According to UK's Independent, "the Pentagon has drawn up plans for the post-conflict oil sector that would see leading Western oil executives brought in to either administer or advise on Iraq's industry." Parts of the US government appear to be against the plan, fearing this would add to the accusation that this is a war to grab Iraq's vast oil resources, and would prefer Muslim or Arab figures.

Even before the war on Iraq started, the issue of "divvy" after the war arose. It was made clear that those that did not participate in the military invasion would not share in the "divvy." That was one of the specific threats made to France and others to try to get UN approval for a second UN resolution approving military action on Iraq.

The "divvy" remains the issue and the issue of "divvy" alone taints the purported cause of "liberation" for the Iraqi people touted as the most compelling rallying call for the Iraq war in recent weeks.

US UK divide

Although in Afghanistan, the entire process was supervised by the United Nations, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice recently made clear that is not the current U.S. plan. "I would just caution that Iraq is not East Timor, or Kosovo, or Afghanistan," she said, all of which established new administrations under UN auspices. "Iraq is unique."  That appears to contradict the procedure advocated by Blair's government, and seems certain not to be recognized by the United Nations.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a speech last week that his government will not only "ensure that the United Nations oversees the medium- and long-term international aid program to Iraq," but will seek new Security Council resolutions "to endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration."

According to the Washington Post, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said firmly last week that the United States plans to call the most important shots after Hussein falls and that the United Nations is not suitable for the principal reconstruction role. Although each promised to make room for the world body, neither offered specifics.

Colin Powell took this position in recent speeches in the US and reiterated the position in Europe. The UK Guardian reported on Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent visit to Europe. According to the Guardian, "Powell offered only a dim UN role: an appointee would act as 'the UN's eyes and ears' on a US-run interim Iraq administration. No amount of diplomatic verbiage can obscure the difference between a genuine UN operation and a nominal one. Chirac, having taken the high moral ground on the war, to enormous approval in the polls, will not endorse a fix. Nor will the Russians or Germans - nor can Blair now."

The Guardian asserted, "Unless the White House has a remarkable conversion, this gap looks unbridgeable and the prime minister will soon be confronted again with that choice he never means to make - the choice between the Atlantic and the Channel. It is crucial that this time he jumps back with Europe to support the UN."

The Guardian went on, "All Europe, Britain included, is agreed that Iraqi reconstruction must be done under UN auspices - and that means what it says."  Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair has all but promised Britain that he would assure that America will  join in a multinational approach to a post-war plan for control of Iraq during the process of establishing Iraqi democracy. Blair has proposed, among other things, that a trust be set up which controls the Iraq oil for the Iraqi people. This progressive mission of Blair as an upholder of multinationalism and international law faces a big test as Bush and Blair are set for a summit in Ireland to discuss this and other issues.

There may be other obstacles in the control of Iraq oil issue that go beyond UN participation.

The League of Nations ended because of a failure to agree on the definition of certain materials allowed in its efforts to prevent arms proliferation.  Again, the definition of words may provide a historical obstacle to peace, international law, and unity of purpose. What is a "free" democratic society in Iraq?

Definitions may be the stumbling block to global unity once again. Definition of terms was a hurdle not overcome in the debate over UN Resolution 1441 and inspections. There a consensus could not be reached for a second UN resolution, because the US claimed that "disarmament" meant inspectors were in Iraqi to destroy weapons, not look for them. Other members of the UN Security Council felt that "disarmament" was occurring under UN Resolution 1441.

In 1991, a militarily controlled Algeria committed to democracy.  It has been reported that when elections were thought to have been won by an Islamic party, the results were cancelled by the army - sparking a civil war in which more than 100,000 people have died. The challenge to democracy in Iraq seems to present a similar problem in Iraq. With a 97% Islamic population, there appears little doubt that virtually all elected officials will be Islamic.

In a climate where there is a theological divide pitting Islamic belief against Christianity, serious questions are presented as to whether a US controlled Iraq can meet standards that may be set by the US as to what defines "free society." Will the US see Iraq as free if it will be controlled by an Islamic ruled democracy that may chose to have a religiously dominated government opposed to western ideals and influence?

"The" issue 

Control of Iraq and its resources should not be "the" issue.  Otherwise, freedom of the Iraqi people and safety of America were not the issue that we went to war for. If the war were to free Iraq we paid the price for our belief. That is the price we undertook as the American people for our noble cause: our soldiers giving their lives because they believe that is what America stands for.

We should not expect more from a mission of freedom if that mission is our gift to a country and the world. If freedom and democracy are, as Bush has said, "God's gift to the world," the gift should not be paid for by the Iraqi people. This is especially true since they were not given the choice.

Talk of the Iraqi people paying for the war through their oil is not acceptable. The cause of liberation was clearly the choice of America. When "the" issue becomes who pays for the war or who controls the "divvy," the issue alone, is a mar to a noble cause and raises questions as to the true purpose of our mission.

Choices

The choices we make will determine whether freedom for the Iraqi people will be seen as purpose or pretense. On the one hand, the US may be seen as an opportunist out for dominance of Mideast oil and the world. On the other, the US may be seen as a true champion for the ideal of freedom, justice, and fairness. One path leads to greater conflict and the other enhances the potential for peace.