Quagmire shwagmire - so long as there's a profit in it

The New York Times for January 10 reported on US plans for a "new" Iraq economy. Since the Times archives articles after a week, it's likely already unavailable without a fee. But some more discussion of it can be found here in the "Daily MoJo" of Mother Jones magazine, from where the link comes.

There is no doubt about American intentions for the Iraqi economy. As Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, "Market systems will be favored, not Stalinist command systems."

The article is concerned with the notion that US directives to convert Iraq's economy to a capitalist "free market" model may well be in violation of international law.

Frankly, I think the concern is misplaced - or perhaps more properly, irrelevant - because the White House doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not they're violating international law (if they were concerned with that, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place) and just who is it, they'll think, that's going to hold them accountable even if they are?

What I think is important is just what the plans are and what they reveal (or, again more properly, emphasize) about how these bozos define "freedom."

Tariffs were suspended, a new banking code was adopted, a 15 percent cap was placed on all future taxes, and the once heavily guarded doors to foreign investment in Iraq were thrown open. ...

[T]he authority is pressing ahead with most of the plans for economic reform in Iraq and promises to have new laws in Iraq governing, among other things, business ownership, foreign investment, banking, the stock exchange, trade and taxes by June, when power is to be transferred to the Iraqis.

That is, they're rushing to be able to present any "free" Iraqi government with a fait accompli, trapped already in the "open market" economy of transnational corporations and investment houses, their resources and industries owned by or at least in hock to those whose only measure of value is return on investment.

At the same time, I can only wonder why, in the fact of such overwhelming power, seeming to have the upper hand at every turn, they still find it necessary to lie about what they're doing.

In addition, the authority announced plans last fall to sell about 150 of the nearly 200 state-owned enterprises in Iraq, ranging from sulfur mining and pharmaceutical companies to the Iraqi national airline. ...

Coalition officials have recently backtracked on privatization, in part because of the legal concerns. "We recognize that any process for privatizing state-owned enterprises in Iraq ultimately must be developed, adopted, supported and implemented by the Iraqi people," Mr. Castle said.

Bull. They backtracked because after the November agreement for transfer of authority by the end of June, they realized they couldn't sell off those businesses fast enough. Since it was unlikely they could complete a major sale in that time frame, no investor would be expected take them up on it with the risk of having the process interrupted or halted completely come summer.

So why couldn't they just say that? Is it possible, just possible (Keep hope alive!) that they realize their dominance is actually tenuous and could easily be seriously threatened by a united outcry among the people they exploit?