Showing posts with label petroleum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label petroleum. Show all posts

Saturday, September 22, 2012

NEWS,22.09.2012



Afghanistan in flux as U.S. surge troops exit


The U.S. military says it has now fully withdrawn the last of the 33,000 "surge troops" sent to pacify Afghanistan two years ago, but they are leaving behind an uncertain landscape of rising violence and political instability that threaten to undo considerable gains in security, particularly in the former Taliban strongholds in the south and southwest.As the troops head for home, a good week ahead of schedule, the U.S. coalition and its Afghan partners are bedeviled by a host of problems.The tempo and audacity of Taliban attacks have increased. Insider killings of Americans by Afghan troops have raised tensions between the allies, forcing severe cutbacks in strategically vital training programs. Both governments are arguing publicly over whether to keep battlefield prisoners locked up without trial, while nervous officials on all sides are worrying that riots over an inflammatory anti-Muslim video, which have killed dozens in other countries, will break out in Afghanistan.Friday's milestone, which still leaves 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, was announced on the other side of the planet by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, during a trip to New Zealand, while both U.S. and Afghan officials in Kabul studiously ignored the moment, at least in public.Some pro-government Afghans boasted it showed their own forces were ready to take over, while pro-Taliban forces exulted that they were not, but most Afghans just worried about what it would really mean for the final two years of the U.S. presence in the country."What did the surge give us?" a senior U.S. official reflected Friday, speaking anonymously as a matter of military policy. "We're going to hit a point where, I won't say that's as good as it gets, but now it's up to them to hold what we gave them. Now, really, it's Karzai's turn."No one claimed there was not a great deal yet to be done against an insurgency that its foes describe as tenacious and determined. "They're not going to go away for years," the senior official said. "Every fighting season the Taliban, or some number of them, come out of the corner and they're ready to fight again."Both U.S. and Afghan officials have acknowledged the seriousness of the green on blue attacks, which this year have seen the killings of more than 50 U.S. soldiers at the hands of their Afghan allies.


US Navy's new floating base gets a workout in Gulf 


A new, key addition to American-led naval efforts to ensure Mideast oil keeps flowing has emerged as an unusual mix of a ship combining decades' worth of wear and tear with state-of-the-art technology and a largely civilian crew.After winning a reprieve from the scrapyard, the USS Ponce was reborn through a rush retrofit earlier this year and turned into a floating base prowling the waters of the Persian Gulf. It is now getting its biggest workout since refurbishment as the centerpiece for sweeping naval exercises under way that serve as a very public warning to Iran. The Islamic Republic has threatened to shut the Gulf's entrance at the Strait of Hormuz, the route for a fifth of the world's oil supplies, and would likely use mines to do so.Anti-mine divers on practice drills deployed in small boats off the Ponce's stern gate early Saturday, and MH-53 minesweeping helicopters launched from the ship kicked up sea spray as they hauled mine-detecting equipment through the water. Later in the day, a U.S. destroyer pulled alongside, fighter jets roared past and gunners fired thunderous rounds from .50 caliber machine guns during a simulated encounter with a hostile vessel.Senior Navy officials in the Gulf are quick to downplay talk of conflict with Iran, which is locked in a dispute with the U.S. and its allies over Tehran's disputed nuclear program. The West suspects Iran aims to develop a nuclear weapon; Tehran denies the charges.U.S. military officials in the region insist the exercises, which include forces from more than 30 countries, are defensive and not directed at any country. They prefer to focus instead on the Ponce's role as an innovative new tool to help ensure security in the region, and on the need to train with allies to keep sea lanes open.Still, the message is clear."Any extremist group, any country that puts mines in the water would be cautioned" by the exercises, said Marine Gen. James R. Mattis, the U.S. Central Command chief, during his first visit onboard the Ponce since it deployed June 1. "We do have the means to take mines out of the water if they go in. We will open the waterways to freedom of navigation."Military leaders believe the Norfolk, Va.-based Ponce is central to that mission.More than half the length of most U.S. aircraft carriers, the Ponce can accommodate multiple helicopters on deck and small boats in a well deck below.The ship was originally an amphibious transport dock built at the height of the Vietnam War. Those types of vessels are typically used to carry landing forces of Marines.It's now known as the Navy's first "afloat forward staging base-interim," a name given because the Ponce is meant to be a stopgap until a similar base built from scratch is delivered. That won't happen until at least 2015."This will more or less act as a test for using floating platforms in the sea for military operations," Riad Kahwaji, chief executive of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said of the reconfigured Ponce. "There'll be a lot of defense industry officials observing the performance of this."Much of the original ship remains, including the tight Marine-style bunks stacked four high from floor to ceiling in some parts of the ship. But there are plenty of 21st Century additions too.Berths for around 100 people were removed and replaced with a high-tech joint operations center, where streaming video and data feeds can be shown on flat-screen displays.Powerful MK-38 guns installed during conversion include remotely controlled digital cameras that let operators zoom in on far-off targets of interest. And a ScanEagle surveillance drone launched from and recovered by the ship keeps an eye on the sea for miles around all day long.In its new role, the Ponce is initially intended to be a close-to-the-action support hub for mine-clearing ships, coastal patrol vessels and helicopters. Ships can take on fuel and supplies without having to return to port, and a wide range of repairs can be handled by machinists onboard. That means far less downtime for minesweepers and other vessels using the Ponce as a stopping-off point, according to analysts and Navy officials.The Ponce's Spartan accommodation can also handle hundreds of additional personnel, such as the French anti-mine divers in distinctive camouflage shorts currently onboard. In theory, special operations forces could also fill bunks aboard the Ponce, which is able to launch the small boats and helicopters they often use.There is also the benefit of not needing to secure approval from allied countries where U.S. troops are based before conducting operations from an offshore staging base such as the Ponce."A country that's believed to be friendly to the U.S. could overnight become hostile to the U.S., and this could pose a threat to U.S. operations," Kahwaji said, citing recent violence directed at American embassies in response to an anti-Islam film.Although it is under the command of a Navy captain, most of the Ponce's crew are civilians. It has more than 155 civilian crew members from the Military Sealift Command and 55 Navy sailors, according to the ship's commanding officer, Capt. Jon Rodgers. The number of civilian crew can fluctuate depending on who is onboard.The MSC is normally responsible for running about 110 supply ships and other non-combat vessels for the Navy, but the Ponce's hybrid crew is unusual.Visitors arriving by helicopter are met on the flight deck by some crew in uniform and others in civilian coveralls. Civilian employees keep the floors and toilets clean, and dish out corned beef hash and French toast on the mess deck. Some of the MSC crew members have dreadlocks  a no-no for enlisted sailors and many are in their 40s or beyond. A handful are older than 60.It's not just the civilian crew that's showing its age. The Ponce is among the Navy's oldest ships. Construction began in 1966, and it was commissioned during the Nixon administration in 1971.Rust is prevalent throughout the ship, and many of the fittings retain a Cold War feel."Just walk around and you can see," said Kevin Chavis, 45, a retired Navy electronics specialist from Brooklyn who is now part of the Ponce's civilian crew. "Yeah, it's old. But just like a car, if you change the filters and the oil, it'll keep running."

Chavez's record: an oil bonanza squandered?

 

On the streets of Caracas, vast slums blanket the hillsides while squatters hang laundry in the windows of abandoned buildings. Trash-strewn alleys are riddled with potholes and lined with broken streetlamps. The city's main waterway, the polluted Guaire River, is known more for sewage than swimming.While oil has ushered in spectacular construction projects for glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world's tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi, it's brought relatively meager changes to Venezuela, which holds the world's largest proven oil reserves.Nearly 14 years after President Hugo Chavez took office, and despite the biggest oil bonanza in Venezuela's history, there's little outward sign of the nearly one trillion petrodollars that have flowed into the country.Venezuela has undoubtedly changed during Chavez's tenure. The populist president has used the oil wealth to buttress his support through cash handouts, state-run grocery stores and a gamut of other social programs. With more money in the economy, incomes are higher and the number of people living in poverty has fallen.Unemployment has dropped from more than 13 percent in 1999 to about 8 percent. The country has also achieved rapid improvement on the U.N. Human Development Index, which measures a range of indicators from living standards to life expectancy."We're applying a successful program successful politically, successful socially, successful economically," Chavez said at a news conference. "With flaws, of course, but it's successful. We're laying the foundations of a historic project that will take our entire lifetime."All of which makes him a tough incumbent to beat in the upcoming Oct. 7 election.Yet some experts say Chavez could have done much more to improve the country's infrastructure, boost its economy and invest in the very oil industry that keeps Venezuela afloat."It's overwhelmingly clear that Venezuela has wasted the windfall," said Francisco Monaldi, an economist and director of the International Center of Energy and the Environment at Caracas' IESA business school. "You should have had much greater economic growth, much greater reduction of poverty."Among Latin American countries, the economies of Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina all have expanded more rapidly than Venezuela's since Chavez took office in 1999, recording average growth between 3 and 5 percent a year.Venezuela, by contrast, averaged a 2.8 percent annual increase of gross domestic product between 1999 and 2011, according to International Monetary Fund figures. By that measure, the country was outperformed by every other member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries except Libya. Even war-torn Iraq posted higher growth.Some Venezuelans, such as tennis instructor Naybeth Figueroa, say Chavez has simply channeled money toward his "Chavista" supporters while neglecting deeply ingrained problems such as soaring murder rates, inflation, crumbling infrastructure and poor government services. Venezuela now ranks among the most violent and corrupt places on earth."The country is falling to pieces," Figueroa said. "Where is the oil money going?"On a rutted unpaved road in the countryside outside Caracas, unemployed housewife Moreli Gonzalez lives in a shack with a dirt floor and walls made of rusting sheets of zinc. She is thankful to Chavez that she now receives a $280-a-month cash benefit through a program called "Mothers of the Neighborhood Mission.""Now we have everything," said Gonzalez, who credits a government education program with helping her learn to read and a state-run grocery down the road that has made food more affordable."We eat better," she said, showing off cupboards filled with bags of rice and pasta. "My children didn't used to eat snacks. Now they eat well."

Finding Poland's sunken royal treasures


Capitalizing on low water levels in Warsaw's Vistula River, police are teaming up with archaeologists to recover gigantic marble and alabaster treasures that apparently were stolen from royals in Poland by Swedish invaders in the mid-17th century.A police Mi-8 helicopter hovered over a riverbed on Thursday, lifting ornaments such as the centerpiece of a fountain with water outlets decorated with satyr-like faces.For police, it was gratifying to provide the chopper and assist Warsaw University archaeologists in "this very important mission of retrievingpriceless national treasures,"saidMariusz Mrozek, a spokesman for Warsaw police.Archaeologists have long known that such well-preserved treasures were located in the riverbed in the Warsaw area, but not exactly where.The archaeologists and frogmen, led by Hubert Kowalski, have previously retrieved some of the stolen stone ornaments from the Vistula riverbed in three years of searching for the sunken treasures. Butonly now, with the river much lower than normal, thanks to recent heat waves and droughts, their findings have become spectacular."This is a precious find. These elements were stolen from Warsaw's royal residences and palaces," said Marek Wrede, a historian at the Royal Castle.The valuable artistic objects marble floor tiles, parts of archways and columns  were robbed from Warsaw by the Swedes who overran the nation in mid-17th century and took heavy loads of spoils from across the country. Today's items probably came from the Royal Castle and from a royal country residence, the Kazimierz Palace.The artifacts probably were being carried by a barge that sank, one of the many such vessels that ferried loot down the river to the Baltic Sea and to Sweden.The find is precious for Poland, which has been repeatedly plundered by neighboring armies over the centuries, including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Red Army during World War II.Kowalski said he knew about the hidden artifacts from 17th century letters that mentioned barges that had sunk in the area.First word of where the treasures might be came in 1906 when sand barge operators discovered some items, but could retrieve only a few.Kowalski said his team is now busy cleaning the newly retrieved items, which are "very well preserved, given the 350 years in water."

Iran accuses Siemens of nuclear sabotage


Iran accused Germany's Siemens on Saturday of implanting tiny explosives inside equipment the Islamic Republic purchased for its disputed nuclear program, a charge the technology giant denied.Prominent lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iranian security experts discovered the explosives and removed them before detonation, adding that authorities believe the booby-trapped equipment was sold to derail uranium enrichment efforts."The equipment was supposed to explode after being put to work, in order to dismantle all our systems," he said. "But the wisdom of our experts thwarted the enemy conspiracy."Siemens denied the charge and said its nuclear division has had no business with Iran since the 1979 revolution that led to its current clerical state."Siemens rejects the allegations and stresses that we have no business ties to the Iranian nuclear program," spokesman for the Munich-based company Alexander Machowetz said.Boroujerdi, who heads the parliamentary security committee, alleged that the explosives were implanted at a Siemens factory and demanded the company take responsibility.Any sale of nuclear equipment to Iran is banned under U.N. sanctions, raising the possibility that if it indeed has some, it may have been acquired through third parties. Boroujerdi did not say when or how Iran obtained Siemens equipment. Despite a wide array of international sanctions, Germany remains one of Iran's most important trading partners.The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran's nuclear work is aimed at producing weapons. Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and asserts it has been the target of a concerted campaign by Israel, the U.S. and their allies to undermine its nuclear efforts through covert operations.Some Iranian officials have also suggested in the past that specific European companies may have sold faulty equipment to Iran with the knowledge of American intelligence agencies and their own governments, since the sales would have harmed, rather than helped, the country's nuclear program.According to Iran, the alleged campaign has included the abduction of scientists, the sale of faulty equipment and the planting of a destructive computer worm known as Stuxnet, which briefly brought Iran's uranium enrichment activity to a halt in 2010.Iran's nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, said Monday that separate attacks on Iran's centrifuges through tiny explosives meant to disable key parts of the machines were discovered before the blasts could go off on timers.Abbasi also told the U.N. nuclear agency in Vienna that "terrorists and saboteurs" might have infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency, after the watchdog's inspectors arrived at the Fordo underground enrichment facility shortly after power lines were blown up through sabotage on Aug. 17.Iran has repeatedly accused the IAEA of sending spies in the guise of inspectors to collect information about its nuclear activities, pointing to alleged leaks of information by inspectors to U.S. and other officials.Five nuclear scientists and researchers have been killed in Iran since 2010. Tehran blames the deaths on Israel's Mossad spy agency as well as the CIA and Britain's MI-6. Washington and London have denied any roles. Israel has not commented.Boroujerdi said the alleged leaks of nuclear information to its adversaries by the IAEA may finally push Tehran to end all cooperation with the agency."Iran has the right to cut its cooperation with the IAEA should such violations continue," he said.

Friday, August 24, 2012

NEWS,24.08.2012


dear folLowers, i will return with new post on 16th september

 

Mission Accomplished for Big Oil?

In 2011, after nearly nine years of war and occupation, U.S. troops finally left Iraq. In their place, Big Oil is now present in force and the country’s oil output, crippled for decades, is growing again. Iraq recently reclaimed the number two position in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), overtaking oil-sanctioned Iran. Now, there’s talk of a new world petroleum glut. So is this finally mission accomplished?Well, not exactly. In fact, any oil company victory in Iraq is likely to prove as temporary as George W. Bush’s triumph in 2003. The main reason is yet another of those stories the mainstream media didn’t quite find room for: the role of Iraqi civil society. But before telling that story, let’s look at what’s happening to Iraqi oil today, and how we got from the “no blood for oil” global protests of 2003 to the present moment.Here, as a start, is a little scorecard of what’s gone on in Iraq since Big Oil arrived two and a half years ago: corruption’s skyrocketed; two Western oil companies are being investigated for either giving or receiving bribes; the Iraqi government is paying oil companies a per-barrel fee according to wildly unrealistic production targets they’ve set, whether or not they deliver that number of barrels; contractors are heavily over-charging for drilling wells, which the companies don’t mind since the Iraqi government picks up the tab.Meanwhile, to protect the oil giants from dissent and protest, trade union offices have been raided, computers seized and equipment smashed, leaders arrested and prosecuted. And that’s just in the oil-rich southern part of the country. In Kurdistan in the north, the regional government awards contracts on land outside its jurisdiction, contracts which permit the government to transfer its stake in the oil projects  up to 25%  to private companies of its choice. Fuel is smuggled across the border to the tune of hundreds of tankers a day.In Kurdistan, at least the approach is deliberate: the two ruling families of the region, the Barzanis and Talabanis, know that they can do whatever they like, since their Peshmerga militia control the territory. In contrast, the Iraqi federal government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little control over anything. As a result, in the rest of the country the oil industry operates, gold-rush-style, in an almost complete absence of oversight or regulation.Oil companies differ as to which of these two Iraqs they prefer to operate in. BP and Shell have opted to rush for black gold in the super-giant oilfields of southern Iraq. Exxon has hedged its bets by investing in both options. This summer, Chevron and the French oil company Total voted for the Kurdish approach, trading smaller oil fields for better terms and a bit more stability.Keep in mind that the incapacity of the Iraqi government is hardly limited to the oil business: stagnation hangs over its every institution. Iraqis still have an average of just five hours of electricity a day, which in 130-degree heat causes tempers to boil over regularly. The country’s two great rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, which watered the cradle of civilization 5,000 years ago, are drying up.  This is largely due to the inability of the government to engage in effective regional diplomacy that would control upstream dam-building by Turkey.After elections in 2010, the country’s leading politicians couldn’t even agree on how to form a government until the Iraqi Supreme Court forced them to. This record of haplessness, along with rampant corruption, significant repression, and a revival of sectarianism can all be traced back to American decisions in the occupation years. Tragically, these persistent ills have manifested themselves in a recent spate of car-bombings and other bloody attacks.In the period before and around the invasion, the Bush administration barely mentioned Iraqi oil, describing it reverently only as that country’s “patrimony.” As for the reasons for war, the administration insisted that it had barely noticed Iraq had one-tenth of the world’s oil reserves. But my new book reveals documents I received, marked SECRET/NOFORN, that laid out for the first time pre-war oil plans hatched in the Pentagon by arch-neoconservative Douglas Feith’s Energy Infrastructure Planning Group (EIPG).In November 2002, four months before the invasion, that planning group came up with a novel idea: it proposed that any American occupation authority not repair war damage to the country’s oil infrastructure, as doing so “could discourage private sector involvement.” In other words, it suggested that the landscape should be cleared of Iraq’s homegrown oil industry to make room for Big Oil.When the administration worried that this might disrupt oil markets, EIPG came up with a new strategy under which initial repairs would be carried out by KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Long-term contracts with multinational companies, awarded by the U.S. occupation authority, would follow. International law notwithstanding, the EIPG documents noted cheerily that such an approach would put “long-term downward pressure on [the oil] price” and force “questions about Iraq’s future relations with OPEC.”At the same time, the Pentagon planning group recommended that Washington state that its policy was “not to prejudice Iraq’s future decisions regarding its oil development policies.” Here, in writing, was the approach adopted in the years to come by the Bush administration and the occupation authorities: lie to the public while secretly planning to hand Iraq over to Big Oil.There turned out, however, to be a small kink in the plan: the oil companies declined the American-awarded contracts, fearing that they would not stand up in international courts and so prove illegitimate. They wanted Iraq first to have an elected permanent government that would arrive at the same results. The question then became how to get the required results with the Iraqis nominally in charge. The answer: install a friendly government and destroy the Iraqi oil industry.In July 2003, the U.S. occupation established the Iraqi Governing Council, a quasi-governmental body led by friendly Iraqi exiles who had been out of the country for the previous few decades. They would be housed in an area of Baghdad isolated from the Iraqi population by concrete blast walls and machine gun towers, and dubbed the Green Zone.  There, the politicians would feast, oblivious to and unconcerned with the suffering of the rest of the population.The first post-invasion Oil Minister was Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, a man who held the country’s homegrown oil expertise in open contempt. He quickly set about sacking the technicians and managers who had built the industry following nationalization in the 1970s and had kept it running through wars and sanctions. He replaced them with friends and fellow party members. One typical replacement was a former pizza chef.The resulting damage to the oil industry exceeded anything caused by missiles and tanks. As a result the country found itself -- as Washington had hoped -- dependent on the expertise of foreign companies. Meanwhile, not only did the Coalition Provisional authority (CPA) that oversaw the occupation lose $6.6 billion of Iraqi money, it effectively suggested corruption wasn't something to worry about.  A December 2003 CPA policy document recommended that Iraq follow the lead of Azerbaijan, where the government had attracted oil multinationals despite an atmosphere of staggering corruption (“less attractive governance”) simply by offering highly profitable deals. Now, so many years later, the corruption is all-pervasive and the multinationals continue to operate without oversight, since the country’s ministry is run by the equivalent of pizza chefs.The first permanent government was formed under Prime Minister Maliki in May 2006. In the preceding months, the American and British governments made sure the candidates for prime minister knew what their first priority had to be: to pass a law legalizing the return of the foreign multinationals tossed out of the country in the 1970s to run the oil sector.The law was drafted within weeks, dutifully shown to U.S. officials within days, and to oil multinationals not long after. Members of the Iraqi parliament, however, had to wait seven months to see the text.The trouble was: getting it through that parliament proved far more difficult than Washington or its officials in Iraq had anticipated. In January 2007, an impatient President Bush announced a “surge” of 30,000 U.S. troops into the country, by then wracked by a bloody civil war. Compliant journalists accepted the story of a gamble by General David Petraeus to bring peace to warring Iraqis.In fact, those troops spearheaded a strategy with rather less altruistic objectives: first, broker a new political deal among U.S. allies, who were the most sectarian and corrupt of Iraq’s politicians (hence, with the irony characteristic of American foreign policy, regularly described as “moderates”); second, pressure them to deliver on political objectives set in Washington and known as “benchmarks” -- of which passing the oil law was the only one ever really talked about: in President Bush’s biweekly video conferences with Maliki, in almost daily meetings of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, and in frequent visits by senior administration officials.On this issue, the Democrats, by then increasingly against the Iraq War but still pro-Big Oil, lent a helping hand to a Republican administration. Having failed to end the war, the newly Democrat-controlled Congress passed an appropriations bill that would cut off reconstruction funds to Iraq if the oil law weren’t passed. Generals warned that without an oil law Prime Minister Maliki would lose their support, which he knew well would mean losing his job. And to ramp up the pressure further, the U.S. set a deadline of September 2007 to pass the law or face the consequences.It was then that things started going really wrong for Bush and company. In December 2006, I was at a meeting where leaders of Iraq’s trade unions decided to fight the oil law. One of them summed up the general sentiment this way: “We do not need thieves to take us back to the middle ages.” So they began organizing. They printed pamphlets, held public meetings and conferences, staged protests, and watched support for their movement grow.  Most Iraqis feel strongly that the country’s oil reserves belong in the public sector, to be developed to benefit them, not foreign energy companies. And so word spread fast -- and with it, popular anger. Iraq’s oil professionals and various civil society groups denounced the law. Preachers railed against it in Friday sermons. Demonstrations were held in Baghdad and elsewhere, and as Washington ratcheted up the pressure, members of the Iraqi parliament started to see political opportunity in aligning themselves with this ever more popular cause. Even some U.S. allies in Parliament confided in diplomats at the American embassy that it would be political suicide to vote for the law.By the September deadline, a majority of the parliament was against the law and  a remarkable victory for the trade unions it was not passed. It’s still not passed today.Given the political capital the Bush administration had invested in the passage of the oil law, its failure offered Iraqis a glimpse of the limits of U.S. power, and from that moment on, Washington’s influence began to wane.Things changed again in 2009 when the Maliki government, eager for oil revenues, began awarding contracts to them even without an oil law in place. As a result, however, the victory of Big Oil is likely to be a temporary one: the present contracts are illegal, and so they will last only as long as there’s a government in Baghdad that supports them.This helps explain why the government's repression of trade unions increased once the contracts were signed.  Now, Iraq is showing signs of a more general return to authoritarianism (as well as internecine violence and possibly renewed sectarian conflict).But there is another possibility for Iraq. Years before the Arab Spring, I saw what Iraqi civil society can achieve by organizing: it stopped the world’s superpower from reaching its main objective and steered Iraq onto a more positive course.Many times since 2003 Iraqis have moved their country in a more democratic direction: establishing trade unions in that year, building Shi'a-Sunni connections in 2004, promoting anti-sectarian politicians in 2007 and 2008, and voting for them in 2009.  Sadly, each of these times Washington has pushed it back toward sectarianism, the atmosphere in which its allies thrive.  While mainstream commentators now regularly blame the recent escalation of violence on the departure of U.S. troops, it would be more accurate to say that the real reason is they didn’t leave far sooner.Now, without its troops and bases, much of Washington’s political heft has vanished. Whether Iraq heads in the direction of dictatorship, sectarianism, or democracy remains to be seen, but if Iraqis again start to build a more democratic future, the U.S. will no longer be there to obstruct it.  Meanwhile, if a new politics does emerge, Big Oil may discover that, in the end, it was mission unaccomplished.