Could a Troop Surge Work or Not?

[Nefarious]

I thought I would open up a thread based on people's opinions of why or why not a troop surge to help secure troubled areas in Iraq would lead to an improved situation in Iraq.

Now if it worked like it has been planned, then there is a chance of it improving the situation - however a lot of that is predicated upon the actions of the Iraqi people and the leaders in Iraq as well. Is the situation one that they are capable of getting some control over and what actions would be needed to get that kind of control and what could be the consequences of such actions?

The first thing I would ask is that if they are going to clear out areas of fighting in Baghdad and then hold them to make sure insurgents or death squads don't come back, how will they exactly know who to leave in the area and who to move on, and where will the people who are moved on be moved on to? Will they be moved onto a better place or a real stinkhole? Basically, who will inhabit Bagdhad? How can you reliably tell who or who isn't contributing to violence? If we observe someone being violent then we know, but if we don't observe them but they are covertly being violent then there is nothing to be done about it.

The other thing is that up until recently the majority of the focus has been on curbing the insurgency of sunnis that were loyal to Saddam's regime. However, Shiite 'retribution' squads have been 'ethnic cleansing' in Bagdhad and basically they are out of control - there can't be peace with that sort of behaviour going on. However, the tricky thing is that Shiite are the majority in Iraq and many of the Government are Shiite. If the US troops were to work with the Iraq military, who probably has a lot of Shiite loyalists in it, to take out the Shiite death squads under Sadr and the likes, then do they run the risk of being viewed with growing animosity by both the Sunni and Shiite to such an extent that Sunni and Shiite unite under the national identity as Iraqi's to turn against American troops?

Now Shiites and Sunnis becoming focused on a national identity instead of sectarian identity would be good for the future stability of Iraq and would make it more likely they would be intolerant of any actions to increase sectarian violence from neighbouring countries in the middle east, but that would come at the cost of the American troops being the 'other' that they combine against, which could mean a spike in the number of US military deaths as both Sunni and Shiite turn against the Americans.

Now this won't go down too well with the people at home in the States. So where is the 'gently gently' approach that can be used to support the Iraqi troops without the US troops becoming the main target? They have talked about embedding US advisor troops into the Iraqi military so the face of America is not prominent but supportive to try and get peace happening - that could work. What also needs to happen though is that attempts be made to engage and bring together for discussions the major elements driving the sectarian violence. But surely they have already been engaging in this process? I guess that is also why ISG suggested talking with Syria (Sunni) and Iran (Shiite) so as to get them on board with not encouraging sectarian clashes. But even this seems a lot more complex than just Syria supporting the Sunni and Iran supporting the Shiite. Syria and Iran have a peaceful accord with each other, and if intelligence from the war in Lebanon was anything to go by, they worked together to arm Hezbollah. Then there are suggestions that Iran is supporting not just Shiite but Sunni as well - so whose side are they on - or are there independent actors in Iran working both lines? What purpose would it serve for Iran to be arming both sides, which then use arms against each other in sectarian clashes? Is it because they want the aggression to be directed towards the states and in some strange way are trying to encourage a national identity of Iraqi's or is it that they think that if Sunni and Shiite go hammer and tongs with each for long enough it would be easy for Iran to take control of Iraq?

Whatever the thinking is, if you could get Syria, Iran, US and Iraq around a table together there might be something positive to come out of it.

The recent hangings of Saddam and his sidekicks may have served to make the Sunni's feel a symbolic condemnation against them, lumped together with the death squads. Even though they are not the majority in the country they are still a very sizeable portion of the population. They need to feel that Iraq is still a friendly home to them too. Iraq needs a strong combined front of Sunni and Shiite in the Government and much work to make the national identity of Iraq much stronger than the sectarian one. To achieve this the Iraqi Government and the US supporting them must take great pains to ensure that they do not show harsher treatment of one group over the other, being that the message of their presence clearly communicates they are there to protect the peaceful people in Iraq, irrespective of their particular branch of religion. For this reason, they would need to be careful that in cleansing Bagdhad of violence they do not default to cleansing Bagdhad of Sunni because the resentment of that will not die away.

There are a sizeable number of inter-marriages between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq - it wasn't always so polarized as it has become now - perhaps if there were more prominent Iraqi advocates for peace who had both Sunni and Shiite family backgrounds then they might be able to reach the ears of both peoples.

[Lena]

The surge won't work and really maybe a big political game played by little georgey as a way to help get out of iraq.

Plenty of retired generals who know war and iraq have been on tv saying if the surge was going to work they need alot more then just 20,000 soldiers .One guy saying something like 200,000 more oldiers wud be the right number.The only people whos ay it will work are either republican party people or the israel lovers who thought the war up inthe first place and will happily see more dead American soldiers .

Maybe little georgey will say he won and leave because of this so called surge . If the iraqis who don't like us are smart all they have to do is hide to help that big lie along . Then after America leaves they can all start killing each other.........

little georgey wants out too , since he and the israel lobby want to see us now fight iran . ...............

[Nefarious]

It's a bloody mess, that's for sure. The current events were triggered by the invasion of Iraq - there is a sense of responsibility to 'see things through to a better place' by the Bush Admin. However, the likelihood is that sectarian violence in Iraq will continue for many decades, until it exhausts itself or one side gains supremacy over the other and a new Saddam like regime comes into existence. However, such a regime may be even worse if it is not secular in focus but theocractically supporting one brand of Islam over another. It wouldn't look good for the States to be part of that development coming about when they took out Saddam in the first place. However, I doubt there is going to be any 'looking good' to be found - it is what it is, the damage has been done and cannot be taken back.

Perhaps there is some utopia of democracy and tolerance to be found in amongst this - but is that a reality that fits with the characterisations of the region?

When leaders within Sunni insurgency and Shiite milita groups heard of the proposed troop surge the Sunni said it was pointless, neither side would settle for anything other than absolutes, indicating attempts at diplomacy would not work. From the Shiite militia came the comment for the parents in the USA to keep their boys at home least they come back in coffins.

Another thing that the USA needs to tread very carefully about, if it in fact is fact, regards the following quote from Iraq Body Count, a site primarily concerned with the impact of the war on civilians:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/weekiniraq/25/

The new oil law, about to be presented to the cabinet, would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, and later about 20% of the profits, twice the industry average for such deals (Independent 7 January 2007). Huge profits are guaranteed for Western companies for the next 30 years. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis will be opposed to this, as oil accounts for 70% of Iraq’s GDP and 95% of government revenue.

Now if this is indeed the facts of this new oil law then that just is wrong. To take more than the standard industry average and to ensure continued profits stay at elevated rates for the next 30 years and to cut such a deal when the country is in the middle of such disarray is just plain wrong. Iraqi people should ensure there is a balanced voice coming through in this decision which would shackle their country for many years and they should demand a more reasonable deal and have it open for competitive bids from other countries as well. A deal such as this being rushed through a fledgling and heavily influenced government would cause resentments from both within and outside Iraq for a very long time.

If the real motivation to go into Iraq was to liberate the people from a brutual dictator then the civilians should be the primary concern and not an economic drive to take an over-sized chuck of the countries wealth while they are in the motions of evading death from ongoing warfare within the ruins of their devastated cities.

[Guest]

The original article

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years
Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary... It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.

Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.

"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.

Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves - the third largest in the world - only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms - widely feared by international non government organisations and Iraqis alike - have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos.

At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr Muttitt disagreed. "The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so," he said. "Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $1bn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved.

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage... Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."

Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. "Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up," said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. "The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate."

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: "All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for US and allied companies because of the disastrous war."

Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.

Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.

America protects its fuel supplies - and contracts

Despite US and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry - alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital - was under American guard.

Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among US-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals - one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another US giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq.

In just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years

A 40-page document leaked to the 'IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production- sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the "quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects".

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of "great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector" and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

The role of oil in Iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves - 10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for US companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to US companies.

As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the US Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction.

In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim government took power. But the US maintained its grip on allocating contracts to private companies. The management of reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the US Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office, in the Department of Defence.

The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of US giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (£7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant US conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus US companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn.

30,000 Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq.

36 The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a US company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003.

$12.1bn UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network.

$2 trillion Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the US, according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

WHAT THEY SAID

"Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people"

Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

"Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has... to be good stewards of that valuable asset "

George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

"The oil of the Iraqi people... is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil "

Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

"Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years... [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction"

Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

[Guest]

Current status in Iraq re oil law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/world/middleeast/20oil.html?ref=world
Draft Law Keeps Central Control Over Oil in Iraq

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: January 20, 2007

BAGHDAD, Jan. 19 — After months of tense bargaining, a cabinet-level committee has produced a draft law governing Iraq’s vast oil fields that would distribute all revenues through the federal government and grant Baghdad wide powers in exploration, development and awarding major international contracts.

The draft, described Friday by several members of the committee, could still change and must be approved by the Iraqi cabinet and Parliament before it becomes law. Negotiations have veered off track in the past, and members of the political and sectarian groups with interest in the law could still object as they read it more closely.

But if approved in anything close to its present form, the law would appear to settle a longstanding debate over whether the oil industry and its revenues should be overseen by the central government or the regions dominated by Kurds in the north and Shiite Arabs in the south, where the richest oil fields are located.

The draft comes down firmly on the side of central oversight, a decision that advocates for Iraq’s unity are likely to trumpet as a triumph. Because control of the oil industry touches so directly on the interests of all Iraq’s warring sectarian groups, and therefore the future of the country, the proposed law has been described as the most critical piece of pending legislation.

“This will give us the basis of the unity of this country,” said Ali Baban, the Iraqi planning minister and a member of the Sunni-dominated Tawafaq party who serves on the negotiating committee. “We pushed for the center in Baghdad, but we didn’t neglect the Kurds and other regions,” Mr. Baban said.

Negotiators said that the final weeks of wrangling on the draft focused on a federal committee that would be set up to review the oil contracts. Kurdish, and to some extent Shiite, parties wanted to maintain regional control over the contracts, while Sunni Arabs, with few oil resources on territories they dominate, insisted that the federal committee have the power to approve contracts, rather than just reviewing them and offering advice.

The negotiators appear to have finessed that issue by allowing the regions to initiate the process of tendering contracts before sending them to Baghdad for approval. To limit the powers of the committee, they also have drawn up an exacting set of criteria to govern the deliberations of the committee rather than simply relying on its independent discretion. And in a bow to the Kurds, who objected to the use of the word “approve” in describing the committee’s duties, the draft law says instead that the committee may review and reject contracts that do not meet the criteria.

The draft law would also radically restructure parts of Iraq’s state-controlled oil industry by giving wide independence — possibly leading to eventual privatization — to the government companies that control oil exports, the maintenance of pipelines and the operation of oil platforms in the Persian Gulf.

The law would also revive the Iraqi National Oil Company, a countrywide umbrella organization that was essentially closed by Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, the law would place substantial administrative authorities outside Baghdad by allowing any region that produces at least 150,000 barrels of oil a day to create its own operating company, according to Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister and member of a powerful coalition of Shiite political parties who also serves on the negotiating committee.

Barham Salih, a deputy prime minister and the chairman of the negotiating committee, said that the precise wording of clauses could still change. He was speaking by telephone from Iraqi Kurdistan, where Mr. Salih, a Kurd, said he was still working to cement support for some provisions in the draft law.

“This is the most important piece of legislation that Iraq will adopt, and it is not a surprise that it is taking long, tedious rounds of negotiations,” Mr. Salih said. “We are close, but we have not yet closed the deal. We are making progress and need to continue.”

The developments come with several additional cautions, not the least of which is that in Iraq’s chaotic wartime environment, even laws that do get passed can have little impact. In one example of a document arrived at through similar negotiations, Iraq’s Constitution, it remains unclear what effect many of the fastidiously negotiated clauses are having in the governance of the country.

And even though Iraq’s main political and sectarian groups have been represented in the talks over the oil law, it is still possible that members of those groups could bridle as the draft is scrutinized more widely.

As a case in point, the Kurdistan regional government issued a statement on Friday criticizing an Oil Ministry spokesman for saying that the oil law had been agreed upon unanimously and put in final form.

“Although the process of drafting the oil law is nearing completion, the important annexes to the law are still pending,” the statement said.

Some of those annexes will address how to deal with fields that are already producing oil under existing contracts, how to begin taking bids for drilling new wells in known fields and exploring areas where currently unknown oil fields could be located.

The committee achieved a breakthrough of sorts in December, when negotiators took a step toward central control by agreeing that all oil revenues should first go to the central government before being sent back to the regions in amounts proportional to population.

But the talks bogged down on the question of whether the committee, to be called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, would be called upon to approve contracts proposed by the regions or just review those contracts and offer advice. In its current form, the draft law avoids the word “approve” and in effect gives the committee veto power.

Whatever the language, Mr. Shahristani, the oil minister, said, the committee will in fact pass judgment on each contract, even when it originates in a proposed deal between a company and one of the oil-producing regions.

But the committee must make its decision based on specific guidelines, like a directive to maximize profits for Iraq and to keep the contracting process transparent, Mr. Shahristani said. And there are other checks and balances written into the law. For example, while the regions can propose their own deals, they will have to work with companies that have been “pre-qualified” in Baghdad.

Directives like that could still generate objections in Kurdistan, which wants as much freedom as possible to write its own contracts.

The draft law also specifies that technical experts in the Oil Ministry are to be included in the process at all levels. It is the ministry that will be called upon to write a plan for which oil fields will be developed and drilled first, and which ones will follow. The federal council would simply be called upon to endorse that plan or send it back for revisions.

The Oil Ministry would also be closely involved in developing “model contracts” to be used as templates at all levels of Iraq’s oil industry.

Having an oil law will in principle make it easier to attract international companies with the resources and expertise that the country so desperately needs. Still, hovering over all the negotiations is the question of whether companies will want to do business in Iraq.

Mr. Shahristani, for one, says that because of the financial stakes, companies are already reaching out.

“The international companies keep contacting me — every week, without exception,” Mr. Shahristani said. “They are all very, very keen.”

Those who fitted this all up to suit their own ends not winning at the end of the day? Divine providence.

[Guest]

[Guest]

The troop surge will work.

[Lena]

Yes and democracy will come to Iraq and the middle east , israel will make peace with the arabs , everyone all over the world will love each other , Elvis will come out of hiding , and pigs willfly..............

[Guest]

[Lena]

No surge will work , the Iraqis will be killing each other sooner or later surge or no surge .....why shgould American's be caught in the middle ?

israel wants real peace ?

[THAT_GUEST]

I don't think so, because Georgey has us in another Vietnam style war. Our troops can't fire unless first fired upon. If there must be a troop surge, then re-up the declaration of war against any person or persons hostile to Iraqi Peace fighters and Coalition forces. If they know that when they see a squad walking in, they mean business, then those hiding the insurgents will either move out or get shot. They can adopt any stance they want, love the US for ousting the blood-thirsty Saddam, or hate Americans and swear to fight to the death, and let the latter happen fast!

So long as our troops are forced to pussyfoot around because Bush is a limp dick, the soldiers are going to continue to take casualties.

[Nefarious]

Why we are doomed to hear from Bush in the not too distant future that embedding US troops into Iraqi police and military groups was a very bad miscalculation.

See the comment below - it was made back in April 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802244_pf.html

"There's two kinds of Iraqis here, the ones who help us and the ones who shoot us, and there's an awful lot of 'em doing both," said Hoover, 26, of Newark, Ohio. "Is it frustrating? Yes, it's frustrating. But we can't just stop working with them."

Now I read an article either today or yesterday (no - I can't find the right combination of google words to relocate it) that said US troops are complaining that members inside the Iraqi army and police are still tipping off insurgents.

Before now the focus has been on the Sunni insurgents and there were still tips off about where American military members were going to be. Now action is being taken against the Shiite militias as well, and I would say a good majority of the Iraqi police and military will be Shiite, given the dominance of Shiite in the Government. What does this logically lead to? A higher number of tips off from both Sunni and Shiite police/army members.

What's the real kicker? American soldiers are going to be 'pepper potted' amongst those forces. Smaller numbers are easier to pick off. Imagine a scenario where it's already been set up that once the Iraqi army or police, who are carrying American soldiers, enter a specific area then they part out of the way and a sniper takes the soldier out. Then the Iraqi servicemen just claim it was an unforeseen attack.

Seriously, this strategy is a ripe set up for a bloodbath against American soldiers. This plan assumes that the people the American soldiers are being sent out with are actually not going to double-cross them. That's a lot of faith to place in organisations that the US military have already accused of betrayal.

Now I don't know whether controlling for this has already been built into the plan, I would assume that senior military in Iraq would see the likelihood of this sort of scenario a mile-off. But how would you control for it effectively?

However, if they put more soldiers into training the Iraqi army, so that they are more effective and independent, that could be a better use of increased troop levels than this pepper potting idea. At least it would do something to help the Iraqi people be effectively self-sustaining and also aid getting the US troops the hell out of that miserable situation. US Soldiers have been complaining that they spend more time fighting than being able to train the Iraqi army. I realise that in the field advisors would also be contributing to the training process but if I was a US soldier I wouldn't want to be an advisor or part of a unit embedded into a troop on patrol.

[Guest]

[Lena]

You take two different sides ! israel as the good guy and israel as a racist country ..........also a leech on America if I may add.

[Guest]