Mr. Bush Needs to Sell this War ... to the Highest Bidder!

What with the Iraq study group urging transition of the US role in Iraq, and Democrats ready to end the war, and neo-cons hot to expand the war to Iran, the US is surely not short on options. Yet the President seems stuck. He recognizes that people are against the war for pretty good reasons. But he’s not the kind of President to walk away from a fight. No he’s never been a soldier himself, but he has been a cheerleader, and a cheerleader does not walk off the field just because his team is behind. US goals in the war have changed several times, but now it comes down to a single word: victory. Yet despite the extraordinary skill, firepower, dedication and sacrifice of American troops, this goal seems farther off than when the war started. The President proposes more of the same, with reinforcements, as has been tried several times in the past few years with little success. It’s not for lack of options, but perhaps these other options don’t appeal to the President because of his background. Luckily, his experience before being President wasn’t limited to cheerleading. He was also a businessman. So maybe it’s time to try a business option:

Sell the war! No, I don't mean sell it in the sense of some PR campaign to convince the American people that the war is winnable or that the surge is a good idea. (Anyway, that's a really tough sell, as shown by the recent State of the Union address. Give war a chance? Oh, please. John Lennon is rolling over in his grave.) I mean, sell the war, like sell it for some money.

Now, before you tell me, a war isn't something you buy or sell, consider this: we've now invested what? $400 billion? $1 trillion if you count all the future costs? Whatever. Are you telling me the first President with an MBA invested all that money without a business case? Without an ROI? I think not. Okay, the war hasn't gone well so far, but someday there's going to be a whole lot of oil to be had in Iraq, and the war is going to give someone a pretty good inside track on that. Someday, Iraqis are going to be buying things again, and it’s a market that’s worth something to be first in line for. So, yes, the war does have a value, perhaps a little speculative at this point, but any MBA surely knows how to discount a potential future return for risk.

Sell the war? But ... but idea seems so crass and even idiotic. Who'd be willing to buy a war of all things? Well, it doesn't have to be called a war, exactly. Let's turn this one over to the marketing department. We could sell the oil concessions. We could sell the bases we've got planned. We could sell the largest embassy in the world. We could put together an attractive package deal, with financing. We could call it a geopolitico-leveraged buyout or something.

So, all we need is a customer. This, in my view, is the easy part. It’s China, of course. For one thing, they've already paid for the war, anyway. So, the financing is essentially a done deal. They simply send us back say, $500 billion of the dollars they had set aside for buying American oil companies until Congress put the kibosh on it. True, China has traditionally avoided militaristic adventures of this kind. But to keep building a modern economy, China needs oil, badly. Would $500 billion be a good investment for them, if the return were an inside track on the production from the second largest reserves in the world? Would it be worth deploying some troops for a few years? Only China's rulers can say. But not unless we make an offer ...

China would have several advantages in this war. People say, if we only sent 500,000 troops to Iraq, we could pacify the country. For China this number of ground troops would not be a problem. Also, suddenly the whole Christian vs. Muslim thing would disappear, poof! The President's unfortunate comment about a "crusade" would be just another gaffe, rather than a rallying point for insurgents. And, the less-democratic Chinese government would have, let’s say, a much freer hand in exercising the more forceful authority needed to control the terrible factional infighting. Yes, this is a polite way to put a rather nasty point. Let’s just say, nastiness isn’t something that appears to put off the Chinese government when it comes to oil, if their activities in Sudan are any measure.

For America, the benefits are obvious. Recoup the unexpected drain on our finances. A couple of Treasury Secretaries back, they fired one for saying the war would cost $200 billion, because the administration was confident that it would cost maybe $100 billion and that would be offset by oil revenues. The bane of superpowers historically has been bankruptcy. We’re talking about the possibility of draining a trillion dollars, or more, from America’s wealth. You have to worry a little. After fighting this war for four years our armed forces are taxed and popular support just about exhausted. America's reputation in the world has been trashed, to put it mildly. Selling the war would show us to be the inventive capitalists the world knows and loves, and recoup some of our losses, even if we don't get the full asking price. (And, another point for the Chinese, greater American financial stability can only be a plus, given the deep interdependencies between the American and Chinese economies.)

For the President, finally. Consider this: Presidents have won wars and Presidents have lost wars. But no President has ever sold a war. As the first MBA president, you could demonstrate that a business approach can fix even the most intractable political and military mess. What a legacy! Your place in the history books would be assured. You would have to give up your hope of being the hero who transformed the Middle East into a modern liberal capitalist society, but you have to admit that's kind of a long shot at this point anyway. Think business! And remember, if you want to sell a war, you need a salesman, not an ideologue, to handle it for you. What about Ross Perot? (That is, if he's not still mad at you over whatever he was mad at your father about.) The man could sell, well, an information services outsourcing company to an automaker. Selling oil interests to China would have to be a snap.

Having given the President the final word on this, let’s be frank: this administration is certainly not selling any wars without Vice Presidential buy-in. Yes, the VP has been warning of a Chinese military buildup that he sees no need for. Selling the war to China would put their military power on the side of the common, understandable goal of insuring a supply of oil adequate to the world’s needs. A China using its military power to obtain oil on better terms is a China we can understand, and probably a better customer for American goods, too. Remember, if China lacks oil, American car companies will sell many less cars to China. But wouldn’t Chinese control over vast reserves of oil would strengthen their position in the world and undermine the efforts of US oil companies to supply this lucrative market? This concern is, to put it bluntly, nothing but old-Europe style colonialist thinking. If China controlled its source of oil, would it not vastly reduce pressures driving up worldwide oil prices? Do I need to convince anyone of the importance of a moderate oil price in delaying the move to other energy sources? Has this not been a key goal of US policy ever since those early meetings of the VP and oilmen a few years back? Besides, wouldn’t we much rather see China play a much more active participant in stabilizing the Middle East? It doesn't look like we can do anything to stop the Chinese military buildup, so why not divert it toward goals that could serve mutual long-term interests?

What if China won't buy? Or, tries to low-ball us? There's always India, another country with lots of troops and a need for lots of oil. Who better to repackage this as a peacekeeping endeavor than India with that terrific Ghandian image of peacefulness? But remember, it was Indian soldiers the British used for an army last century when they occupied Iraq. Yes, there would be a Hindu vs. Muslim thing today, which was not a problem for the British because back then India and Pakistan weren’t split yet. Perhaps we could propose India and Pakistan form a consortium to buy the war as a joint venture? A potential side benefit might be helping nuclear-armed adversaries establish common interests that would reduce tensions between them. Anyway, the mere possibility of India getting its hands on all that oil would doubtless put the deal over with China, wouldn't it?

Alas, no. For in today’s world surely it's impossible to sell a war, at least one that’s been going on for years. Once upon a time, the US itself was a buyer for the Louisiana Purchase, which did indeed come with some fairly serious insurgencies by inhabitants (Choctaw, Sioux, etc.) who did not agree their homeland was anyone else’s to sell. But that was then, this is now. It looks like we're stuck with our current war, as senseless and bloody as it is, just like we're stuck with a President who declares there's no choice but victory, even if the idea of victory in this crossfire of Suni against Shi'ite against Kurd against occupier against terrorist is as farfetched as ... the idea of selling a war in an oil-rich country to someone interested in the oil.