I Copy-Edit the New York Times Editorial Page
It is long past time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
Original, uncorrected article still online. Look for the updated version to appear as soon as the NYT’s editors have gotten their daily dose of insight from Unqualified Offerings. Happily the draft they submitted appears to lack nonsense about staying behind to “train Iraqi security forces,” though there’s a muddle-headed section about maybe bases in Kurdistan, or maybe somewhere else.
« « He is immortal, and will plague us forever (bookmark this for 2010) | Main | Once upon a time, campaigns didn’t start until election year » »
Comment by Dave W. —
July 8, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Insight for the NYT? I love helping ppl to learn things. The insight is that this Iraq War is about the oil in the ground in Iraq. US companies and consumers get that oil cheaper with US troops there than they would without US troops there. That is why the troops are there and that is why they are staying regardless.
It is clear from the NYT article that the author didn’t get that. Maybe she or he is in denial about it. The US needs that oil cheap and the US is going to get that oil cheap and about the only thing that can stop the occupation is if US soldiers stop enlisting and re-enlisting and contractors start quitting. If we want to stop this war, then those are the people we need to reach.
So if you talk to a contractor this weekend . . .
Comment by Bill —
July 8, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Balderdash. It would be cheaper to simply buy the oil from the Iraqis. What are they going to do with it if they don’t sell it, drink it?
Of course all that oil is a large prize to be fought over by the various interest groups in Iraq. The civil war could go on for decades. Should have thought of that before the invasion.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 8, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
The instability in Iraq is a major contributor to the risk premiums that are keeping oil prices so high. It is likely that in the absence of the US somebody would consolidate power in Iraq, and after an initial orgy of violence both Iraq and the region would become more stable. This would most likely reduce oil prices. Also, stability would probably lead to more oil being pumped, further reducing prices.
This should not be construed as an endorsement of strongman rule. I certainly do not like the idea of strongman rule (even though I consider it the most likely scenario once we stop meddling). But if one wants to analyze the oil angle here, the simple fact is that our presence is probably just prolonging a conflict that keeps oil prices high.
From an oil perspective, the US beneficiaries of this conflict are the people selling oil. The people who buy oil and oil-derived products (i.e. consumers and most US businesses) are being hurt by it.
Mind you, I’d support withdrawal from Iraq even if I thought it meant higher long-term oil prices. But the facts are what they are.
Comment by Bill —
July 8, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
You’re wrong Thoreau.
The major contributor to high oil prices is greater world demand,especially Chinese demand. There is the potential for Iraq oil production to bring down prices as there are a lot of reserves, but it will require investment and time.
I haven’t been following it, but the last I looked Iraq oil production was only a little bit higher than pre-invasion days.
Comment by Dave W. —
July 8, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Balderdash. It would be cheaper to simply buy the oil from the Iraqis. What are they going to do with it if they don’t sell it, drink it?
I think without US troops there, the Iraqis will decide who to sell oil to in a competitive environment and they will get more for it.
With US troops there, the Iraqis will be pressured to sell oil to who the US wants them to sell it to and that the commercial environment will be less competitive and the Iraqis will get less for the oil.
I do not think how fast they are pumping right now matter much. Rather, I think that oil prices will go up as worldwide supply declines and that the US is engaging in a longterm strategy to get the oil cheap.
I also think there is a lot of denial about all this stuff in the American public.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 8, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Bill-
I don’t claim that it’s the only factor, but every analysis I’ve read (admittedly, I don’t follow it closely) in the past few years has included risk premiums from Middle East instability as one of the factors. I know we won’t see $20/barrel any time soon, no matter how stable the Middle East is, but risk premiums seem to add at least a few dollars to the price per barrel.
Comment by abb1 —
July 8, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
It’s not at all about US consumers getting oil cheaper, it’s about US oil companies getting higher profits.
Imagine that US mining companies control most of the gold production around the world. Does it mean the US consumers are getting cheaper gold? Of course not.
In fact, the US consumers along with all the other consumers are likely to pay higher prices, just because it’s easier for a few US companies to organize a cartel. In addition to the already existing one.