I still haven't seen anything to refute my own prediction of their scenario, which I have been outlining on the marxism list (archived at www.marxmail.org under the title "Iraq will not be 'reconstructed'" and similar things.
Basically, my predictions run like this:
- the US will maintain intensive control over the oil fields - Rumeila being run more or less as "North Kuwait", and the northern fields being incorporated into a garrison Kurdistan. "Intensive control" means that commercial redevelopment, a US-managed school system, hands-on management of the political structure, etc. will be channeled into those areas. These will be the "showrooms" of the "new Iraq", "Free Enterprise Zones" in effect.
- the rest of Iraq, from Tikrit to Baghdad to an-Nasiriya (not sure about Basra) will be maintained as sort of like a large prison yard: without commercial or industrial development either from the US or from anywhere else (they will all be kept out), with a US fence around it, US garrisons within it which will blast anyone with arms in hand, and with subsistence rations being thrown over the fence every so often. "Development" will be limited to the infrastructure necessary to move tanks around on the roads when they want, and perhaps enough rebuilding of the water and sewer systems and power grids to keep loss of life below embarrassingly genocidal levels. They really don't care an awful lot who will "run the yard" or whether there is constant sectarian or ethnic war as long as they never get enough power to threaten the oil fields.
In other words, basically, I think they have already taken into account (or will take into account) the problems of building a stable capitalist/democratic neocolony in the whole of Iraq (I think this is Chalabi's dream, but I think he's going to be let down hard), and have decided (or will decide) that it isn't worth it, since most of the 'value' of Iraq is in the oil fields (considered either in vulgar oil-profit terms or in global- control terms) and in the military bases they can get.
For the purposes of seeing whether I'm right or not, watch the discussion of "reconstruction" for the following points:
- Whose views are being expressed: the influential neocons, the powerless/deceptive diplomats, or some reporter's own thoughts and assumptions
- What exactly is being proposed for "reconstruction"? In particular, is any attention being given to investment in commercial enterprises in Baghdad, re- establishment of a banking system, enterprises that would employ Iraqis - or is it just (a) military infrastructure, (b) stuff in and around the oil fields, and (c) mechanisms for distributing subsistence rations?
LP