The Ironic Peace by Stealing Oil Plan

[The_Professor]

Would this work?

Iraq Withdrawal Plan

One of my hobbies is thinking up impractical solutions to world problems. Lately, my favorite problem is how to withdraw from Iraq without allowing a huge increase in civilian deaths. I have a solution. I call my plan the Ironic Peace by Stealing Oil Plan, or IPSOP.

The way this works is that the US informs the fledgling Iraqi government that we are going to withdraw from the population centers of Iraq, but we’re going to keep our military bases and take control of key Iraqi oil fields. The oil fields would be heavily guarded, of course, with wide perimeters.

Here’s the genius part. We ask the UN to form a commission to oversee the Iraqi government’s performance and the inevitable civil war. When that commission certifies that the Iraqis have worked out a solution for oil sharing, and power sharing, and when the civil war subsides, America agrees in advance to return the oil fields and phase out the military bases in five years. Until the UN certification comes, if it ever does, we just pump the Iraqi oil and use the revenue to help, for example, Palestinian children.

The beauty of this plan is that the Iraqis can choose to fight the civil war forever, or they can choose to get America out of their country. The longer the Iraqis kill each other, the more financial help the struggling Palestinians will get. Tragedy-wise, it’s a breakeven scenario. It’s morally neutral. And in the meantime, fewer Americans will die fighting in Iraq.

Would IPSOP work?

[Update: If insurgents attack the pipeline, they'd be attacking Palestinian interests. And we wouldn't need to protect all oil facilities, just whatever ones are easiest to control and protect.

As for funding Palestinians, I'm sure there's a way to limit the aid to something useful that can't get into the terrorists' hands. It could be shipments of medicine, for example. Obviously sending cash would be a bad idea. If funding Palestinians doesn't work for you, pick some starving Muslims in Africa.]

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/iraq_withdrawal.html

[Michael Tee]

1.  Nobody would trust you to use the proceeds for Palestinian children.
2.  They'd still attack the pipelines because (a) they wouldn't believe the proceeds were going to Palestininan children and (b) even if they did believe it, they don't really give a shit about Palestinian children and (c) even if they did give a shit about Palestinian children they'd rather see them die of neglect than be supported by infidels who have stolen the means of support from other Muslims.
3.  Ditto for any other Muslim cause that the oil might support in lieu of Palestinian children.

The idea's not new.  There were "Trust Territories" that the British held in trust for the locals, presumably till the locals could get their shit together or satisfy whatever other requirements Her Majesty's Government might have set for them.  To the extent that it worked, it worked because the English had a highly organized Colonial Office with centuries of experience in administering the affairs of others.  In a nutshell, it worked - - to the extent that it did work - - because the English were the English.  The Americans are not-English.  They'd never be able to pull it off.  It's at odds with the very nature of their society, basically with their egalitarian and anti-social principles - -   "I'm just as good as you are and every man for himself."  Sort of a Jacksonian democracy which doesn't leave a lot of room for a Colonial Office mentality.  If every man is for himself, this applies also to the "trustees" of the Iraqi oil wells.  The opportunities for graft and fraud would be endless.