Every major terror threat involves Pakistan: CIA

[fatman17]

view: Pakistan’s terrorist confrontation —Brain Cloughley​

Can we possibly believe that the Chief of the Army Staff, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, is a traitor to his country? It’s a silly question, but that is what is implied by the commentators who announce that Pakistan “isn’t doing enough” to counter terrorism and that the Army and the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, headed by the able General Pasha, are actually supporting the Taliban and other loony extremists who seek the breakdown of Pakistan.

There was one particularly flatulent piece of windbaggery in Canada’s normally sane Globe and Mail newspaper on October 27. Insultingly titled “Pakistan’s so-called war on terrorism”, it had no by-line, so perhaps was written by a machine, but nonetheless was intriguing in its statement that “[Pakistan’s] leaders have claimed to be doing all they can to break up terrorist groups even as the military has provided them with safe haven and, in some cases, active support.”

It is claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the Pakistan army is giving “active support” to violent fanatics who are trying to kill the army’s own soldiers. In some weird way it is supposed that units on operation in the North West Frontier Province, who take casualties almost daily and have suffered over a thousand killed in the past five years, are being attacked by terrorists and criminals from “safe havens” arranged by their own comrades.

I state flatly: it is inconceivable that General Kayani would sanction any such behaviour on part of his officers and men — just as it is impossible that commanders in the field would for a moment permit their colleagues to assist in helping those who intend to kill fellow soldiers.

In the same piece, it was also claimed that “At the Red Mosque, a hard-core Islamist compound in the heart of Islamabad, and more recently in the Bajaur tribal district, the government chose to act only under considerable international pressure and after allowing militants to put down deep roots.”

What nonsense. There was no outside pressure to deal with the Lal Masjid loonies (which was done most effectively in an operation by the army’s Special Services Group that has not yet received the public tribute that is its due), and while some commentators have fulminated about Bajaur, it was entirely the initiative of the Islamabad government to order the army into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in 2002-3.

Pakistan is up against more than just terrorists. It faces repeated propaganda attacks from those whose pronouncements vary from being mildly stupid to openly damaging. In the latter vein, the declaration last week by the head of the CIA, a retired air force general, Michael Hayden, that “Let me be very clear. Today, virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to [Pakistan’s] tribal areas,” is mind-boggling in its fantasy.

“Major terrorist threats” to America that are listed by the US State Department include the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Naxalite Maoists in India, Spain’s Basque Fatherland and Liberty movement (ETA), India’s Babbar Khalsa International, Japan’s Aum Shrinrikyo, the New People’s Army of the Philippines, and Israel’s Kahane Chai.

All of these are regarded, justifiably, as dangerous terrorist groups, for which designation the main criterion is that “the organisation’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of US nationals or the national security...of the United States.” Every one of them is, in the words of the director of the CIA, a “major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of.” Therefore, by his definition, they all have “threads back to the tribal areas” of Pakistan. How fascinating.

So the wild men of the Tamil Tigers are giving high fives to the Naxalite nutters in FATA while the dedicated communists of the New People’s Army are sitting round camp fires with turbaned Taliban, chatting about old times. All, of course, nurtured by the omnipresent ISI, which no doubt is responsible, among other things, for global warming, Lehman Brothers’ collapse into bankruptcy, the death of Princess Diana, and Australia’s recent cricket defeat by India.

It is regrettable that the head of the CIA can be so ill-advised as to make such statements as he did last week. His comments help neither his government’s cause nor his personal credibility. I made inquiries about the speech and was told his intention was to be “supportive” of Pakistan. All that can be said is that if this was an example of being supportive, then it would be interesting to hear him being critical.

US policy as regards Pakistan is dismally disjointed to the point of being erratic and almost entirely counter-productive. The head of the CIA was joined in his ingenuous worldview by the new commander Central Command, the much-lauded General Petraeus, who observed that Pakistan was confronting “extremists who have turned what used to be fairly peaceful areas into strongholds for individuals who...believe that they have the right to blow up other people who do not see the world the way they do.”

Hayden and Petraeus ignore the fact that it was the US invasion of Afghanistan that caused the current chaos in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The situation was not ideal before the invasion, but it certainly wasn’t the mess it is now.

Pakistan is not to be blamed for the fact that brutal fanatics sought refuge in its western mountains, and it is absurd to hold Islamabad, and especially Pakistan’s army, responsible for the reaction of the tribes in supporting them.

And the really ironical thing, given the dozens of US missile strikes in the NWFP, is that Hayden and Petraeus themselves “believe they have the right to blow up other people who do not see the world the way they do.” It is that very attitude that contributes to Pakistan’s problems in confronting terrorism.

Brian Cloughley’s book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and is distributed in Pakistan by Saeed Book Bank

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

u beat me to it. i posted it in the national politics section.!

 

[batmannow]

I'm wondering if Mr. Iqbal read the readily available transcript at the Atlantic Council. He's certainly done the director a dis-service by his rendering of the comments in his DAWN story-

Hayden Transcript- Atlantic Council

I'm certain none here have read the available transcript either. That being likely, why would Director Hayden's actual words then matter? Here they are, just "for the record", but I'd presume they mean nothing to Mr. Iqbal or, more importantly, any here. The narrative, again, has been pre-determined.

The speech was about Al Qaeda- nothing but Al Qaeda. He makes clear in his comments that he's addressing the pre-eminent threat to our interests and identifies that threat as Al Qaeda. He notes the various locations globally where Al Qaeda maintains a presence- growing, stable, or diminishing. He finally points to the tribal areas of Pakistan as the almost certain nexus of Al Qaeda's strategic operations. Here is a more complete version for those still dis-inclined to read the actual full text from the director of the know-nothing C.I.A.-

"Now let me turn to that part of the globe that’s most important to al Qaeda, most important to al Qaeda’s continuing operations. Al Qaeda sanctuary along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in those tribal areas, has allowed it to recover some of the capacity lost when it was expelled from Afghanistan almost seven years ago now. The group has reconstituted some training and operational capabilities. It’s increased its recruitment and its propaganda efforts. It’s established a more durable leadership structure. It’s built redundancies into its plotting, and it’s developed a bench of skilled operatives to carry plans forward when other plans are disrupted.

All that activity is enabled by a fairly recent development, and that’s al Qaeda’s ties to local tribes. The terrorist group – here I’m talking about al Qaeda – has developed a close, co-dependent relationship with Pashtun extremists and separatist groups. Al Qaeda, foreigners in a land that’s long been suspicious of foreigners, has been able to curry favor with locals by supporting their causes, training their fighters, funding their operations, and importantly, showing sufficient deference to tribal leaders. Bin Laden’s lieutenants work in concert with Pakistani militant groups as long as the operational goals of those groups don’t conflict with al Qaeda’s own strategic objectives. And increasingly, ties to the tribes are being made a bit more permanent through intermarriage.

Now, the safe haven in the tribal region, in the FATA, that safe haven is not comparable to what al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. It’s not comparable in terms of either security or scale, but it is more worrisome today than it was two or three years ago. Cross-border attacks in Afghanistan are more violent and aggressive, as are al Qaeda’s efforts to destabilize Pakistan itself. Furthermore, we’re seeing a disturbing emphasis on the recruitment, training, and deployment of Western operatives. What do I mean by Western operatives? Those are people who may not elicit any notice whatsoever from you if they were standing next to you in the airport line.

The crossover point for al Qaeda’s foothold in the tribal areas is probably since September of 2006, when the governor of North Waziristan signed a peace agreement with local militants. That truce set in motion a whole series of events and decisions that gave al Qaeda a lot more breathing space than it had had previously.

Let me be very clear. Today virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it’s command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the FATA. It is no overstatement to say that al Qaeda’s base in Pakistan is the single most important factor today in the group’s resilience and its ability to threaten the West."

Most conventional wisdom asserts that Bali, Madrid, London, and 9/11 are the products of Al Qaeda. It's to possible attacks such as these which the director likely refers as "threats"- not any particular government. It's Pakistan's sad misfortune to have once interwoven it's regional security needs with a dubious ally in the afghani taliban government. There's no doubt that these taliban elements were the enablers and vouch-safes whom vetted A.Q. into your tribal areas. Thus, there they've been since late 2001. Those are very simple facts.

After that, all you can really suggest is that A.Q.'s threat to the west is over-stated and unworthy of the considerable interest shown their global activities. That would be very difficult to do.

Beyond that, I doubt that any of you could successfully argue with the director about matters such as A.Q.'s strategic planning, funding, logistics, and other operational considerations that effect the execution of terror attacks on the aforementioned scale.

He's privy to information which none here could ever hope to see. He's likely devoted a great deal of time to thinking about these matters. It is for that which he is paid. For those reasons alone, I find his comments far more valuable than any posted above.

Director Hayden's comments aren't a problem. He's lucidly outlined the nature of the Al Qaeda threat. Whether you wish to read the actual message is another matter. It seems not.

Dear S-2; sir
i guss, this the old policy crap, which was been kept runing from 2002 till now, nothing new!
well, i guss its about time that ! pakistan should ask US to supply DRONE like equipments to take on TERRORISTS, if US is realy serious in its support to pakistan, the policy of surprized DRONE attacks should be stopped immediatly, CIA opertives should be kept out of pakistan!
US govt should have its own policy regurds pakistan, & cia WRITTEN SCRIPT should be scrapped.

 

[batmannow]

I think internally there are major differences in PA and US&NATO cammand .

Gen Ashfaq is not a stupid general ,actually he is controlling whole war game wisely .

WOT is not short term war it is a long term war and need long term strategy to defeat neo con zoinists.

Kiyani can not staright foward refuse american action planS, but mean time he should keep US engage in afghanistan for longer period to weak them politically and financially and finally their strong war musel can be attack same strategy ISI used against Russia. .

US is spending 865BILLS USD annually in this war game of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income but now they are in deep s***t due to internal economic crisis and international economic recesion.

Obama is house nigro and will furture increase spending in AFGHAINISTAN WAR ,but our army and national startegy should keep them engage in war but mean time slowly we have to strengthen our institution which presently in very bad shap now.IMF also trying to furture control our assets?




All credit goes to gen zia,gen mush and ISI for strengthen our army which is capable to defeat this US&NATO big war machine and RAW,MUSAD,CIA plans.

My very dear waraich66; sir
good post, but did you think CIA , is a donkey , who ever, whenever, wants it to ride, its available?
do think that they dont have brains, sory to say but if they can get rid of gen.zia, gen musharaf, they can get rid of gen kiyani?

 

[S-2]

"Obama is house nigro..."

This is nothing but an unacceptably racist remark and will stop. I'm alerting a moderator.

 

[S-2]

""Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

This is a lie. Not one DROP of Iraqi oil has been stolen or provided free as war booty/largesse. Provide proof or back away from the comment.

Let's stop with the nonsense along with the tasteless racist slurs.

 

[pkpatriotic]

""Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

This is a lie. Not one DROP of Iraqi oil has been stolen or provided free as war booty/largesse. Provide proof or back away from the comment.

Let's stop with the nonsense along with the tasteless racist slurs.

Dear Freind S-2, I have good impression about you and Black Stone, that you both are reasonably decent, bold and cool minded with strong nerves...able to face any sort of strong a& bitterest criticism being a bold and a well- determined brave irony soldier who can only assure the success otherwise any sort of anxiety & stress always makes individuals imperfact and unethical who can't win the tasks for his country. Well... its really surprising to me that what happened as you are losing temperament, calm down friend and let allow fellows to express their annoyance against US's strategical policies hurting the world........don't you beleive on freedom of expression? after all USA is a global leader of todays unipolar world .........Here I would suggest you to be bold and think seriously on the situation that what american is doing it's nothing more then to just earn hatered among the peoples. In my view the actual leader always win the heart of peoples besides the conquering of land.
Dont you think american strategies hurting the image and goodwill of american nation.
My dear you have asked proof for oil income..........ok it will also expose .....but lets come first come first served basis .........as Americans took plea of WMD but Its now clear that they couldn't find even any single bolt or chemical of WMD to show to the world in support of their fake claim for WMD in IRAQ, for which US planned a severe attack of Iraq........do you please remember.......but no problem being a global citizen I am here to cooperate support you in real sense, principly...

An artical for your ready reference regarding Iraqi Oil beneficiary, (who are now extremly trying to continue there control over Oil):

In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil
Tuesday 11 November 2008
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report

As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this "commitment" has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: continue US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field.

A leaked version of the US-Iraq status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), supplied and translated for Truthout by American Friends Service Committee Iraq consultant Raed Jarrar, states that the US will indefinitely "continue to protect Iraq's natural resources of gas and oil and protect Iraq's foreign financial and economic assets and enjoy benefits of invason."

According to Jarrar, the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are in basic agreement on the SOFA, probably because an American presence in Iraq would keep Maliki in power. However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people oppose the pact and reject US control over Iraq's resources.

In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA's terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament's lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq's oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week.

Cleric Hashim al-Ta'i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, "There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades."

However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International.

"US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil."

The large oil companies seek long-term contracts that would give them control over much of Iraq's oil and oil production, according to Juhasz. Although Kurdistan has entered into several contracts with foreign oil companies, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani declared that any contract signed before the passage of the oil law is void.

In addition to pushing the international SOFA and Iraq's oil law, the Bush administration is attempting to unilaterally carve a place in US law for a takeover of Iraqi oil, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In a signing statement tacked on to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, Bush excused himself from a provision intended to rein in US power of Iraq's oil.

The statement - if one accepts it as authoritative - would allow Bush to use defense funds "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." Bush wrote that prohibiting such a use of funds "purport(s) to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations."

Experts view this latest expansion of Bush's powers in Iraq as a kind of rush to the finish line: an attempt to accomplish as many of the administration's oil-control goals before it steps down and the Obama administration - which may well have different ideas - steps up. Bush's signing statement could forebode a weighty US push for Iraq's oil in the next two months, whether or not the SOFA passes, according to Fine.

"The signing statement is in effect a corollary to the Bush doctrine of preventive warfare, which he is now extending to military action to seize control of natural resources in a foreign country," Fine told Truthout. "The logic of the signing statement is inescapable and extremely dangerous. Absent repudiation by a future president, this and other authorities that President Bush has asserted in signing statements constitute a foundation for draconian unilateral action by the US."

However, the US's next president seems to have a very different interpretation of the US's relationship to Iraq's oil. In fact, Juhasz took the title of her book, "The Tyranny of Oil," from a line in President-elect Barack Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech. Obama emphasized his hopes for a transition away from oil and toward sustainable energy sources throughout his campaign. He has also promised a drawdown of troops in Iraq.

The next two months will measure just how far President Bush is willing to go to fulfill the objectives that, many say, underlie his occupation of Iraq. Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus's policy outreach director, says that the administration's last-ditch efforts - the signing statements, the SOFA, the oil law pressure - demonstrate that Bush has not taken his eye off Iraqi oil.

"Although Bush has verbally assured the Iraqi people that we are not occupying their country for oil, the actions of the United States
indicate otherwise," Leaver told Truthout. "The language calling for the protection of Iraq's oil resources in the long term agreement between Iraq and the US is another strong indication of what the US intent is inside of Iraq - gaining long-term access to Iraq's oil."

Please also check the following link:
State Department Inspector to Investigate Texas Oil Company’s Deal in Kurdistan
THANKS & REGARDS

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Warraich- the comment you posted about B Obama is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Zwahiri made it, and it is unacceptable when anyone else makes it.

Quite frankly, for all the criticism some Muslims direct at the West for their being a 'decayed and degenerate society' comments like the one you made only serve to illustrate how deep the prejudices and flaws amongst Muslims are.

If anything, Zawahiri's racist comments should indicate to you how completely unrepresentative of Islam, or anything that is just. good or 'right', Al Qaeda's agenda is.

Since this is multiple times that you have made a racial, religious or ethnically derogatory comment, take a break for a while.

 

[pkpatriotic]

""Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

This is a lie. Not one DROP of Iraqi oil has been stolen or provided free as war booty/largesse. Provide proof or back away from the comment.

Let's stop with the nonsense along with the tasteless racist slurs.

The following article as an additional reference for you"

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: RECONSTRUCTION; Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil - New York Times
By JEFF GERTH
Published: October 5, 2003

The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.

The task force, which was based at the Pentagon as part of the planning for the war, produced a book-length report that described the Iraqi oil industry as so badly damaged by a decade of trade embargoes that its production capacity had fallen by more than 25 percent, panel members have said.

Despite those findings, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress during the war that ''we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.''

Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney said in April, on the day Baghdad fell, that Iraq's oil production could hit 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year, even though the task force had determined that Iraq was generating less than 2.4 million barrels a day before the war.

Now, as the Bush administration requests $20.3 billion from Congress for reconstruction next year, the chief reasons cited for the high price tag are sabotage of oil equipment -- and the poor state of oil infrastructure already documented by the task force.

''The problem is this,'' L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator in Iraq, asserted at a Senate hearing two weeks ago: ''The oil infrastructure was severely run down over the last 20 years, and partly because of sanctions over the last decade.''

Similarly, Bush administration officials announced earlier this year that Iraq's oil revenues would be $20 billion to $30 billion a year, which added to the impression that the aftermath of the war would place a minimal burden on the United States. Mr. Bremer now estimates that Iraq's total oil revenues from the last half of 2003 to 2005 will amount to $35 billion, running at a rate of about $14 billion a year.

The administration now plays down the report's findings.

Senior administration officials said that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, were aware of the oil group's overall mission, but that they could not say whether they knew of its specific findings.

''I think when it is all said and done,'' said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, ''prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.''

Mr. Di Rita added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others ''oozed with uncertainty.''

Iraq's Most Valuable Asset


In the months leading up to the war, administration officials said little in public about oil, partly because they were ''encumbered by fear'' that their actions would be seen as helping the American petroleum industry, said one administration adviser. But behind the scenes, officials were studying how to handle Iraq's most valuable asset.

It was evident from much of the information they received that Iraq's oil was not a ready resource for reconstruction.

One expert consulted by the government, Amy Myers Jaffe, who heads the energy program at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, said her group concluded in a report last December that ''oil revenues would not be enough and that the expenses of reconstruction would be huge.''

In addition, United Nations reports dating back to the late 1990's documented the deterioration that occurred in Iraq's oil system as a result of trade embargoes, which curtailed Iraq's access to technology and equipment.

The administration's examination of the subject began last September when Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, asked an adviser to oversee plans for Iraq's oil industry in the event of war, according to a Pentagon official involved in the project.

The result was the Energy Infrastructure Planning Group, whose existence has not been previously disclosed. It drew on the expertise of government specialists including the Central Intelligence Agency and retired senior energy executives. It planned how to secure the oil industry during the war and, afterward, restoring it to its prewar capacity.

The task force's job was not to make a direct assessment of how much money the oil industry could contribute to rebuilding Iraq. But determining Iraq's actual oil production capacity was important. First, it could help other administration officials gauge how much revenue might be generated for the reconstruction effort. Second, the administration was concerned that it did not want to be seen as profiting from invading an oil-rich nation and giving oil production levels a boost.

The task force concluded that although Iraq's stated production capacity was just over 3 million barrels per day, the system was only producing 2.1 million to 2.4 million barrels, panel members said.

''I think most people would agree that the 2.4 was a little high and the average for 2002 was 2.1,'' said a Pentagon official on the task force who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The ''condition of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was not particularly good,'' the official said. ''That would be evident to anybody who realized the country had been under U.N. sanctions for many years.''

The United Nations produced reports on Iraq regularly from 1998 to 2001. The documents painted a picture of a troubled system and cited the need for improvements, some of which are now being proposed by Mr. Bremer, like the $125 million repair of the Qarmat Ali water plant in the south.

In April, when Vice President Cheney was asked about Iraq's oil during an appearance before newspaper editors, he cited higher numbers rather than the task force's more sober findings.

While noting that Iraq's oil fields were in ''bad shape,'' Mr. Cheney said, ''With some investment we ought to be able to get production back up on the order of 2.5, 3 million barrels a day, within, hopefully by the end of the year.''

An aide to the vice president said recently that those estimates were ''consistent with prewar capacity,'' but could not say whether Mr. Cheney was aware of the task force's different assessment.

An Optimistic Vision

The administration was also optimistic when it came to public estimates of Iraq's oil revenues.

Shortly after the war began in March, the administration's budget office provided Congress and reporters with a background paper on Iraq. It said that Iraq would ''not require sustained aid'' because of its abundant resources, including oil and natural gas.

On March 27, Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, told the House Appropriations Committee that his ''rough recollection'' was that ''The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.''

Testifying in the Senate that same day, Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that ''when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government.'' He noted that the war's costs were not knowable, but he also said an important source of money for reconstruction would flow after the United States worked ''with the Iraqi interim authority that will be established to tap Iraq's oil revenues.''

At the outset of the war, the administration had asked Congress for $62 billion for Iraq, which included $1.7 billion for reconstruction and $489 million for oil-related repairs.

In a televised interview in late April, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development, the group overseeing Iraq's reconstruction, said that amount was ''it for the U.S.'' He said any other reconstruction money would come from elsewhere, including other countries and future ''Iraqi oil revenues,'' which he predicted at ''$20 billion a year.''

In an interview this week, Mr. Natsios said he had based those comments on ''the discussion in the interagency process at the time,'' adding, ''That's what the Office of Management and Budget was telling us.''

Trent Duffy, a budget office spokesman, said this week that ''the administration was very clear that the $1.7 billion in initial reconstruction was for the beginning stages and that it was necessary to get a better understanding of the fuller, comprehensive needs going forward.''

Last week, appearing again before the Senate committee, Mr. Rumsfeld said, ''I don't think I did misjudge'' Iraq's oil capacity. According to current projections, he said, the country's oil revenues will grow to $12 billion next year from $2 billion this year; they should reach $19 billion in 2005 and $20 billion in 2006.

''So, their oil revenues will be contributing,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Yet Mr. Bremer, in his remarks to legislators two weeks ago, said that for the next two years, whatever revenue was reaped from oil production would not exceed the cost of Iraq's day-to-day operating expenses. In 2005, he said, there would be a surplus of only $4 million to $5 million.

As for Mr. Cheney's projection in April that oil would produce as much as $20 billion a year, a Cheney aide said last week that ''there was much more extensive damage due to looting and sabotage, so we're not going to get there when the vice president anticipated.''

Reassessing Revenues


The public revenue estimates made in the spring were in line with the very top range of projections made by the Pentagon task force.

According to the Pentagon official who served on the task force, its projections for yearly oil revenues were $25 billion to $30 billion ''in the very best case, no sabotage and little or no battle damage,'' and about $16 billion in the ''worse than best case.''

The worst case was no revenue for a few years, if there was ''major sabotage and some significant battle damage.''

Last December the Baker Institute estimated that even if there was no war damage, ''Iraq's total oil revenues would still only likely average around $10 billion to $12 billion annually.''

Yet even after the war, some officials in Washington seemed to cling to an optimistic view of Iraq's oil production.

In July, Mr. Wolfowitz told a group of senators that production had reached ''over a million barrels per day.'' Although Iraq was having electrical power problems, Mr. Wolfowitz said the oil was flowing ''because we brought in portable generators to provide electricity'' and planned to bring in more.

But Philip Carroll, a retired petroleum executive and the senior American oil adviser in Baghdad, said in an interview that Iraqi oil production ''experienced a terrible month in July because electrical problems cut us back to half of what we should have produced.'' Those problems, including the need to import considerable fuel, he said, led him to arrange new generator leases in late July.

Mr. Carroll said that although gross production for the week of July 25 was a million barrels a day, 350,000 barrels had to be injected back into the ground, because of a lack of storage or distribution infrastructure.

An aide to Mr. Wolfowitz said he believed that the oil information came from a briefing and that Mr. Wolfowitz's testimony was ''sober and nuanced.''

Once the war ended, and United States officials gained access to Iraq's oil records, they got a more complete picture.

''When we actually got their production figures for 2002, we were able to make a distinction between productive capacity and what they were actually producing,'' said Gary Loew, an Army Corps of Engineers official, reducing their capacity figures by 20 to 25 percent.

That reduction roughly corresponded to the Pentagon task force's cuts before the war began.

 

[S-2]

Please remember Waraich66 specific comment-

"Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

This demands substantiation. His comment is definitive. His sourcing is non-existent. It's never happened but here and throughout the muslim world it's accepted as fact.

Couldn't be further from the truth. It's comments such as this that reflects the huge gulf existing today between peoples.

I see your article from Oct. 5, 2003. I presume that you wish to make a case that Iraqi oil production is an unmanagable mess and subject to the whims of U.S. officials.

This, too, couldn't be further from the truth. Here's something a bit closer to today's reality. From Feb. 1, 2008-

Iraq's Rivival Boosted as Oil Production Rises to 2.4m barrels a Day- Times of London

Their minister sees production exceeding Hussain's era this year with production to reach 6.0m bbls daily within four years.

A U.S. lock on production? Let's look at the words of Mr. Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's Oil Minister-

“Everybody in the world, more than 45 companies, have approached us and shown a very keen interest in working with us — the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians,”

Gosh! Sure didn't even mention America, did he?

The truth as it occurs daily flies in the face of much that's believed here. This is one more example. Should muslims the world over and others care to base their views of America on a narrowly-constructed narrative, they'll invariably be proved wrong.

We're much too complex a nation to be easily pigeon-holed.

For more information on Iraq's reconstruction, I'd recommend this site and it's updates-

Iraq Index- Tracking Variables of Re-Construction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq- Brookings Institute

There's plenty of accurate information for those who wish. I hope that includes you.

 

[Awesome]

""Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

This is a lie. Not one DROP of Iraqi oil has been stolen or provided free as war booty/largesse. Provide proof or back away from the comment.

Let's stop with the nonsense along with the tasteless racist slurs.

What about pumping rights? Are there not US companies in charge of drilling, pumping and refining? I don't think the US people are benefiting from Iraq, but you know very well that the US companies are having a field day in Iraq.

The US economy as a whole as taken a hit from Iraq. The US did spend a lot a more than it can hope to benefit from it. But all that expenditure was done into hiring and operating sub-contractors. All those $500 Billion + figures that are quoted are not actually spent in bombs and bullets. They were spent in hiring a $200/hr truck driver. A $100/hr janitor and so on.

It is quite clear that Iraqis and the Americans are not seeing a lot of money as surplus from all that oil.

 

[ejaz007]

Missing Oil in Iraq Undercuts Progress
Government Report Finds 300,000 Barrels Go Missing Each Day
By JOHN HENDREN
May 12, 2007

An estimated 100,000 to 300,000 barrels of Iraq's daily oil production is unaccounted for, according to a draft report by the federal Government Accountability Office due out this week, ABC News has learned.

At an average price of $50 a barrel, that amounts to between $5 million and $15 million lost every day in oil revenues, which currently fund at least 85 percent of the Iraqi government.

"Since a lot of the country depends on government subsidized gasoline, food rations, without this money, it means there isn't enough for the government to spend on the people," said Pratap Chatterjee, managing editor of CorpWatch and author of "Iraq Inc."

"It is a very critical part of the Iraqi economy," he said.

It's impossible to know precisely how much oil goes missing. After four years of war and $38 billion in aid, Iraq still does not have accurate meters to measure how much is being exported. Therefore, the GAO compared Iraq's official oil production figures with exports and domestic consumption figures.

"When you look at that, there's a discrepancy of a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day," Chatterjee said.

Some Iraqi officials are downplaying the situation, saying that not all the oil is going missing, but that over enthusiastic oil officials are inflating production figures to show reconstruction progress in Iraq.

There could be a degree of truth to that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency does not rely on official Iraqi government figures on oil production because it finds them unreliable, said Erik Kreil, an oil expert with the agency.

Yet analysts insist corruption -- in Kirkuk in the north and Shiite-dominated Basra in the south -- is at least partly to blame, and that in some cases government officials are involved.

"It's a combination of Shiite political parties, people in Shiite government, people who are criminals, people who are contractors," said Anthony Cordesman, an ABC News consultant and military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. "It is a very broad-based network of corruption."

ABC News: Missing Oil in Iraq Undercuts Progress

I found this on the web. I do not wish to point finger on any body but considering that corrupt officials is one of the reason stated for the unaccounted oil there is a possibility that some of the US officials might be involved. After all with 150,000 US troops in the country you can not transport oil without getting noticed especially in a bowzer and that too across the border.

 

[S-2]

"...considering that corrupt officials is one of the reason stated for the unaccounted oil there is a possibility that some of the US officials might be involved."

I see that we're side-tracking. Remember that this stems from Waraich66 assertion about how the Afghan war is being funded through stolen or misappropriated oil largesse steming from our "occupation".

Having demolished that, we've now moved on to corruption and U.S. control of oil fields.

I'll say this-America SHOULD have exclusivity. The facts are clear that we don't nor are we pursuing such a gambit. In truth, I'd happily argue that we shouldn't pay a penny for fuel- but we are.

100,000-300,000 bbls per day stolen. O.K. Let's say it's true. Let's say it's VERY true. Does going from wherever we bottomed out to 2.4m bbls a day offset that? How about if production rises to 6.0m bbls daily as predicted in four years by Mr. al-Shahristani?

Asim Aquil, you saw the nations mentioned by Mr. Shahristani, correct? It's clear that this is an open bid process for the most part. Certainly, the Iraqi gov't is determined that they gain the levers of power wherever possible and this is one area of INTENSE concentration (and more than a wee tad of COMPETITION) within the Iraqi gov't.

The biggest question of American involvement/meddling may lay with the final resolution of oil-revenue sharing. To what extent will/can/should the U.S. support Kurdistan's propensity to "go it alone".

If there's a rogue elephant charging about the porcelain shop, it's the Kurds position on oil.

Speaking of revenues-

"It is quite clear that Iraqis and the Americans are not seeing a lot of money as surplus from all that oil."

True enough about America but how do you explain this-

"From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government generated an estimated $96 billion in cumulative revenues, of which crude oil export sales accounted for about $90.2 billion, or 94 percent...From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government spent an estimated $67 billion on operating and investment activities."

Neither money nor surplus is an issue. Neither is the source of those revenues-virtually all oil.

Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus- GAO

Before the bottom fell out of oil last month, projections for this year based upon actual revenues through June were double the average of 2005-07. Now less but still certain to exceed the annual average over the last three years.

Allocation is the issue and, thus, politically driven.

 

[S-2]

Remember, too, that we're only discussing export revenues. This doesn't account for the allocation of Iraqi oil to IRAQ. They serve their own sector, like the Iranians, at a subsidized discount- not market pricing.

 

[S-2]

"Its now clear that they couldn't find even any single bolt or chemical of WMD to show to the world in support of their fake claim for WMD in IRAQ, for which US planned a severe attack of Iraq........do you please remember.......but no problem being a global citizen I am here to cooperate support you in real sense, principly..."

Really?

Try this-

NGIC De-classified Report- June 2006

Not a single "...bolt or chemical of WMD...", eh? How about 500 chemical munitions? Does that work? Probably not is my suspicion. Well, whatever you do, don't let the truth stand in the way of your narrative. You'll find agreement with many here on that score.

Here's the Duelfer report to itemize the extent of Iraq's WMD programs-

Duelfer Report (Revised w/ Addendums Added)