Military Enlistment Information:

[Bryan]

It's all about OIL. ...... nothing else.

I want to share with everybody what my sister (a former US Ambassador) told me in an email a couple of years ago when I asked her for her opinion about this widespread notion that the Iraq war was "all about oil". Here's her reply, in full:

Re the oil issue: I know that everyone in the world, esp. non-Americans, think it was oil that drove us to Iraq. I absolutely disagree and will list my reasons:

1) During the internal USG discussions on Iraq prior to the invasion, and what were USG interests in Iraq, an interest in oil -- as opposed to WMD, Saddam's atrocities, desire to spread democracy in the Middle East, etc. -- was not articulated. I know this not only from my own sources but also from the many books/articles/research papers that have been written on the internal decision-making process within the USG prior to the invasison. All the available (and not yet available) material/information suggests that the White House and others were obsessed with WMD and spreading democracy. These priorities should not be underestimated. Also, it is useful to remember that energy security, now high on the USG's priority list as a result of rising oil prices and instability in the Middle East, was not an issue at the time of the invasion.

Also -- and I am sure that many will laugh at this point -- the USG understood that revenues from Iraq's oil would belong to Iraqis, not to the USG. There is no way whatsoever that the USG could claim Iraq's oil revenues. If, however, the point is that more oil would be available on global oil markets, thus driving down the price....well, would Bush really want to drive down the price of oil, given his friends among Texas oil producers?!

 

[The Gardener]

Also, it is useful to remember that energy security, now high on the USG's priority list as a result of rising oil prices and instability in the Middle East, was not an issue at the time of the invasion.

I'd have to disagree with that statement, energy security has been front and center going back to Nixon, if not further.

Also -- and I am sure that many will laugh at this point -- the USG understood that revenues from Iraq's oil would belong to Iraqis, not to the USG. There is no way whatsoever that the USG could claim Iraq's oil revenues. If, however, the point is that more oil would be available on global oil markets, thus driving down the price....well, would Bush really want to drive down the price of oil, given his friends among Texas oil producers?!

I don't think the oil industry nor Washington has an agenda to drive prices up NOR down. Its a matter of price stability and predictability. Price oil too low, and profits are minimized. Price oil too high, and the economy sputters to a halt. The oil industry, and Washington, want stable prices that reflect a sweet spot between utility and profit.

As for this issue vis-a-vis Iraq, look beyond the microeconomics of pricing, and instead look at it from the perspective of controlling a bigger piece of a finite and EXTREMELY strategically crucial resource. Oil prices are set in the nexus of extraction rate and demand. If your goal is stable global prices, then controlling the extraction rate of a major oil producer (Iraq) is a very valuable thing. Add in the dynamics of Peak Oil, the tightening of inventories, and the flattening of the production curve, and you have the ingredients for MAJOR price instability at best, global economic anarchy at worst, if major oil production rates are left in the hands of tin pot dictators.

Thus... the US seeks to strategically influence oil production. We already have the House of Saud in our back pocket, we now have Iraq under control, and much to my dismay and disagreement I worry that they have plans drawn up for Iran. I think the mandarins in Washington are well aware of the geopolitical significance of peak oil, and they are making plans accordingly to address it.

Also under consideration is the currency in which oil is priced. For decades, oil has been priced in dollars... which, in effect, adds legitimacy to the value of the dollar as a global reserve currency. All of these exporting nations in Asia, and Germany, could sell their wares to American markets and accumulate dollars... and, there was always an implicit understanding in the global system that these dollars could then be exchanged in for oil, at stable prices, which could be used to produce more products for export. This has been the backbone of the global economic system ever since Nixon. If the dollar is cut out of the loop, its riskiness as a global reserve currency increases significantly. Well, right before the Iraqi invasion, guess who made the decision that they wanted to sell their oil priced in Euros rather than dollars? Saddam Hussein.

So, any threat to the stable pricing of oil, or, any change in the dollar denominated pricing model present threats to the entire global economic system. The system from which the US has derived its global hegemony from for decades.

Now, I do NOT discount your sister's view of American intentions. I am sure that folks in the State department are not evil people who are out to loot foreign countries for the sport of it. I am also sure that they do want democracy promoted, and generally are working in the name of decency. But, I don't think benevolence as a motivating factor would even be motivation enough to get Washington DC out of bed in the morning. When a few hundred billion are spent on an international military endeavor, I tend to think there are more tangible motivational influences.

 

[ali777]

Re the oil issue: I know that everyone in the world, esp. non-Americans, think it was oil that drove us to Iraq. I absolutely disagree and will list my reasons:

First of all, did you expect your sister to tell you all the secrets? If she did, that would be very unprofessional of her.

I think the equation is very complex and eventually boils down to securing energy resources.

1. WMD: that's a laughable statement. Even 5yo kids knew Iraq didn't have WMD. Saddam's regime made the mistake of not allowing unlimited access to the weapons inspectors and that played very nicely into the American hands. It was the perfect opportunity. There has been lots of talk about this in the British press, and it looks like the governments were well aware that Iraq had no WMD. The reports were "sexed up"!!!

"All the available (and not yet available) material/information suggests that the White House and others were obsessed with WMD and spreading democracy."... This confirms what I'm saying. There was an obsession around WMD and democracy. The whole obsession went as far as asking the secret service to come up with evidence and sexing up reports. The whole idea had to be sold to the public. At least the Brits admit to it, why don't you admit to it as well?

2. Democracy and human rights: if the war was about democracy, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib wouldn't have happened. What you did was nothing short of hypocrisy.

3. 9/11: No solid relationship between Iraq and 9/11. I don't think Saddam had much love for America but he was also against Al Qaida.

4. Israeli conspiracies: I'd rather not comment on it. Despite Israel getting huge sums of money from the US, I don't want to believe those conspiracies.

5. Energy securities: "Also, it is useful to remember that energy security, now high on the USG's priority list as a result of rising oil prices and instability in the Middle East, was not an issue at the time of the invasion."... Right.... So, USG is too short sighted to not realise that a war in the ME would lead to raise in the petrol prices? The American allies in the ME and a few big petroleum companies made a killing out of the price hikes.

"however, the point is that more oil would be available on global oil markets, thus driving down the price....well, would Bush really want to drive down the price of oil, given his friends among Texas oil producers?!".... No, that's a false statement. It's not only about short term profit, which did happen, but also securing access to the reserves in the future. Look at the ME, it's awashed with money at the moment and it all came from the high prices.

I guess the West doesn't want a repeat of 1970s. I kinda have the feeling you are old enough to remember the times when OPEC behaved like a monopoly.

6. Europe: funnily enough, although some European countries oppose the war, they also need America to be successful in the ME. Europe heavily relies on Russian energy at the moment, and the Russians control the prices as they wish. They even went as far as cutting the gas supplies in the middle of winter because Ukraine wouldn't pay up. This had a domino effect with Bulgaria not getting any gas at all, and some other countries running very low on reserves.

Europe needs an alternative route to gas and petrol reserves, and this is where ME comes into play. Eg, Europe doesn't have a clear cut policy over Turkey at the moment, with (surprise surprise) Britain supporting Turkey's EU accession. The alternative route is to take Turkmen and Iranian gas supplies and the Caspian and ME petrol supplies through Turkey, so it's very important for Europe that those regions are relatively stable in the future. Well, at least until alternative energy technologies are developed.

7. Future petrol revenues: "the USG understood that revenues from Iraq's oil would belong to Iraqis, not to the USG."... OK, this is one point where I don't actually know all the details. Isn't the USG supposed to recoup some of the war expenses from the Iraqi government in the future like they did with Kuwait? Also, don't the American companies get shed loads of contracts in the name of rebuilding Iraq?

With a puppet government in place, who gets all the future contracts and access to the petrol reserves?

In short, let's see who benefits.... American and British petrol companies, American and British contractors, petrol exporters (all of them), Europe, etc.

I admit that there is a degree of hypocrisy surrounding Europe, we are all pro human rights, but we don't know how our governments secure our energy resources, or how our companies bring food to our table.

 

[Leon S Habsburg]

Something that has not really been mentioned is that of China and Russia. USA still sees these as enemies and undermining and weakening them plays a part in all this, which Ali alluded too.

It seems to me that America and Israel are itching to bomb Iran. Who can blame Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon, especially when that appears to be the only deterrent from USA and Israel.

 

[HughJass]

It seems to me that America and Israel are itching to bomb Iran.

Mostly just rabble rousing though I think.

Israel doesn't have the capability to put a dent in Iran's program and I doubt Obama would do it

 

[The Gardener]

I doubt Obama would do it

I don't. Obama has duped us all, and from my perspective Obama is pretty much Bush III.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss...

 

[patagonia]

Obama has duped us all, and from my perspective Obama is pretty much Bush III.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss...

Elections are just one big show thats set up every few years to give the people the idea that they have a choice and a voice... elections, polls, mass media, education can and is manipulated and controled.

Democrats or Republicans..... you are getting pretty much the same thing in the end.

Political figures/candiadates and their associates are just "management teams" that compete in elections for a chance to run the country for a few years...... in the end they dont decide sh*t... the important decisions.... the ones that really matter, are made by the "executive board of directors" : the people that own the circus... "the one percent."

 

[Leon S Habsburg]

It seems to me that America and Israel are itching to bomb Iran.

Mostly just rabble rousing though I think.

Israel doesn't have the capability to put a dent in Iran's program and I doubt Obama would do it

Actually I think your right, America can't get bogged down in another war, I hear morale is low. I think they will try to play Russia against Iran.

 

[Leon S Habsburg]

I doubt Obama would do it

I don't. Obama has duped us all, and from my perspective Obama is pretty much Bush III.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss...

You'll like this,



I agree, what really has changed in USA's leadership since Bush. The architect of the Iraq war Robert Gates is still in pentagon calling shots, and it's business as usual

 

[HughJass]

I doubt Obama would do it

I don't ....

while I agree he isn't much better than Bush in a lot of areas (don't pretend you didn't know what before he was elected!), he doesn't have that insane gog & magog world view that would lead him to do something as insane as bombing Iran.

 

[The Gardener]

The insane Gog and Magog thang is off the table, but the bombing Iran thing, unfortunately, is not.

Bush - We're bombing Middle Easterners because God told me to.
Obama - We're bombing Middle Easterners because Goldman Sachs told me to.