Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq War Is All About Controlling The Oil
AFTER WORLD WAR II, the president's national security council propounded a policy that would shape the world's geopolitical future: "Oil operations are, for all practical purposes, instruments of our foreign policy."
More than a half-century later, that policy has not changed.
With the invasion of Iraq already secretly being planned, freshly selected President George W. Bush listed "energy security" as his first action priority.
Energy security is the invisible elephant in Washington, guiding Bush policy on Iraq, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. It explains the "surge," the absence of an exit strategy from Iraq, the stubborn resistance of the Bush-Cheney team to efforts by the Congressional Democrats to impose a withdrawal deadline for 170,000 American soldiers, as well as the ongoing construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and the costly stationing of thousands of American troops on foreign soil from Kuwait to Djibouti.
Energy security is the invisible presence shaping what the 2008 presidential candidates say or don't say about oil and energy. Energy security is the reason Hillary Clinton refuses to embrace a withdrawal deadline and why Republican presidential hopeful John McCain declares that there is "no alternative Plan B" to the ongoing build-up of American forces.
In short, the American occupation and the maintenance of a shaky Iraqi government are the insurance policy for American control and access to the second largest untapped reserve of petroleum in the world. The politicians don't say much about an energy-security policy based on foreign oil. The news media don't report very much on it.
The Big Five oil companies don't proclaim it in their self-promoting institutional advertising campaigns.Yet the so-called "Majors" — U.S.-based Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips; the Dutch Shell Oil; and the British-owned British Petroleum — would be the principal beneficiaries of a new hydrocarbon law before the Iraqi Parliament that the press rarely mentions.
The initial draft, shaped by American contractors to the Iraqi government, has been amended by the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, and approved by the Iraqi Cabinet. The draft now awaits final approval by the Iraqi Parliament, but there is much reported Iraqi resistance to it, with good reason.
Oil Change International (http://priceofoil.org), an energy watchdog group, has devotedly tracked the proposed law. The law would reverse a trend in which most major petro-nations have largely nationalized their oil fields and reserves. Under the proposed Iraqi law, concessions involving 63 Iraqi oilfields, both developed and undeveloped, would go to major foreign-oil companies, assuring them of dominance over Iraqi oil for a generation or more. Only 17 already developed fields would be directly controlled by a proposed Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC).
One of the key provisions of the draft law states that "the overall allocation of exploration and production rights . . . shall aim at achieving variety among oil companies and operators . . . so as to enhance efficiency through positive competition."
The draft law grants assurance of "reasonable incentives" to foreign investors — the provision that kicks the door open to foreign developers. Development licenses are to be granted "on a competitive basis," a nod to outside companies with sufficient development capital.
Oil Change International states: "The law is a dramatic break from the past. Foreign oil companies will have a stake in Iraq's vast oil wealth for the first time since 1972, when Iraq nationalized the oil industry. This law would essentially open two-thirds of known — and all of [Iraq's] as yet undiscovered — reserves open to foreign control." According to Oil Change International, this amounts to 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves — 10 percent of the world total.
The language of Article 11 of the draft law pays vague lip service to the principle of equal revenue sharing from petroleum and natural gas proceeds among Shi'as, Sunnis, and Kurds — supporting "distribution of .  . . revenues, and the monitoring of federal revenue allocation." But ConocoPhillips and Shell are already negotiating separate concessions with Kurdistan alone, and others reportedly will follow suit.
Oil Change International reports that foreign oil companies "would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current instability by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before setting foot in the country."
Washington politicians understandably want to hedge the nation against the devastating impact on American life and the economy of a severe interruption of overseas oil supplies. But waging costly resource wars or granting discriminatory privileges to private interests that harm host oil states in an age of terrorism only makes permanent the threat to American "energy security."
Only "soft power" — peacemaking, smart diplomacy, constructive nation-building, generous sharing formulas, vigorous energy conservation and research policies at home — can assure long-term security for American interests without creating grievous new problems. It's time for leadership from politicians to acknowledge the existence of the elephant in the room and do something creative about it.
Jerry M. Landay, a retired CBS News correspondent living in Bristol, writes on current issues.
© 2007 The Providence Journal
33 Comments so far
Show AllThere's much more to this war then liberating Iraq and getting some oil. There are things that the public doesn't hear about that happen DAILY, simply because it would put them in danger.
Everyone thinks they understand this war, and the Bush is selfish, but those same people have never been on the other side of a security clearance :\
The good news for Iraq—and there ain't much—is that the "oil law", the cornerstone of U.S. imperial policy is the Middle East, is in trouble.
Despite Dick Cheney's recent visit to threaten the Iraqi Vichy regime into capitulation, the law is meeting immense resistance. And even if enacted, it will actually exacerbate the security situation in Iraq.
Why is the Bush Oil Administration having so much trouble bullying and slaughtering its way into domination of Iraq's oil resources for its corporate partners?
In the U.S., the population is deeply indoctrinated and passive. It is relatively easy for the most sophisticated propaganda system in history (also known as the "mainstream" or corporate media) to get people to believe that up is down, and black is white, and yes, that four really is five. This is especially true in regard to foreign policy since most Americans live in a vacuum of ignorance about the rest of the world.
In contrast, I have spoken to many Iraqis, both in Iraq—as a documentary filmmaker—and as refugees outside in the U.S., Britain, and Jordan, and they are far less susceptible to U.S. propaganda. Iraqis certainly have a wide range of opinions on a number of issues; a good number, now dwindling to a handful, supported the U.S. invasion on the simple maxim that "nothing could be worse than Saddam". Most are revisiting that assumption with immense regret.
However, there is one thing that every Iraqi that I spoke with understands: the U.S. is there primarily for their oil. Unlike the American public, which can be persuaded (at least for awhile) that Bush is a good man and that pigs can fly, Iraqis won't be snowed into believing that this is not about controlling their oil.
Being retired I have time to read as many of these articles and comments as my curiosity can tolerate. That capacity is lessened by time and the realization that every writer and commentator seems unable to confront the question: Realistically, what can be done?
The answer is "Nothing without altruistic political power". And what does that mean?
Within the US it means wresting political power from those who now sell it to willing buyers. Specifically, it means creating a third political party firmly and irremovably grounded in the middle and 'have not' classes.
As long as current holders of power are not prepared to say "Let them eat cake" and thus completely renounce the social stability afforded by respect for regulation and "law", there is still some hope. The new lawmakers could kill (just to name a few):
- Corporate personhood falsely asserted by the 1886 Supreme Court decision.
- The income tax in favor of a more egalitarin and more simple system.
- The military industrial monster in favor of a system more truly defensive.
Pie in the sky? Probably, if viewed from today's perspective. However, could be plausible in light of looming climate change strife. What's needed is a flight from past comforts and serious work toward tomorrow's dangers. Would that I were younger. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
It's about oil primarily, it's also about genocide, it's also about damn manifest destiny (look it up if you're not a United Stateser), it's also about cry babies in Isreal getting their way. It is a crime not a war.
Can anyone recommend any illuminating texts for me to read that explains exactly what is happening to the currently (approx.) 2 million barrels a day being produced in Iraq? Who controlls the process? Where are the profits going? Thank you. ~ pinky
MarkR is right to note the ommission of oil by Moyers and the anti peak oil bias of CommonDreams--big problems that impact their credibility.
For quite some time, but very evident now, is the fact that the USA is a piratical nation and needs to be disciplined for its many acts of piracy. For those lacking background, pirates are singled out by international law, several centuries now, for being anti-human/civilised--a stigma now assigned to international terrorists. Any nation can arrest any one under the international laws of piracy--and holding elective office is NOT any protection: There is NO diplomatic immunity for acts of piracy, something that doesn't yet exist for terrorists because there is NO agreed upon definition of terrorist or terrorism because of efforts by the chief terrorist nations, USA & UK.
The invasion of Iraq is an act of piracy. Anyone connected to the invasion abetted the act. Thus, any official of the US or UK in or out of office connected to the act MUST be arrested by any signatory to the international laws against piracy, which include the US and UK, at their first opportunity. Can private citizens arrest pirates? Yes! Indeed, they are duty bound to do so if afforded the opportunity as stipulated by international law; just as international law stipulates that it is a citizen's duty to do everything possible to oppose/end illegal wars, torture, and associated war crimes. At the very least, this means NOT paying taxes that finance the illegal acts.
Is a congressperson who voted for the war a pirate? YES! Is a congressperson who voted funds to prolong the war a war criminal? YES! Is such a congressperson a terrorist? YES!
The US Empire is filled with pirates and terrorists at all levels of government and business. The "Global War Against Terrorism" begins and ends here in the USA, for its Empire is driving it all.
opeluboy sez "...If you leave Israel out of the equation and simply use "oil" as the entire reason for this war (and planned wars against Iran, Syria and oil-less Lebanon), you are either a fool or a liar..."
Israel is only a pawn . . . Lebanon provides ACCESS for pipelines from all the arabian producers to the Med. We never would have invaded an oil-less Iraq, and we never would have talked Israel into invading Lebanon but for the ALREADY EXISTENT Syria-Lebanon pipeline(s) (from Iraqi oilfields). There is another EXISTING pipeline all the way from Saudi Arabian fields that terminates on the Med in Lebanon.
So you see, it still all comes down to oil, not politics.
There are only two verities in the 21st century:
(1) it's about oil, and
(2) Bush is a moron.
1. Iraq is without question, at least partially, a "resource war". Perhaps half of the resources immediately in play are there and the other half are in Khuzestan (oil, gas, minerals, water), the adjacent province in Iran. Resource theft in Iraq/Iran will be a stepping stone for even greater resource theft, to include zones centered around the Horn of Africa and Balochistan (Iran/Pakistan border).
2. Strategic position is also a factor. A "center of power" is best located where the power is. Hitler made the error of trying to fight his way to oil across north africa and russia. Japan did the same in the south pacific. Better to base the military directly on top of the oil. This is the position from which to carry out the mission that eluded the Axis. Iraq/Iran makes the best possible location from which to rule the world using conventional warfare. There is a reason that Centcom is called that.
3. Israel is also a beneficiary of this pattern, if it is fully carried out. The old pipeline route across Iraq to the Mediterranean could be reactivated with only minor incursions on Syrian territory. Should the Strait of Hormuz be closed, Israel would then control oil distribution to the world. Also, Baghdad was the center of the Jewish daispora for most of its history. It was the largest jewish city in the world until those people were driven out in the first Arab/Israeli wars. Israelis want property confiscated in baghdad to be returned. This is part of the deal.
4. Do not rule out Papal involvement. Iraq is a crusade, Christianity against Islam. The crusade mentality led to the Inquisition, which morphed into the Protestant witch hunts (millions of women burned), only ended by the rise of "secular humanism". The flip side of Iraq is the end of constitutional law in the US, setting up conditions for a renewal of the Inquisition and a fresh attack on secular humanism. The US is being set up for a replay of the Albigensian Crusade.
Cheers!
The latest version of the Iraq emergency supplemental appropriations bill, HR 2206, contains the following language:
SEC. 1311. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq.
Is there any doubt as to why Bush really intends to veto this bill? It's not about timetables or any of the other spin Bush puts on this, it's about oil. Section 1311 strikes at the heart of his whole purpose for being in Iraq.
This guy is an amateur who really doesn't see the whole picture. The war isn't about SECURING iraqs oil, its about surpressing it. The less oil they pump out of there, the more the oil companies make, lower supply higher demand = higher price. I recommend Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" for the full story. This article is simply an uneducated rant. The real story is much more interesting and believable.
The last thing the big five global oil companies want is some sort of mandate to develop/re-develop Iraqi oil in a war zone. Control of oil is of course about controlling where it is in the ground, the means of production (upstream and down), but more importantly about controlling price to ensure accelerated profits. Bush's war against Iraq did just that, by taking away the ability to drive down the price of oil from Iraq.
The Iraq war is a win for the rich class that has been at war on the middle and poor class. Look at the possible outcomes:
1. The corporate friends get the oil and control world supply.
2. The oil is off the market driving up world price so profits rise.
Now the side benefits:
a. Distract world from corporate policies that enrich the rich and screw the rest.
b. Scare dictators into submission.
c. Scare dictators population into supporting the dictator's butt kissing of corporations.
d. Build mercenary armies by destroying the official army. Not much sympathy for volunteer army even less for mercenaries. (They chose this work) Mercenaries aren't even counted in official casualties and they are easier to turn against internal opposition.
e. The rich collect a cut of all contracts to build the army, recruit and train the mercenaries, transport and feed the army, and secure and rebuild the destroyed target country. The poor do all the fighting and dying.
f. Fire up a pro war patriotism that will help fan the flame of silly fear pumped up by 'terrorism'. (used to be communism, race etc.)
The average person is more likely to be struck by lightning than a victim of terrorism. If we were to live in a non-empire country like Sweden or Switzerland it would be even less likely.
g. End the rights of the non-elite. If I shot an old lawyer in the face, I would have had to explain it immediately at the precinct not the next day sobered up, lawyered up, and everyone's story studied up. If black and poor the shooter would be at high risk of being shot or tortured into confession.
h. END SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND GOOD PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR THE POOR SO THAT THEY CAN BE CHEAPLY CONTROLLED, WITH NO HOPE OF IMPROVEMENT EXCEPT AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ELITE.
Why would the elite stop the war? They don't see a down side.
The original name of our military adventure in Iraq was "Opereratio Iraqi Liberation" until someone noticed it created the acronym OIL. So it was changed to Operational Iraqi Freedom.
President Jimmy Carter told us over 30 years ago that this nation must become "energy independent". 30 years later, nothing has changed. We knew it then and we know it now.
Will we spend another 30 years and $$trillions more of tax-payers money creating wars of occupation to secure an energy future for this country while the oil barons maintain energy control, increase their wealth, and continue destroying the environment?
"The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security." - Council on Foreign Relations
No kidding! And we can thank 30+ years of Congressional idiots for the energy crisis we now face. Let's see if the fools can get us out of the energy crisis they helped create.
Mr. Landay first appeals to progressive values in his article by placing the "energy security" agenda of the beast capital out on the table for close scrutiny. This is a needed public service. Thanks to Mr. Landay.
But then he throws up a smoke screen: "Washington politicians understandably want to hedge the nation against the devastating impact" of petro-instability.
Understandably? How do we understand our being forced into petro-slavery when our dependence on petroleum is completely unnecessary?
It's nice to be informed. But when do we stop contributing to the problem and start contributing to the solution with our policies and our actions? Try independent local energy production based on efficient, sustainable, responsible and equitable practices.
You can learn all about Peak Oil and growing food at home from www.lawnstogardens.com.
Oil or no oil, it's just a smart thing to do to save money and eat healthier anyway.
We could run a nice civilization on solar and wind -- but not a growth based system.
The idea that Iraq has 200 or 300 billion barrels is a nice story that absolutely zero evidence that anyone can verify. Even if it was true, ALL of the largest oil fields on the planet are in decline. And with global levels of consumption at over 30 billion barrels per year the 300 billion barrel figure is only ten years of globalization. Then what?
There's also finite supplies of coal, natural gas, mineral ores, etc. (Peak Coal is likely to come perhaps two decades from now - and in the US central Appalachia is being obliterated to keep our addiction to endless electricity going.)
Plus, there's the issue that solar and wind cannot run internal combustion engines in cars, delivery trucks, ships, trains and planes. Even if someone figured out practical solar hydrogen (solar is practical, hydrogen is not) there would have to be an incredible level of mobilization to rush to make the needed transformations. How many Democrats even dare to mention Amtrak as a needed shift in direction? How to get from here to there is the real issue, one that gets very little attention or organization.
Forests, soils, fresh water, fish and other "renewable" resources are also being extracted faster than they regenerate. Growth is the problem - but few environmental groups contemplate the finite nature of a round planet and the obvious need for a steady state economy as a core part of the solution. "Smart growth" is merely an illusion. Our monetary systems require an ever expanding economy -- one that requires centralized petroleum, nukes, coal, etc. Renewable energy is great but it is not going to keep the 747s flying and sending food all over the world. Relocalization is going to be enforced by energy limits even if Dennis Kucinich becomes President and Greenpeace takes over the US Department of Energy.
Learn to grow some of your food and cut back on energy consumption.
this message typed on a computer powered by photovoltaics, although I doubt the factory it was made in is powered with renewables
If you leave Israel out of the equation and simply use "oil" as the entire reason for this war (and planned wars against Iran, Syria and oil-less Lebanon), you are either a fool or a liar.
More dangerous than the misinformation about America's foreign policy not being driven by oil... is the misinformation that we NEED oil. We do not need oil. We do not need one drop of oil for anything at all anymore.
Trains in many other countries are powered by electricity. Wind power is now cheaper (and solar will be soon) than any other power generation, but electric companies fear anything whose widespread adoption would lead to cheaper and cheaper costs for energy generation.
For example, computer parts get cheaper and cheaper every year, you get more for your money because the technology gets better. Whereas something like Bluefin tuna (I don't eat fish, but I hear it's expensive), which is a diminishing resource, gets more and more expensive. Therefore if you want higher profit margins you should force people to only use limited resources such as COAL and OIL, so when those resources are depleted the price increases along with profits.
You can't get high profit margins with wind and solar, because once you install a wind farm, it generates energy for 20 years without needing any limited resource. How can you price gouge in that scenario? Bush's government tries to block wind farms, leading to environmental groups having to sue, just to allow wind farms to be built:
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0318.asp
Bush also helps auto companies stop the electric car by scamming America with Biofuels and his "Hydrogen Initiative." Both of those are scams... meant to distract people from electric cars, which along with renewable energy could have every American working off of clean energy without a change in our gluttonous lifestyles.
So the other side of the 'Wars For Energy Security' is the WAR against all forms alternative energy that don't depend on limited resources. If that war is won in America, all our other wars around the world will cease to exist.
Remember the original anti-war slogan from 2002?
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL".
It was as obvious then as it is now. But it plays almost no part in the current national debate over the war. The White House continues its monotonous drum beat of "Al-Qaida, Terrorism, 9/11...", and if the corporate media doesn't talk about the oil motive, neither will Congress.
I suspect that many pro-war and undecided Americans know perfectly well that the outcome of this conflict will affect their price at the pump.
The sad thing is, "victory" in Iraq will not guarantee cheap energy and prosperity for Americans. This fight is about who gets to sell Persian Gulf oil to Japan & China.
I'm sure that Big Oil and their Wall Street backers know what the score it too. I suspect they're using the NeoCons and their war to delay our conversion to a post-oil economy until they can get their investments out.
In the not-too-distant future I expect to see Republicans in Congress demanding that the government "nationalize" our critical, strategic petro-infrastructure as it falls into neglect and disrepair... But not until the former owners are all safely invested in photovoltaic factories.
Or, who knows? Maybe they'll sell America's refineries to Dubai, the way France and Britain used to sell their worn-out ocean liners to Greece.
The Robber-Barons stuck us with the railroads when highways came to replace steel tracks... but not before they sucked all the value out of them. They'll do the same with the petro-industry. It's all just a big Monopoly game to them.
My New slogan:
FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
P A Y FOR OIL
Actually, we could be running our entire US economy, and the global economy as well, on solar, wind, and sustainable agriculture right this very moment, but every step taken in this direction has been sabotaged by entrenched oil interests. The best book on this yet is Edwin Black's "Internal Combustion" - http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/
It must also be noted that 'peak oil' and 'oil scarcity' are somewhat mythical. Coal can be converted into gasoline, and there are hundreds of years worth of coal left in the ground - certainly enough to fry the planet via global warming. Iraq alone probably has 200-300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves (as the author points out, that's why the war happened). Sheik Yamani, former Saudi oil minister, famously said that "The Stone Age did not end due to a lack of stone".
The only real energy security is renewable energy: solar, wind, energy storage systems, sustainable (fossil fuel-free) agriculture, and conservation and energy efficient technology. If the amount of money that has been spent on the Iraq war had instead been spent on renewables in the US, we'd probably be there already.
The missing piece of the puzzle is that controlling Iraq's oil is all about controlling the biggest supplies as the world passes the point of peak oil.
Two thirds of the remaining oil is in the Persian Gulf area.
The bank robber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. He replied "that's where the money is!" Why is the US in Iraq? That's where the oil is.
But this is not merely about Exxon-Mobil or Toxico making extra profits (although they are) -- it is about controlling the whole global economy as we enter the downslope of Hubbert's Peak. Those who control the centralized energy system as the oil declines will have even more power.
Perhaps one day - maybe before the attack on Iran - the peace movement and alternative media will look at the issues of peak oil and how the Cheney administration is essentially a vicious response to this. They could also look at the motivation for allowing 9/11 to happen, since without the "attack" there is no way that Bush/Cheney could have been able to start the War of Terror (a thinly veiled smokescreen to grab the oil). There are lots of nonsense claims about 9/11 but the fact that there were extremely specific warnings from US allies, FBI agents tracking the flight schools, put options on United & American stock, etc are well documented with mainstream sources. See www.cooperativeresearch.org for a guide to the best evidence.
www.communitysolution.org
www.dieoff.org - what goes up must come down
www.energybulletin.net - best Peak Oil news service
www.fromthewilderness.com - Peak Oil and 9/11
www.museletter.com - Richard Heinberg
www.oilempire.us - a political map: 9/11 and Peak Oil Wars
www.oiltruth.com - Life After the Oil Crash
www.postcarbon.org - Post Carbon Institute
note: Common Dreams does not link to these sites.
Last month, Bill Moyers had a show on PBS that was a well produced documentary showing that the Bush regime lied to trick the country into war on Iraq. But the transcript of that show reveals the word OIL was not used once. Obviously, we must be in Iraq to control the olive oil.
"Iraq War Is All About Controlling The Oil," but for whom?
Not for the poor people who are fighting the other poor people.
Stick around for the next oil wars in Africa. China already getting lucrative contracts throughout the region.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/us_africa_4438.jsp
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12768
When I add up everything about this administration from the lies, illegal war to secure ties to oil and resources of other countries, manipulation of the Justice Department, abuse of executive power, placing unqualified cronies in top government positions, corporate cronism, no-bid contracts, and seemingly endless scandals on a weekly basis, I can't help but think about The Sopranos. It hit me: this administration is like the mafia. No–it IS the mafia. Say it over. Does that not resonate in your mind and body as truth?
What if simply appearing to get the oil under control is the goal. After all, it's been 4 years since Bush's "Do not destroy the oil wells" declaration. Would it's better to take the oil hostage? You know, turn the spigots off and hold it for ransom?
4 years later and we don't see a drop of oil from Iraq. Does anyone?
It was obvious to me as soon as I read the details of the hydrocarbon law that getting control of Iraqi oil was one of two main objectives of the Bush/Cheney administration. The other objective has always been to establish a major permanent military presence in the region. They will justify this presence, at least in part, based on the need to protect the assets of the foreign oil companies who will be busily stealing the oil after the law is passed. If the members of the current Iraqi parliament don't pass the law, they will probably be thrown out and replaced with more compliant puppets.
It is unlikely, in my opinion, that our congress can prevent any of this from happening. The veto is too powerful. The only hope is the removal of the Bush/Cheney administration from office through impeachment.
When the iraqi resistance ejects the US/UK from their country, they will simply re-nationalize the oil fields.
From the very first mention of this obscene war I have spoken out. If you really believed that Saddam was the motivation then I have this bridge that I can make you a good deal on. Also the next email you receive from Nigeria you should consider answering it. This is not new . . . all this information was available at the very beginning. No one wanted to talk about it then . . . it was un-patriotic to do so . . . Remember . . .
How dare we plunder the oil of another country? Why do we tolerate the obscene profits of the oil industry? They always said "it's not about the oil". Hah. I'm sick of it, aren't you?
Now, only the right wing nuts understand the real reason for war, and not the so-called 'democratization" of Iraq sales-ptch by the mental midget, the remaining support will dwindle to the single digits.
The occupation of Iraq is basically the theft of their natural resources by the oil bandits.
----and its been popular to declare this Administration had/has "no post-invasion plan".....ya wanna bet?
Yes it's about oil, but it's also about maintaining the horrible illusion that we can't be safe without an insanely huge budget (~500 billion per year) for the depart of "defense".
Peace and truth are the warmonger's most significant rival.
State supported terrorism via the pentagon is one huge way for insanely greedy bastards to keep big bucks coming their way.