Oil and Betrayal in Iraq
Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Greenspan even advised Bush that “taking Saddam Hussein out was essential” to protect oil supplies.
Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it’s in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.
Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed . Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year - and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces - for oil company profits.
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.
And what profits they are! Take a look at the study of Iraqi oil contracts by Global Policy Forum, a consultant to the United Nations Security Council. Or read this editorial from The Daily Times in Pakistan.
The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called “production sharing agreements” (or “PSA’s”) - a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the “cost oil” profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.
Incidentally, polls show the Iraqi people overwhelmingly against “privatization”, but “production sharing agreements” were devised so they are technically not “privatization,” since the government would still own the oil but not control it. The ruse is there so that the government can claim it is not privatizing.
But none of this will work without military protection for the oil companies. That is what would keep us there indefinitely. The name for this is our “vital interests.”
Greenspan’s revelation and the contracts need to be discussed openly. The question must be asked, “Is our military there for the sake of oil?”
I have been struck by the use of the word “victory” by the right wing, especially by its propaganda arm, Freedom’s Watch. Usually, “victory” is used in reference to a war between countries over territory, where there is a definable enemy. That is not the case in Iraq, where we have for four years had an occupation, not a “war,” and there has been no clear enemy. We have mostly been fighting Iraqis we were supposed to be rescuing. “Victory” makes no sense for such an occupation. And even Petraeus has said that only a political, not a military, settlement is possible. In what sense can keeping troops there for 9 or 10 years or longer, as Petraeus has suggested, be a “victory”?
What is most frightening is that they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of “victory” that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as “victory.” Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a “victory.” Or if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be “victory.” If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be “victory” as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn’t matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company “victory” - and a victory for Bush.
Indeed, Kurdistan’s PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter form of “victory.” As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times on September 14, “the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.” Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of “victory.”
If that is “victory,” what is “defeat” and who is being “defeated?” The troops who would have to stay to protect the oil investments would, person by person, suffer defeat - a defeat of the spirit and, for too many, of the body. And most of America would suffer a defeat, especially our taxpayers who have paid a trillion dollars that could have gone for health care for all, for excellent schools and college educations, for rebuilding Louisiana and Mississippi, for shoring up our infrastructure and bridges, and for protecting our environment. Victory for the oil companies, defeat for most of America.
Is Greenspan right? Is this what “victory” could possibly mean? I do not want to even think that the answers might be “yes.” The thought itself is too disgusting. But Greenspan has put the questions before us, and we have a duty to pursue the answers. Because, if the answer is even half “yes,” then the troops and most Americans have been, and continue to be, betrayed beyond measure.
Perhaps the most honest and straightforward way to pursue such answers would be for Congress to frame the issue directly in terms of oil, as Greenspan did. Here’s a way to do it: The Constitution gives Congress authority over military matters through its power to fund continued military action. Without such funding, the troops cannot continue. Suppose Congress were to pass a bill saying that no funding would be forthcoming for military action in Iraq unless the Iraqi government drops all provisions for PSA’s - production sharing agreements - in its legislation. This would actually give the Iraqi government sovereignty over its oil indefinitely and take oil control away from Western oil companies. Even proposing such a bill seriously would have two effects: To raise the constitutional issue: the president has been overriding the constitution. And it would bring the oil issue front and center, so we can all see if “victory” is really about oil interests.
Suppose Greenspan is right, that oil was a primary factor in the Iraq invasion, that “victory” means victory for oil companies, and that “sacrifice” means sacrifice for the American oil industry. While I held the very possibility that this might be true, I clicked on the following website. Perhaps you will feel as I felt.
George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
This is a really good explanation of the PSAs. We seem to want to stay there to insure control over the region. But we do not have control over it now and no matter how long we stay, we probably never will.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson has urged the Congress to raise the debt ceiling yet again above the $8.96 trillion dollar level by October 1st, so that we can continue borrowing. Do we really think it is necessary to spend $1 trillion in Iraq?
To me, there has to be a better way to influence events in the region than a prolonged occupation of a country for its oil resources. This seems like one of the worst of all possible choices to achieve that goal.
Now that we all understand the whys and what fors for destroying Iraq, we should feel much better. All this time I thought Cheney was crazy.
Now what about Iran? Is that one gonna be for more oil, or is it to test our military might to see how well our newer bombs work? Perhaps it’s really to let China and Russia know that we’re still a world power that has the guts to do whatever we damn please. Maybe we’ll get our proud to be an American feelings back, not being proud is sorta depressing. I dunno??
UHhhhh, bombing Iran might be because God told George to do it. If he ever is brought to trial, he’ll have a good defense.
Victory is actually easily defined. It means a successful robbery, in that the intended beneficiaries of the endeavor, the oil and defense companies, including the companies providing mercenary armies, end up with a windfall and the US taxpayers and soldiers and the Iraqi people pay the price. It matters not to those making policy that generations of Iraqis will have high levels of cancer because of the DU, or that US soldiers will have a myriad of health problems in the future for the same reason, or even that the US budget deficit is ballooning. They have no interest in solving the first two problems and they intend to solve the last through privatizing and virtually eliminating Social Security and Medicare.
Professor Lackoff states: “Suppose Greenspan is right, that oil was a primary factor in the Iraq invasion, that “victory” means victory for oil companies, and that “sacrifice” means sacrifice for the American oil industry.”
I’m afraid you get an F Professor. Greenspan was not talking about oil for the oil companies. He has been quite clear in explaining his comments. In saying that the war was about oil he is stating the obvious that the region, and in particular the gulf and straits of hormuz, is absolutely essential to our strategic national interests. Oil is to the economy as oxygen is to the body- would we fight for oxygen? Either we have it or our economy dies- and no, I’m not talking about oil company profits or wealthy elites not being able to fuel up their G5s, and neither was Greenspan. What is at stake here is hunger, starvation, freezing, etc. To ensure our economy continues to function we need an uninterrupted supply of oil, and currently that means we need the oil in the Middle East to keep flowing. This sad fact has been at the root of so many Foreign Policy disasters and errors in the region and continues to act in ways that are counter to our national interest our moral standing.
And yes the Iraq war is sadly just one of these- albeit a whopper. And of course now we see it is creating turmoil that might just accomplish that which we most wished to avoid. But let’s be clear that much of the responsibility for this and other unseemly transgressions rest squarely on the shoulders of the American public who refuse to even consider changing their lifestyle and giving up their SUVs and pickups with V8s that are about as necessary as the 14 cup-holders. Until we can muster the national will and political courage necessary to end our self-centered oil addiction we will continue to act in ways that shame our country and its people.
Finally I do believe that this pseudo-Texas dimwit we have as President and his “oil & gas” buddies do see wrapping up those contracts as a just and well deserved treat for “their” efforts and that only an open process can give any legitimacy to our efforts to open up their oil production. In fact I would go further and to try and make some amends by taking the US companies out of the picture entirely- they’ll survive and it would be an enormous international gesture. Of course this would take some backbone from Congress. Oh well.
Make no mistake we, not just the oil companies, need oil and any administration will do what it has to keep it flowing and avoid a worldwide great depression- sad but true…
American soldiers will be in Iraq for decades to come.
Oil is the main strategic interest of the U.S. Its America’s energy source. It runs the economy and the military machine.
Securing access to oil will always be America’s preeminent factor in setting foreign and domestic policy.
read Greg Palast’s book “Armed Madhouse” to see that it is really about stemming the production of oil to raise gas prices as the real reason.
Is Lakoff serious though when he writes, “Suppose Congress were to pass a bill saying that no funding would be forthcoming for military action in Iraq unless the Iraqi government drops all provisions for PSA’s - production sharing agreements - in its legislation.”
The Iraqi government is more strongly opposed to PSA’s than Congress. It is the American government that is forcing this legislation on Iraq, as he acknowledged before. But he claims it is Bush who is pushing it. Really? There aren’t any Democrats backed by oil companies as well or by AIPAC? There’s no way in hell that Congress would pass such a bill.
It is great to see the concepts of framing laid out like this, but Lakoff’s backing of the Democrats is part of the problem. Time to drop your support of Dems and Nancy Pelosi, George. They’re imperialists just like the Republicans.
We should not be fighting a dreadful and useless war for oil, we should be putting all our resources, imagination, and spectacular R&D muscle into developing clean, renewable energy for America and the world.
The age of dinosaurs and fossil fuels is over. Wake up and feel the sunshine, sense the wind, explore the energy of waves. When we are free of our oil addiction, our only business with the Middle East will be normal trade amd travel. That is a future worth building.
Before we attacked Iraq it was obvious that this was about controlling the oil there. The only victory that Bush/oil Corps want is just that. And yes, the betrayal of all Americans who pay taxes or belong to the military is nothing new. We are being fucked like a two dollar whore! If you just thought about this being the case now, where have you been for the last 40 years? The soldiers are expendable as are your children’s health and education. This is so obvious and it’s such an old story I can’t believe we are still talking about. After all what is the face of Amerika if NOT betrayal?
So like it or not, because we refused to learn/were kept from learning, it’s Vietnam again—and the soldiers find out that all they wanted to do for their country was tricked away from them, and/or they knew all along too but wanted to “kick some ass.” We mocked the USSR and congratulated ourselves and guess what—Now it’s the American Empire’s turn to crumble. Once again “the peace types” got it right
If the Iraqi government had passed the PSA then Bush would have declared victory and drawn down the troops to whatever levels are required for the permanent military bases we have built. The oil companies would be paying for their own security using Blackwater if they had their PSA to justify the expense. Our permanent presence was forseen as a backup to the private security in Iraq and as insurance against brushfire wars in the region. The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will ultimately determine their own fates once we step aside to allow the bloodbath. Mark my words. This is the future of Iraq.
How is the all volunteer army doing?
Are they able to keep getting new people to sign up for Iraq?
Because if it goes on for decades–they are going to face that problem.
Unlike 10 years ago–now people know if they join the military where they will end up.
I dont think they will be there for decades. They are getting their asses kicked. The cost is too much.
They just arent going to say: ok we give up, we’re going home.
They will sneak out.
And today and Emerates group bought into the Caryle Group which have their fingers in the pie. It just keep getting worse.
Attacking Iraq never made any sense at all unless it was to secure the oil. The Administration shadowplay has always been conspicuous in avoiding any mention of oil. But oil explains all of the following:
• The fact that Great Britain agreed to be our war ally makes no sense except for their oil interests.
• After the invasion the military neglected to secure Iraq treasures EXCEPT oil.
• They neglected to secure even weapons and ammo, conveniently arming the nation so that no-bid contractors can profiteer for as long as possible. As for the carnage, “stuff happens”.
• Disingenuous claims by tank-thinkers saying things like “WMD was the motivation we could all agree on” for the invasion. That is, they needed a rationale that seemed more justifiable than securing oil. Notice that this motivation isn’t very strong regarding oil-less nations that do have WMD.
• No official description of what the US “mission” is or what “victory” would look like. (Poster Kivals is correct.)
• Secrecy around everything, especially energy policy.
• The world’s largest embassy is in Baghdad.
• We have a lot of military bases in Iraq, for the long haul.
These are just off the top of my head.
Poster Clarity says that we had to raid Iraq’s oil for the US because we are so dependent on it that we might suffocate with its life breath for the US economy. That’s stating the obvious, as Greenspan has finally done. “Strategic national interest” sounds like it’s for the benefit and security of all Americans, but that phrase just provides cover for corporate interests, which cannot be separated from so-called strategic interests, the chiefest of which is oil. This Administration welcomes such banal framing. Americans sacrifice, but corporations do not. That is Prof. Lakoff’s key point. Would Americans have supported the war effort if the Administration had said at the outset that we needed to topple Saddam to secure the oil for Americans? That would have sounded more honest. It was probably rejected on precisely that basis.
This all certainly makes clear sense to me. Victory means that the US comanies get to steal all of the oil while the US military and tax payers drive the get-away car.
Hey clarity, you’re at the wrong site.
“I need that, gimme!” is not a progressive value.
Oh, and can you give us an example of what dead-child-per-gallon ratio are you comfortable with? Could you pour their blood right into your tank?
The USA has bases in 130 countries. The people of those countries tolerate this. I think that “victory” to the ruling class is to be able to have bases in Iraq without being attacked.
However, they also want to loot their oil and have the people of Iraq be wage slaves, unemployed or in prison without resistance. This is more than they ask of the other countries which tolerate US bases.
Normal Americans can see that being occupied and looted is intolerable, but the ruling class seems blind to this They think that if they kill, terrorize and imprison enough people, they can steal freely. It has worked for bandits throughout history.
And, face it, since 1980, Americans have put up with decreased wages, longer working hours, loss of our rights, increased prison population, pollution, and the looting of pensions, the US treasury, and our public lands and our resources with only token resistance. Can you blame the ruling class for thinking that it would be even easier to loot Iraq with guns?
Clarity started by saying we “need” oil. To continue this destructive polluting economy, we do. To switch to a sustainable economy would make it possible to drop the military industrial, prison industrial and oil powered debacle we have evolved into.
Figure out what we need, divide the work among those able to work and live in harmony with the earth and our fellow beings on this planet. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
WAR CRIMINALS IN THE ADMINISTRATION NEED TO BE ARRESTED, TRIED AND JAILED
Ah, there it is again:
“…is absolutely essential to our strategic national interests…”
You know our imperial right to destroy and kill to get at that diminishing oil well to keep those SUVs guzzling.
The SUV. The movement against it that never was. Coulda been the Green Party’s moment to shine, to have meaning, but they were silent on the major crisis of the moment. The SUV that all the sheep had to have for “their (suburban) needs”–dangerous, glutonous, and extremely fouling of the envionment, while the American auto industry rolled in record profits on an emissions loophole for “light trucks” and the country demanded that faucet for oil gush like there was no tomorrow.
R&D for alternative energy and fuel? Crushed–not a chance to get a foot up as long as big oil and big cars rule the road. Not a chance for mass transit–the auto industry nipped that in the bud.
So you see, we can NOT have the oil regions nationalized to benefit their citizens or profit from the oil if it means we have to share the diminishing resources and come up with alternatives. Our company government is in the oil business, after all and we would rather kill than give up our SUVs.
I’m sorry, but is this really a big revelation? The media is full of these exposes that tell us what is already blatantly obvious. Soon we’ll be hearing things like, “There are still unanswered questions about 9/11″ or “Evidence of corruption in the justice department.” If we keep staying at the level of thinking about wrongdoings “new” discoveries, we’ll never get anywhere. Let’s accept ugly realities and move onto stage 2, which entails some sort of response to realities like this one that we have known about for years.
Greenspan (on NPR this a.m.) also said that Saddam was a dangerous man, and that he was relieved when Saddam was removed.
Maybe we were meant to live like the ancients.
100 us dollars= 100 canadian dollars–today
100 us dollars= 155 fifty five can dollars..5 yrs ago
it si time to stop this BS discussions. Note greenspin told on 60 minutes, his savings are in foreign currency
yes, big news that it was for oil. i still think that greenspin is spinning us away from the fact that destroying iraq was also a petproject for israel.
now with mearsheimer and the jewish lobby being a topic of conversation he is willing to say it was oil.
no greenspin, it was oil and it was israel in equal parts.
Oil is a major part of the US and world economies as it stands now. But, it is not essential. Large scale extraction does not extend back much more than 100 years, will last less than that in the future. This war is not really about oil, it is about greed. Oil just happens to be the currency of value.
I note that cheap oil results in a lot of US highway deaths a year, a lot more than 9/11. Dirty diesel itself may kill 8000 via lung disease alone.
I also note that, while our troops were betrayed by their government and their officers, they willingly followed with very few exceptions. Legally, they are just as responsible. Betrayal and treason to the nation have been at the core of the US military almost since its founding. War of 1812, War against the native peoples, Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11. In all of these the US military played a major role in inciting foreign attack and/or killing US citizens. The US military has killed far more US citizens than all other militaries combined, and threatened to kill the whole world. And it has always been about greed. The ability to defend yourself is necessary, but once you invade and start killing others you’ve endangered your own families. That is both treason and betrayal.
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
So Greenspan was basically one of the “getaway car” drivers, and, like the rest of the lying traitors, he’s rewarded with more millions and MSM reverence. He knew the truth and remained silent, and now suffers from bushnesia - except about all the super wonderful great things he did for the economy… of the already too rich. In the world of law and order, Greenspan’s as guilty as the illegal order givers.
And, in Senate news, not a peep about the illegal invasion for oil during yet another waste of time “debate” on a bill to cut of funding for “the war,” though the USA isn’t at war with any country on Earth. The Senate did, however, unanimously agree to pretend Greenspan never existed.
According to Greg Palast, Saddam became an annoyance to the west because he was pumping oil unpredictably… “first he suspends exports in support of the Palestinian Infitada, a month later, he’s pumping like mad…up, down, up, down, he was driving the world markets crazy.”
To the Guardians of Capital like Alan Greenspan, this behavior is, indeed, “dangerous”.
I agree that our economy and way of life is VERY dependent on oil, but not to the point that we have to commit murder for it.
Back in the 70’s the right-wing used to scoff at energy conservation, saying that we’d all be “freezing in the dark”, if we followed Jimmy Carter’s prescription for energy independence.
They’re doing the same thing today. But we do have choices. We’ve had them for the last 25 years.
In 2006 we imported more oil from Canada and Mexico than from Saudi Arabia, and nearly as much from Nigeria and Venezuela.
If we raised the fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new cars - only new cars - to 40 mpg, and gave the Detroit 5 years to do, it we could quickly stop importing Persian Gulf oil altogether.
And that’s just the beginning.
Today, in the age of the microprocessor, we can cut way way WAY back on energy consumption and still enjoy a high standard of living that most of humanity can only dream about.
FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
PAY FOR OIL
yes,but it was possibly more important to have kept saddam and baathists in…as a bulwark against al qaida.under saddam everyones education was paid for thru post-graduate..woman drove cars,were ceo’s of large companies and wore secular clothing..shiite and sunni,intermarried and lived side by side..as far as mid-east countries go,they were the most progressive and secular(saddam started refusing to let the wolf in the house)i am not denying saddam was a monster(bush is an even larger monster-in-the-making)saddam was an evil man,but i suspect the iraqi people miss their freedom and the good ole days when they had abundant clean water,electricity, jobs and food.the people of iraq should bring an international lawsuit against bush and halliburton..the evil that invaded their country,held them captive and stole their oil and committed atrocity after atrocity against their civilians.
wow the writer’ naive, somewhat zoned out innocence was piqued by chairman al’s not so cryptic comments about the oil.
what cave has he been living in?
now he wants to go to congress to rectify the problem.
back to the cave with you.
it will be real amercian patriots who are going to intercede in this mess and i don’t think that congress is going to help them.
—————
clarity writes:
he gulf and straits of hormuz, is absolutely essential to our strategic national interests. Oil is to the economy as oxygen is to the body- would we fight for oxygen? Either we have it or our economy dies- and no, I’m not talking about oil company profits or wealthy elites not being able to fuel up their G5s, and neither was Greenspan. What is at stake here is hunger, starvation, freezing, etc. To ensure our economy continues to function we need an uninterrupted supply of oil, and currently that means we need the oil in the Middle East to keep flowing.
This sad fact has been at the root of so many Foreign Policy disasters and errors in the region and continues to act in ways that are counter to our national interest our moral standing.
———————
so he supports the war.
sadly.
okay, but the one thing about his argument is that he talks as if it were true that if it wasn’t americans pumping the oil there would be none flowing.
not true.
why don’t the americans want to pay retail like the rest of us.
chomsky says the american war machine would be in the region up to their chest grenades even if the us ran 100% on solar energy because they want to controls who buys it as much as who pumps it.
on a side note vis-a-vis iran:
click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt,_Jr.
to read about kermit (yes kermit, but not the frog) roosevelt, grandson of teddy, cia agent, who ran operation ajax in iran in 1953. the cia “got rid of” a democratically elected prime minister from office, essentially acting as proxy mercenaries for british petroleum.
they reinstated the hated shah, later his son, deposed in 1972, you might remember that.
and the beat goes on.
it always give me a laugh when something bad happens and the dumb americans ask the rhetorical question:
what did we ever do to them?
as i have often stated befor,fuck the oil,you cant drink it and dont need it to live.today iceland announces-going green-hydroelectricity and geothermal…and so could we.as i have often said ‘while the sun and the wind and the rain,remain free…(when the totally insane bushmachine gets done with this world..the sun will be blocked out,the winds will RAGE and the waters poisonedwormwood.FUCK THAT OIL..LET GREEDY BASTARDS HAVE IT,WHILE WE STILL HAVE A SUN,WIND AND RAIN !!
The American people have known that this war is about oil from the git-go. They read it on those “No Blood for Oil” signs in the global protest marches. It’s just one of those things not discussed in polite company until Greenspan says it’s OK now.
And then there is a collective intake of breath, hands go over mouths at the very thought! Ohmygosh, George, just think what this revelation is doing to our idealistic soldiers!
What crap! What hypocrisy! There are plenty of soldiers who fully understand the strategic purpose of this war and, as professionals ( mercenaries ), they are doing their job. They understand it is not defense of the Constitution, but defense of Our Way Of Life that is at stake. The two objectives are quite different.
OWOL is based on corporate oil and US hegemony, or vice-versa. Can’t have unrestricted access to oil unless you have US hegemony, come to think of it, and you can’t have US hegemony if you’ve got a bunch of rag heads interfering with your “free market” access to their oil. Saddam was unpredictable, certainly, but worse than that, he was a symbol of Moslem resistance that had to be nipped in the bud. He took a lickin but kept on kickin….
The danger is resurgent Islam, a pan-Arab awakening that could seriously restrict US access to this vital resource and also threaten the existence of the largest US base in the region, Israel.
So, it isn’t JUST about oil, it’s also about the suppression of the Islamic world. “Terrorism” is code for “Islamicism”, and that means essentially what Chavez means to Venezuelan national resources. It means Arabs could seriously reduce Western profits and also use oil as a weapon by selling more of it to China when they want to punish the US for supporting Israeli aggression and genocidal policies.
But if you introduce the US military in the heart of the Arab world, you can divide and conquer. You can create sectarian conflict ( secretly blow up thier mosques) and keep the buggers in their place, prevent them from unifying and interfering with your good deal….OWOL…
Damn few of the troops over there do not understand their role in this imperial enterprise. What pisses them off most of all is the fact that the private contractors make more money than they do….
KEM PATRICK_____You mentioned that if George W is ever brought to trial for his bombing of Iran, he will have a good defense___GOD told him to do it. I am not too sure, as in Nebraska, a state senator has just brought a lawsuit against GOD for various catastrophy`s and problems. You never know what is next these days. Example___ 23 Damocrats voting disaproval of Move On`s ad in the Times about Betrayus.
Clarity
Are you paid to insert rightwing views into these CD discussions?
Whoever you are, you almost always reflect plutocratic presuppositions, manipulated evidence, and historical comparisons.
The U.S. plutocracy cares not one whit about the average U.S. citizen. If the oil oligarchs get their talons on another country’s oil resources, it benefits their bottom line…not us.
The global oligarchs always want the same deal from those governments they influence:
1. privatize lucrative public resources; use states to externalize private costs to the general public 2. get workers to work more hours, more intensely, for less pay 3. cut social health, education & welfare whilst cutting corporate taxes and the taxes of the wealthy; at the same, the state budget is redirected toward the wealthy: no-bid contracts, increased military spending and spending on the punishment industry, and the bailout of banks, financial agents and various industries when they sink 4. use of the U.S. military to grab resources from other state or corporate owners (private profit; public cost).
The state is primarily structured to assist plutocrats accumulate more and more wealth.
Someone has to pay the externalized costs of this accumulation drive…and that person is the average person within and outside the U.S.
Oil is the major reason for the war, but it is not the only one. Wars are always fought for a multiplicity of reasons that converge to make war possible. Oil, israel, petrodollar economics, US military desire, greed all play a part in this war. The US wants to profit from the oil, but more it wants to control it. Both in Iraq and in Iran. Oil is 95% of transport and when it goes it is the end of the economy as we know it.
The local, state and national examples of The New American Century have begun to trickle down.
In Iraq it’s oil, in my town the mayor and the city council overturn the recommendations of their own planning commission, and give no reasons why.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) five politically appointed commissioners will soon review input from the public and various local, state and federal government agencies, and their own consultants, all of whose recommendations are strictly advisory, and then decide on the permits requested by applicants, asking to construct four Liquid Natural Gas terminals, on the Columbia River.
At least two of the four purposed terminals would each have three natural gas holding tanks seventeen stories high and 100 yards wide.
One will have to have fifty-eight acres dredged just to get a place for the 900 foot tanker ships to turn around.
Since the current zoning only allows small or medium sized projects, the county has decided the purposed terminals are ‘medium’ size.
The decisions the five FERC commissioners will reach will be final, and I very much doubt that they will provide any rational for what ever decision they reach.
It appears to be just another dog & pony show. We may never know what was decided in Dick Cheney’s energy meeting, but I imagine national policies were discussed. And maybe international too.
There was a story in the NY Times recently about a Mexican natural gas pipeline being blown-up at six different locations, and not by accident. Perhaps it was al-Qaida in Mexico, perhaps it wasn’t.
The United States government attacks helpless countries for their resources because it cannot do anything else, it has never been able to do anything else. For a brief period of the nation’s history, the citizenry has managed to get a few benefits and concessions from the regime, but that period came to an end by Clinton’s second term.
Let’s stop this nonsense about our wonderful Constitution which ensured that slavery would continue for 90 years after the Declaration of Independence. The only thing worth preserving in the original Constitution is the Bill of Rights, and then only with the strengthening of the First Amendment and the elimination of the Second altogether. — And say, where are all those brave folks with the guns now that their government has taken away habeas corpus anyway? shootin’ any gubmint men? No — they’re out hunting latinos in the southwestern deserts.
This war reveals the very essence of America, which is why we, the mere citizenry, the poor suckers like me who took words at face value for so long, are unable to stop it. We will only stop the war against the world when we have created something new — when we escape this sewer, this outhouse pretending to be a palace . . .
So what’s the situation?
1. The US’s materialistic capitalist 4% of the world’s population consumes 25% of the world’s resources while contributing 25% of the world’s CO2 pollution.
2. Our over-use of carbon based fuels is about to melt the Greenland icecap, disrupt the North Atlantic Ocean currents, precipitate a new ice age in Europe, raise ocean levels 20+ feet worldwide, and flood out two thirds of the world’s large cities & 600+ million people. Species extinction is accelerating.
3. We have probably less than a 100 year supply of oil left in the world at today’s consumption rates and China, with 4 times our population, is trying to catch up with our gas guzzling lifestyle.
4. A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.
5. The wealthy own & control the mass media and thru it, public opinion and governments worldwide. They also own the internet infrastructure and control the governments that could destroy its current freedoms.
6. The US’s moral leadership of the “free” world has been destroyed by Bush’s arrogant militaristic imperialism and the Republican theft of the last two Presidential elections. The integrity of the entire American electoral process is being seriously questioned domestically & internationally.
7. We’re consuming a half trillion dollars or so a year more than we’re paying for and our foreign creditors (especially China) are becoming increasingly less willing to finance our extravagant debtor lifestyle.
This plus the effects of global warming and a gathering financial storm precipitated by irresponsible “sub-prime” mortgage lending is producing the early stages of a double-digit housing price collapse and consequent recession/depression that will severely challenge ALL the assumptions of our current culture - including its foundations in human competition and exploitation and “more is better” consumerism supported by cheap oil and cheap global transportation.
8. This will provide an opportunity to create a new culture based on living simply and frugally in cooperation with natural processes and each other rather than in an attempt to dominate and exploit. A Harvard psychologist recently reported that a sense of fairness is the one universal human value. That will be severely put to the test in the coming years.
9. The most underappreciated tool we have to help us through this coming transition is the power of our individual and collective purses. The current cultural construct depends on us all continuing to be reflexive consumers, controlled by our insecurities, greed, and grandiosity and responsive to exploitive advertising. Withdrawing our support of this sick culture by refusing to spend unnecessarily is probably the most powerful lever we have - and it can be used collectively too, for example, by taking a week long total consumer spending vacation when the Senate starts to consider the Iraq Supplemental Appropriation as a way of saying to our Senators that we WANT them to stop funding the war. 70% of us could and would support that if we got the word out. Just fill up the car and the frig the week before and not buy or talk to any business about buying anything that week and stay home as much as possible. Pretty simple, pretty painless, pretty powerful - and in the language that the powerful understand, money. 70% of the American public acting together would embolden our Democratic Senators to actually REPRESENT US - and it would only take 41 of them refusing to support that bill to prevent its being passed and sent to Bush. He can’t veto a bill he never gets. And the regular military appropriation bill, with enough money to keep our troops safe while they withdraw, IS passed - or not. The people would be with the congress in a showdown. They’ve already made it abundantly clear they don’t support Bush’s war and want significant change.
Jjohnjj, Palast is right, but Saddam was also going to switch from taking US dollars for his oil to euros. The only thing propping up the quickly devaluing dollar these days is the fact that it is used as the international exchange medium for oil. That’s going to change soon, though, as the euro and the Japanese yen become the global financial instrument. Yes, the smart money, like Greenspan’s, is invested in something other than the American dollar. As Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, “Big doom come soon.”
Our economy should be collapsing to Great Depression levels any day now, obviating all of the arguments about keeping our troops in Iraq. That will be up to the Chinese and whether they want to loan Bush the money to maintain the US military at its current level. My guess would be no — they want to be the world superpower of the future and, thanks to such ‘American’ companies as Wal-Mart and Mattel, we’re helping with that goal.
Talk about terror !!!
The value of the dollar has gone South.
Now equal to Canadian $. When Bush took over Canadian $ was worth .65
Euro now $1.40 last year 1.26 2002 1.16
Saudi Arabia ready to unpeg US$ -
We are only dithering only long enough to allow rich to get their bucks out of our economy
Recession anyone? Followed by war.
We won’t know what role oil played in the decision to go to war until Cheney’s Energy Task Force transcripts are released (if ever.) But my guess is that the oil companies told Cheney they weren’t especially interested in Iraqi oil because of the major investment required to update (and protect) the infrastructure.
And if assuring an oil supply was our motive, clearly, there are much cheaper, rational, more cost-effective ways of achieving that end than going to war. (In case you haven’t noticed, the price of the Iraq fiasco will probably run upwards of $2T, oil is above $80 per barrel, the value of the dollar is diving, the foreign trade deficit and the budget deficit are entering the stratosphere.)
So for Cheney, maybe, oil was a major consideration. But for Bush, I think he genuinely believed God instructed him to attack. Rove saw war as a way to win the 2004 election. And the other neocons–Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, etc.–saw the war as a way to extend the American empire while ensuring Israel’s security.
And Greenspan? He was out of the loop. He doesn’t know the motives behind the war any better than the rest of us.
Maybe not:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09202007.html
WmC, your observations and guesses are sensible and based upon reason.
Cheney/Bush,Rummy didn’t reason, nor did they understand the history of the region, or the culture of the people of the Mid-East. They actually believed, it would be another First Gulf War only far easier and less costly. They honestly believed the citizens of Iraq would greet us with open arms, kisses and hugs once we had ousted Saddam. They believed they could establish a government that would kiss our asses and do whatever we asked and the control and profits of their oil would be mostly ours.
Then indeed, Bush also believed he was God’s messenger and another Moses. They never drempt it would cost a great deal of money to wage this simple “little war”, which would last for six months at most. Persons deficient in judgment, hasten to undertake that for which winged celestials hesitate to assume responsibility, and that is what went wrong.
Thanks for the link, Vern, but I’m not sure it refutes any of my main points. In fact (quoting Roberts:)
“Bush’s wars are about American hegemony, not oil. The oil companies did not write the neoconservatives’ “Project for a New American Century,” which calls for US/Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East, a hegemony that would conveniently remove obstacles to Israeli territorial expansion.”
Yah, Kem. And isn’t it interesting that Junior never seemed to question the fact that an all-knowing, all-just, all-loving God, whose son was dubbed the “Prince of Peace” would encourage (much less condone) a war of choice?
Isn’t it also interesting that no one on the Religious Right has ever raised this question, or the question of the validity/accuracy of Junior’s interpretation of his “mission”?
So sorry, WmC, was responding to the article’s take on Greenspan’s admission that it was all about the oil.