked, the governmental processes described in the Constitution seem to be holding up pretty well. If you have evidence of some kind of coup I'd be interested to hear it.

Just wanted to chime in to say that it is not a contradiction of terms to be a libertarian leftist. Anarcho-capitalists have tried to hijack the word "libertarian", but in fact it is merely part of a social axis (libertarian-authoritarian) while - traditionally - being on the "left" is understood in terms of economics (planned economy vs. laissez-faire).

For more on the matter, check out http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Is this really such a breakthrough idea? My understanding is that this very practice has been going on for quite some time right here in Kuwait. Kuwaiti citizens are all independantly wealthy because of their oil shares. They don't do any labor. They import poor saps from places like India and Pakistan (funny, huh?) to clean their bathrooms and serve them Kuwaiti Fried Chicken. Believe me, Iraqis have had their eye on such a model for a long time. The problem right now is the same problem it's always been- getting the Sunnis, the Shi'a, the Kurds, the Turkomen, and you-name-its to all put their differences aside and say, "To hell with killing- let's get rich!" That's the part they're working through right now. My guess is that you'll start hearing about this plan or something resembling it once the elections are complete and people begin to have confidence in a working government...

Mark,

I didn't say that I thought anything. I was discussing the article I linked to.

Tosk