Privatizing Iraq

The BBC reports on a series of reforms planned for Iraq that would make Milton Friedman giddy as a schoolgirl. Oil is left out of the privatization and liberalization scheme, apparently on the grounds that U.S. firms snapping up oilfields might appear to confirm the belief that the war was "all about the oil." Probably that's necessary right now, though it's worth bearing in mind that state ownership of oil has helped to prop up plenty of regional despots.

Comments

[Eric]

This is a great story and shows that the Iraq war was a good thing. It took out Saddam, who DID have ties to Al Qaida, and who the whole world believed did have WMD. It freed an industrious people to pursue their own interests in a free market country. Hopefully, it will turn into a country that trades peacefully with its neighbors and ignites a move to freedom (and thus peace) in the Middle East.

[Sir Real]

... and while you're at it, I want a pony.

[Eric]

The Iraqi people are now free to buy themselves ponies and anything else they want. Sure, the prosperity isn't there yet, but the article shows the foundation for that prosperity is now being laid.

[joe]

Any hints on how to get rid of a mental image of Friedman with a plaid skirt and ponytails?

[Todd Fletcher]

I'm not having *any* trouble getting rid it - got some issues there, Joe?

[Zathras]

Don't worry about the oil sector. Iraq only works as a country if the rest of the economy functions and grows, and keeping the state's role very limited is absolutely the best way of making that possible.

[Julian Sanchez]

Zathras-
Well, let's hope Iraq's future governors have an unselfish commitment to the flourishing of the Iraqi economy rather than, say, their own power and influence.

Joe-
Why would you want to get rid of it?

[Eric]

I also would love to see Iraq's oil industry privatized, and it still may happen. If the free market succeeds in Iraq, and Iraqis realize it is a more efficint and productive method of exchanging goods and conducting commerce, pressure could well mount to do the same with the state-run oil industry.
Let's keep in mind we wouldn't be discussing these promising developments if Hussein were still in power.

[Jason Ligon]

Julian,

Is RPPI over there?

[Anonymous]

Eric,
When you couple prospects for the sublime:
"...an industrious people to pursue their own interests in a free market country."

With the contentions of lying, neo-con inspired, government propoganda:
"...Saddam, who DID have ties to Al Qaida, and who the whole world believed did have WMD."

You do a real disservice to the sublime.

Also; as for the wish:
"Hopefully, it will turn into a country that trades peacefully with its neighbors"

Remember, it was the UN sanctions supported by our government that curtailed trading with Iraq.

Now; ruminate on the observation of Ludwig von Mises, that: "When goods don't cross borders, troops soon do"...

[Rick Barton]

Last post was mine,
Rick Barton

[Eric]

Rick,
See this article for Hussein's ties to Al Qaida:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins.asp

And if the world didn't believe in Hussen having WMDs, then why the whole inspection regime? Why all the UN resolutions? Why the French proposal to occupy Iraq with thousands of UN troops and hundreds upon hundreds of inspectors? And what did Hussein use to murder the Kurds? It was WMD.

Saddam had the food for oil program, remember? It was supposed to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people supposedly caused by sanctions. Instead, Saddam used that money to build palaces and luxuries for himself. Saddam could have traded with anyone he pleased if he would have abided by the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. He didn't. Saddam curtailed trading with his neighbors.

I like your Mises quote, because it shows what Iraq can become. With Saddam gone, goods can now flow between Iraq and other nations.

I thought libertarians believed in freedom. Now the Iraqis have it, and that's a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Eric,
If anything Hussein's and Al Qaida were enemies. There was certainly no current functioning relationship.

Eric wrote:
"And if the world didn't believe in Hussen having WMDs, then why the whole inspection regime?"

Which turned up zero WMD. Absolutly no excuse there for war.

"Why the French proposal to occupy Iraq with thousands of UN troops and hundreds upon hundreds of inspectors?"

As the French freely admit now, the main motivation was to forstall a US government attack on Iraq.
Saddam is bad enough. But, I don't think the facts
support blaming his avarice for the suffering that restrictions on trade will inevitably cause.

"I thought libertarians believed in freedom. Now the Iraqis have it, and that's a bad thing?"

Freedom can never a bad thing but I don't think the Iraqis are experiencing it yet, but hopefully they will.

In addition to "Reason", May I suggest that you balance out your reading of "National Review" (really, not too good on foreign policy concerns)
with "American Conservative", "Liberty" and "Antiwar.com" for information and views from the right on foreign relations matters.

[Rick Barton]

Last post was me again. Sorry, wont be "annon" again. I checked the box.

Rick Barton

[John Hood]

Rick:

With respect, if you believe that The American Conservative, Liberty, and Antiwar.com are more credible sources of information and analysis on Iraq than James Robbins over at NRO, just to take one example, then you comprehend the term "credible" differently than I do. I actually enjoy Liberty but it is not populated with writers and analysts who can claim true expertise on national security matters. As for the other mag, it is a regrettable waste of time, only a tiny step up from the John Birch Society.

The best available evidence, I believe, suggests that al Qaeda and Saddam were ideological opposites but collaborators in some ways -- for example, in some training and possibly some coordination of terrorist activities. They had a common enemy, and that's all thugs needs to work together, however uneasily, as countless examples in history demonstrate.

On WMD, as I've written before, Saddam Hussein either 1)had them and smuggled them out of the country, 2)had them and buried or destroyed them at the start of war, 3)didn't have them (anymore) but tred to bluff us through intelligence misinformation, 4)didn't have them (anymore) and simply forget to document for inspectors how they were destroyed so he wouldn't be overthrown, or 5) didn't have them and was the victim of an elaborate, multi-year, bipartisan Clinton/Bush/Blair/UN/Montgomery Burns conspiracy. If any of the first four propositions is true, the war was justified on national security grounds. If the fourth is true, your argument remains valid.

I like my odds.

[John Hood]

Wow, bad editing. Among other boo-boos, make that "if the fifth is true, your argument remains valid." Got distracted by a rebellious son up past his bedtime. . .

[matt]

"Foreigners will be able to take over businesses and industries that were previously state-controlled." (from the article)

Something about this makes me very suspicious....
Granted almost anything is better than state ownership, but it seems like the Iraqi's who worked in these businesses/industries should become the de facto owners rather than some foreign corporation. Just a thought....

[Kevin Carson]

Milton Friedman Japanese Schoolgirl Bukkake!!! See Milton's Live Webcam!!!! See Milton Blow a Donkey!!!!

Ahem.... Er, sorry about that.

Seriously, I think the "all about oil argument," at least the more sophisticated versions of it, are oriented more toward geopolitics: securing *political* control over the Gulf oil reserves in order to get Europe and Japan by the shorthairs, and forestall economic stagnation as reserves are depleted over the coming decades. Of course, business interests connected to Bush and Cheney do have lucrative contracts providing *services* for Iraqi oil operations.

[Eric]

Rick,
Mr. Hood has it about right - you have to believe a lot of questionable assertions if maintaining that Saddam had no WMDs. And read Robbins' article before you discount Saddam-AQ ties.
Also keep in mind that Saddam could have had those sanctions lifted anytime he wanted to - all he had to do was do what he promised.
I read Liberty frequently and have also visited anti-war.com. I like Liberty but was not impressed by anti-war. I also read every column by AC guys like Buchanan, Sobran, and Francis, so I'm pretty much chock full of balance. Besides, here I am at Reason, reading and participating in Hit & Run!

[Rick Barton]

John,
To your credit, at least you didn't bash Antiwar.com. Seems like they are constantly uncovering foreign policy stories days ahead of almost everybody else and they, particularly Raimondo, document their contentions thoroughly. It's great for very current, pro-individual liberty,Mid-east and other foreign policy analysis
and news.

"Liberty ...is not populated with writers and analysts who can claim true expertise on national security matters."

What?? Come on. Iv'e read stuff by both Leon Hadar and Gene Healy in "Liberty" and also check out the F.P. pieces by Cox, Ramsey and Bradford himself.

"As for the other mag, it is a regrettable waste of time..."

Double What?? From the above, I can only conclude that you havn't actually read much foreign policy analysis in "The American Conservative" because I don't think that there is any other way you could possibly characterize Eric Margolis, Arnaud De Borchrave, J.P. Zmirak and Robert Novak as "wastes of time". Even, the far left and the neo-cons, both of whos ears (eyes?) I'm sure burn at the writing in "The American Conservative" would blush calling it "a waste of time". OK, maybe I'm giving some members of both groups to much credit, but by and large...
And, lets not forget old Pat himself,and his stuff
on the neo's influential push for war and their "lets keep the world safe for Ariel Sharon" priorities, most certainly to the ultimate detriment of both the vast majority of Palestinian AND Israeli people. (But I digress)
Also, I like the way Pat Buchanan ignoree PC niceties as when he brought up Richard Perle's having got caught spying on the US for the Israeli government in 1970 when he worked for Sen. "Scoop" Jackson.

But, as good as "American Conservative" is on foreign policy matters it is very bad (protectionist) on trade. ( especially for a publication that has "Conservative" in it's name)

" only a tiny step up from the John Birch Society"

Careful John, there are lots of well known pro-free enterprise economists that have written for the JBS and their conspiracy analysis is sometimes
right on the mark.

The best available evidence, I believe, suggests that al Qaeda and Saddam (were) collaborators in some ways -- for example, in some training and possibly some coordination of terrorist activities.

The best, although still flimsy and no way an excuse for war, evidence was the alleged "Czech meeting" which in government "lying speak" is "no
longer operable"

"On WMD, Saddam
didn't have them (anymore) but tred to bluff us through intelligence misinformation,..."

John, with all due respect, Give me a break! Why would he do that? He had no death wish, just the opposite. No, it was our government that tried to
bluff us with forgeries, lies and assorted sickening duplicity.

"I... Got distracted by a rebellious son up past his bedtime. . ."

A situation I respect and can empathize with, although my two (one of each gender) are now in
college, where the meaning of "up past one's bedtime" morphs into "depriving oneself of sleep
to the extent it is no longer possible to function coherently.

[John Hood]

Rick:

What you gave back to me in response to my original post is evidence of the spotty quality of the sources in which you apparently continue to have confidence. I'm not at all meaning to be insulting, and I respect your opinion and your thoughtful participation in the debate here, but many of your assertions reflect the very sort of telephone-game, distorted-beyond-all-recognition "insight" into the war and its justifications that I've seen out of Raimondo & Co. That's why I don't take them seriously.

For example, the forgery about Iraq seeking nuclear material was not the basis for the British government's conclusions about Iraqi nuclear efforts in Africa. Nor did any play any significant role in the U.S. justification for war. The Brits cite multiple intelligence sources, and furthermore there are publicly reported trade missions and official statements from Iraq to various African countries that serve to confirm the intelligence regarding Saddam's search for nuclear material that region.

On Iraq and al Qaeda, we are many, many months past the notion that the only alleged link involves the much-discussed meetings in Prague. Assume that meeting never happened. The latest evidence long predates that event, involves meetings and activities in Sudan, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, among other sites, and involves specific allegations about training programs operated by Iraq for terror operatives from different organizations.

I know Bob Novak and I respect him. Likewise, de Borchgrave (sorry about the spelling) was once an interesting writer and experienced foreign correspondent. Unfortunately, both made predictions and observations pre-war that turned out to be embarrassingly off the mark, and simply don't reflect their best work. As a result, I don't have a lot of confidence in them now.

I try to be a careful reader and judge of credibility -- and I certainly don't take neocon assertions at face value either, as they are obtuse at best on economic and trade issues -- and I find that most of the information I see from the anti-war crowd is outdated, exaggerated, and lacking in perspective or context. They need to do some reading, learn some history, learn a little patience and discernment about interpreting the daily news cycle, and talk to a broader range of folks with real expertise -- military, business, or scholarly -- about the countries and cultures in question.

Didn't mean to go on like this. We'll never settle in a back-and-forth the question of whose sources of information are more credible. Part of the problem with this entire debate, both internally within the free-market movement and externally in the political discourse, is that we are not reading each other's source material enough to have a shared frame of reference within which to debate matters of philosophy and policy.

For example, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that our forces in Iraq are stuck in a quagmire and suffering significant casualties. They easily conquered a much-vaunted army that turned out to be largely incompetent and ephemeral, and American casualties since major operations concluded have been individually tragic but, militarily, insignificant. The security situation in the country as a whole is surprisingly good, as is the early progress towards setting up civilized government. Most Iraqis are happy Saddam was overthrown, are at least resigned to the necessity of foreign intervention to accomplish that (but want it to end soon), and are reasonably hopeful about the future of their country. At current casualty rates, the Baathist/al Qaeda raids on coalition forces could continue for years and the fair-minded conclusion would be that this second war in Iraq was one of the most successful in the history of warfare.

See what I mean? If you think the war is going horrible awry, and hasn't achieved what it should have after these short months, then you and I will never have a meaningful argument about the war's philosophical and policy justifications.

[Rick Barton]

Hey, it just occurred to me; It was kind of weird when Buckley chose to come out and question the wisdom of a "preemtive attack" he did it in "Human Events" and not NR.

[Don]

"Gallup Goes to Baghdad" is a more recent post that seems to show Iraqi support for the way things are going in Iraq. It also has an interesting response from Raimondo. It all ties in pretty well with this discussion.

[Rick Barton]

Eric wrote:
"And read Robbins' article before you discount Saddam-AQ ties."

I will, but in view of all the evidence that has come out the other way, I will be surprised at a revelation.

"I read Liberty frequently and have also visited anti-war.com.... I also read every column by AC guys like Buchanan, Sobran, and Francis... Besides, here I am at Reason, reading and participating in Hit & Run!"

Good for you Eric. Good for You!

[Rick Barton]

John,
You wrote:
"For example, the forgery about Iraq seeking nuclear material was not the basis for the British government's conclusions about Iraqi nuclear efforts in Africa. Nor did any play any significant role in the U.S. justification for war."

I wasn't referring to THAT forgery this time. I was referring to the plagiarized grad. student thesis
that Powell cited at the UN when he called it: "valuable and important evidence provided by British Intelligence".

"On Iraq and al Qaeda...Assume that meeting (Prague) never happened. The latest evidence long predates that event..."

That is just the problem; at best, meetings that happened long ago and predate changes in the relationships in question hardly serve to justify something as extreme as war.

"Part of the problem ... is that we are not reading each other's source material enough to have a shared frame of reference within which to debate matters of philosophy and policy"

Good point. I agree.

[Rick Barton]

""Gallup Goes to Baghdad"...has an interesting response from Raimondo"

Thanks Don, I think Raimondo's first two paragraphs make a good point.

[Don]

Rick,

At this point, Iraqi opinion is an important issue, so I'm inclined to view Raimondo's comments as flippant in the very least.

[Rick Barton]

Don,
Yeah; your right, they were for sure. He could have offered argument as to why Iraqi opinion may be discounted but I think his critique, based on principle, of the whole endeavor in that post is certainly valid.

[Don]

Rick,

Some valid points can be raised that suggest our invasion of Iraq was in the US interest. That's not to say that the war was a good idea. But certainly, good arguments can be made. So Raimondo's principle, American interest, does not necessarly favor his policy positions.

Frankly, I think we were a lot more justified in invading Iraq than we were siding with the Allies in the Great War; hopefully we don't have the horrible results that resulted from our involvement in that conflict.