Was It The Oil, All Along?
Take note of a compelling article in the London Review of Books late last month by Jim Holt entitled “It’s the Oil, Stupid”. I did plan to comment upon it and bring it to the attention of the readership of Taki’s TD, but got sidetracked. Matthew Engel beat me to the punch last weekend in the Financial Times, in its wonderful “Life and Arts” section. His article in the print edition was headlined “Too slick an oil theory, even for Iraq?” On the Web, it’s titled “Over A Barrel”.
Both Holt and Engel prominently refer to a piece by U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Powers in the New York Review of Books back in September, “The Reason Why”. Powers was responding to a reader’s query and frustration: “Thomas Powers ["What Tenet Knew,” NYR, July 19] does an admirable job as usual of analyzing the misdeeds and mistakes of US intelligence agencies. But in providing a scathing critique of former CIA director George Tenet’s cowardly performance in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, Powers fails to address the central question: What were the real reasons for the Bush administration’s determination to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein?… It’s clear by now that neither the facts nor any realistic notion of national interest drove the US invasion. Surely Powers owes us his best assessment of the real motives for war.”
Remember, we have left the summer of 2007 and are into autumn. We are still at sea. We are still in a fog, or pretend to be. Since the White House adventure has gone all wrong (apparently) in Iraq, enlightened observers are wondering what in the world could possibly have been the real motives for Regent Cheney and Emperor Bush to embark on the (apparent) madness of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the first place. Everybody with the possible exception of Victor Davis Hanson now dismisses the stated reasons, the cover stories--WMD, spreading “democracy”, a 9/11 connection, etc. Too bad most members of the U.S. Congress swallowed this bilge during the propaganda barrage prior to the event. It would have saved a lot of lives, treasure and trouble, if they had not. But recall that everybody wanted to be on the bandwagon back then in 2002.
With respect to the strangely persistent phenomenon I call “fog on the home front”, the FT’s Engel cites Powers: “The well-informed author Thomas Powers expressed his puzzlement recently in The New York Review of Books. He reckoned the commonly expressed motives (’’the lure of Iraqi oil, making the Middle East safe for Israel, and settling old scores’’) all played a part, but added: ‘’What’s particularly odd is that there seems to be no sophisticated, professional, insiders’ version of the thinking that drove events.’’ Odd, indeed.
Compare this to what the “national security columnist” for Slate, Fred Kaplan, wrote in the New York Observer in January of 2006: “Still, it’s stunning to realize that, nearly three years after the fact—and despite dozens of books and hundreds of incisive newspaper and magazine articles—we don’t yet know why this war took place. I suspect we may never fully know, unless Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld or one of their secretaries was taking notes or running a dicta-belt during their many phone conversations from the summer of 2002 through the spring of 2003.” Stunning, indeed. Sounds like the same fog to me. Note that Kaplan expresses no interest whatever in knowing what Bush had to say. Ah!
In short, the question everyone seems to be asking is, “How could this human tragedy have happened?” But is it really so mysterious? Is it possible that none of these esteemed journalists has heard of the “neocons", the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or the Israel Lobby? Hold that thought.
Let’s take a look at what Jim Holt suggests is actually going on. His October 18th, 2007 LRB article is not just entertaining. He thinks he has the ticket to deliver us from the fog. He points out some interesting, inescapable facts pertaining to oil. It is there under the ground in Iraq, an ocean of it. According to Holt, “Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.” Make that $2 trillion, Jim, to be on the safe side.
Nothing radically new so far, granted. We all assumed that Iraq had a ton of oil. But Holt puts it in context as of right now, and posits that the long term goal of the Cheney White House was to end up with Iraq’s oil safely in Washington’s hands at the end of the day. Holt cites three noteworthy factors. (a) The law to distribute oil revenue. (b) The permanent, “enduring” self-contained mega military bases in the desert. And (c), the circumstance of chaos and instability inside Iraq, largely caused by Washington’s “mistakes”, which mandates that Washington has a self-fulfilling excuse to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
As for (a), “One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oil-fields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years.” Because Washington handed Iraq over to the Shias, I surmise that the handing over of Iraq’s oil is the bill due and payable to Washington from the Shias, who are nominally in charge of the central government. A quid pro quo. They call it liberation.
Then there is (b), “How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions.” Holt mentions Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad, which lags just behind London’s Heathrow in air traffic. It is a self-contained American city. They call it liberation.
Last and most intriguingly, there is the matter of (c). “Will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as ‘al-Qaida’ is exterminated. The civil war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure. (An independent Kurdistan in the north might upset Turkey, an independent Shia region in the east might become a satellite of Iran, and an independent Sunni region in the west might harbour al-Qaida.) Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed – a green zone within the Green Zone.”
Indeed, come to think of it, what is the point of building such an outsized monster-embassy, approaching a billion dollar price tag, if not to oversee a U.S. protectorate? The permanent military bases in the outback will protect the oil wells and their infrastructure. Under this projected endgame, there will be a lot of winners, according to Holt. Read the article. Two notable losers will be Russia and OPEC. In addition, China would be outflanked. “China’s increasing heft poses a threat to US interests.... And the main constraint on China’s growth is its access to energy – which, with the US in control of the biggest share of world oil, would largely be at Washington’s sufferance. Thus is the Chinese threat neutralised.” What a rosy scenario for Washington’s geopolitical triumphalists to contemplate. Not to mention the fat cats of “Big Oil”.
This brings us back into the fog. “Many people are still perplexed by exactly what moved Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq,” laments Holt towards the end of his article. Ah yes, what could it be? Holt thinks he has a solution. There must be a reason. Based on the way things have turned out, it must be the oil. It was oil, not Barzini, all along. “Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq.” So far we have assumed that what actually happened inside Iraq under the American occupation was gross incompetence or mismanagement. But we may have been wrong. Holt has a point. The chaos may have been deliberate to insure a long-term occupation of a failed state.
In sum, the Regent and the Emperor have fooled us all and kept a secret. According to Jim Holt, they were way ahead of us in the strategy department. “Indeed, The U.S. may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush and Cheney want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy’” avers Holt. “The costs are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.” And you thought the “neocons” and the Israel Lobby did not serve America’s best interests. Cheney, Bush Jr. and Don Rumsfeld had their eye on the oil prize from the start, and may have only been using the “neocons” to run interference. Everybody wins.
That is one way to look at the general situation in an attempt to make some sense of it all. Below is another way, which could have been gleaned from previous missives on this topic. By the way, I agree with Holt that the enterprise of Iraq has been a resounding success, but not for Uncle Sam. And yes, there has been too much “incompetence” to be believable. Please consider the following:
(1) Oil was indeed a factor in targeting Iraq. How? To the extent that oil could not be allowed to finance any regime which was regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a potential or a theoretical “threat” to Pax Israeliana.
(2) For this reason, Iraq could not be allowed to annex the fake state of Kuwait in 1990, which acquisition would have augmented Iraq’s oil revenue, depleted during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s. Accordingly, AIPAC worked hard to lobby Congress to help Bush Sr. get the necessary votes to launch Operation Desert Storm in January 1991. That collaboration was decisive. The vote in the Senate was close, 52 to 47. The war opened a Pandora’s box from hell, culminating in the current nightmare.
(3) For the same reason, to prevent Iraq from reaping the benefits of its own oil, George Bush Sr. imposed unreasonable and comprehensive sanctions on Iraq in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm. The intent was to bring about “regime change” in Baghdad, no matter what the cost to the Iraqis. See The Scourging of Iraq by Geoff Simons.
(4) At the close of the Clinton Administration, Saddam Hussein was still standing and had not been toppled as the result of these U.S.-orchestrated sanctions, which killed many thousands of civilians and which Madeleine Albright thought were ”worth it”. In the meantime, Iraq had effectively disarmed under UN supervision and destroyed whatever WMD it possessed, and its military forces were reduced by 2/3rds. Such was the state of affairs that confronted Regent Cheney and the “neocons” upon their accession to power in January 2001.
(5) In complying with US Diktats, fronted by the UN, Iraq had a reasonable expectation under international law that the UN Security Council would lift the embargo on Iraq. This would mean oil revenues would flow again to an Arab state whose leadership championed the Palestinians, was an adversary of Zionism, and which did not accept Pax Israeliana. This circumstance--the perception that Saddam Hussein might regain access to oil revenues in the foreseeable future, and reconstitute Iraq as an independent country--was the actual casus belli which triggered Wolfowitz’s War, aka Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003.
(6) Since a predatory casus belli was not for public consumption, the boogyman of WMD was invented and trumpeted as a cover story--not just to eliminate Iraq as a “threat” to Israel but to eliminate Iraq itself as an independent nation-state in the Middle East. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former chief of Central Command which comprised the Middle East, summed up his observations about what was going: “I think the American people were conned into this… I don’t know where the neocons came from--that wasn’t the platform they [Bush-Cheney] ran on. Somehow the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.”
(7) In my book written in 2004 and published in 2005, I stated the simple truth--confirmed to some extent by Congressman James Moran and Senator Ernest Hollings--about what motivated Washington during the run-up to Wolfowitz’s War in 2002-2003: “Oil is good, gentlemen, but oil is not running this show and is not the controlling influence. The ongoing humanitarian crisis of the Middle East, decades in the making, is not driven by oil. Politicians in Washington do not spend their waking hours thinking about oil. They think about votes, campaign contributions, a good press, and about the next election. That is what they are fixated upon, and what makes them vulnerable.”
(8) It is understandable that the Regent and the Emperor and the entire Washington establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, would want to get something tangible for the United States in return from this expensive and unnecessary war, which was launched in the grip of a self-induced hysteria and for dishonest domestic political considerations unrelated to foreign policy as such. The oil is there. A logical impulse would be to go after it and secure it. The problem is, the Dollar and the U.S. economy, not to mention the U.S. military, may go bust before the oil comes on line. That catastrophic scenario would be more or less in accordance with al-Qaida’s long term calculations. It is what the mujahideen and Bin Laden did, with the decisive help of Washington, to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980’s in the last battle of the Cold War. Whatever happens now in the Middle East, it is most unlikely--thanks to the perfidy of America’s politicians--that Uncle Sam is going to emerge as a winner.
Comments
So the claims that the Iraq war is all about oil are, at best, a mistake in earnest, at worst a red-hearing designed to obscure the real motive of securing a Jewish empire in the Middle East.
At this point, the question becomes: what are the motives of those who are deliberately attempting to mislead the nation about the true motives?
Certainly, we know the motives of American Jewish nationalist Zionists and Christian Zionists of both the Left and Right: to them it is a racial and religious imperative.
But what about those on the Left who are clouding the issue and are not motivated by race/religion? As supposed rationalists, liberals would seemingly want to get to the truth, but they do not. Why not?
My own theory is that it is a combination of political correctness, which shields “the Jews” and any other ethnic group from close study and critique vis a vis their impact on the political dynamic, and the huge amount of political money that comes from Jewish American Zionists and goes disproportionately to Democrats, which consequently implicates the Democratic party in the Iraq war fraud.
And if the Democrats are in on the fraud, they can hardly win another election running against an Iraq war that the moneyed component of their constituency helped choreograph.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
OK… so it’s about the oil. That’s simple – I mean, look at all the wars incited by the oil industry America has waged in the Middle East over the past, say, century.
Oops… well, maybe there’s some other evidence we can pore over.
Oil-based avarice is such a good cover for the machinations of the Likud Party and their domestic operatives that any discussion of its actual role in our vast strategic disaster looks like yet another layer of political camouflage on an already-opaque chronicle.
Yeah… it played a part. The Iraq War – and our Mideast policy in general – are yoked about our necks courtesy the Washington power elite, the military industrial complex, and, dammit, the Israeli Lobby. This New American Imperium is intended to boost the power of the unitary executive to that of a Mongol warlord, earn money for the deathware suppliers and oil companies, and ensure the security and regional strategic hegemony of our brave little ally in the Levant.
This ugly, alien New Order has thrown away the lives of some of our best citizens (as well as thousands of Iraqis and Afghans), drained our treasury, shredded the Constitution, established a yankee gulag of officially sanctioned torture centers and rendered us more isolated and less secure than we ever have been. The rest of the world despises us. With reason.
But we can expect to hear the “it’s all about oil” incantation from the all-pervasive media web-work as the staggering measure of this catastrophe becomes apparent to even the most blinkered of Red Stater. Our true motives always need to be gussied up – especially when we’re talking about that rough little neighborhood “over there.” Somehow, I don’t seen the Ochs-Sulzbergers, the Sumner Redstones, the Haim Sabans, the Rupert Murdochs, et al., abandoning a favorite cause – and telling us the truth - at this darkening hour…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You might want to consider a much simpler explanation: the neocons actually believed what they loudly and repeatedly said (read Commentary): US troops will do a cakewalk through Iraq and bring about a regime-change there, while Iraqis cheer and throw flowers on their tanks. With Iraq taken care of, the troops will continue to Syria and change the regime there. Next US army “takes a right” and repeats the regime change manoveur in Iran. The army then moves south, takes control of the Saudi oil-fields in passing and brings about a regime change in Egypt ("Mubarak is no great shakes.") Whatever resistance to US hegemony remains can be mopped-up later.
The above plan may actually have been for real, because, when people become blinded by pride/hubris, they lose touch of reality and start living in a world of delusions. Most importantly, they lose empathy, i.e., the ability to understand how others perceive their actions and will react to them. Proud people also lose the ability to do self-criticism, and this loss produces megalomanical projects which are bound to fail, but the impossibility of which the proud cannot see.
Troublingly, the same people that developed these “brilliant” plans are now advising the leading presidential candidates of both parties.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Patrick, another great piece. All of the factors
you mention are contributing, but in my opinion
no one comes as close to the inciseness of
John McMurtry on this issue. Read his VALUE
WARS: THE GLOBAL MARKET AND THE LIFE ECONOMY.
He points to the inner similitude of Yugoslavia
and iraq: both resource-rich nations whose
resources were under national control, and
which countries both provided many social
services to their peoples. According to
“neoliberalism” these are both no-nos. So
the nighmare continued and “neoliberalism”
merged with neoconservatism to create the
rule of chaos and destruction we know today.
http://from-the-catacombs.blogspot.com/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great article. I remember reading a similar expose of the Iraq Oil in Culture Wars title the fix is in. Perhaps that article drew from some of the same sources cited here. I think that the people of Israel should also be outragedby the fact that they are being used as pawns to advance the interests of the oil elite in the U.S. and Israel. I feel that much like the American people their interests and actual well being are secondary considerations.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Pat; just brilliant, the best I have ever read.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An ongoing, internal dispute of mine: are wars fought over land or ideology?
Is this war in Iraq being fought for the access to oil, or is it being fought for any number of various ideologies (democracy, freedom, Zionism, etc.)?
I remember a gallon of gasoline costing under $1 per gallon in Georgia (low gas taxes) in the mid-90’s. Today, the price is around $3 per gallon. It would appear as though the price of gasoline has tripled. However, what is not known is just how many dollars have been printed by the US government, that is, inflation. I would guess there are about 3 times the number of dollars in circulation today than there were 10 years ago. That would explain the tripling of the gas price. It would also cause me to question why the US would fight a war over a resource that hasn’t really gone up in price, when compared to the number of dollars they have printed. That is, until you realize that only dollars can be used to buy and sell oil in Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia will soon no longer be “Saudi”, and will no longer be the proverbial 800 poudn gorilla that enforces the “American dollars only” policy regarding oil.
Which just might explain why the US government would want to control Iraq’s oil. Instead of invading Saudi Arabia, and causing even more chaos than has been, the US government takes over a country that can’t really even sell much of it’s oil, all while doing what it can to keep the Saudi family propped up in Arabia. That way, when the Saudi dynasty falls, the US will be in control of the world’s largest and most well protected source of oil, and will, naturally, only sell it to buyers using American dollars, thus keeping the demand for the US dollar higher than it would have been otherwise.
Not that I believe any of this was THE strategy for going to war in Iraq, but it does make for interesting thinking and reading.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Both national misadventures can be regarded as something for everyone wars for everyone wars.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Adds new meaning to the shakespearian “the undiscovered country”.
Did they change Liberty to Freedom as to avoid the obvious initials in Operation Iraqi ...?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Most people act from mixed motives and the rulers of the new world order are no exception. Oil? Israel? Democracy? US imperialism? How do any of these motives contradict each other in the present war? As to whether the post-Saddam chaos was/is planned, probably to an extent it is. The regime is hubristic enough to think it can fine tune chaos. Note the approving comments of neo-con Michael Ledeen about creative destruction. The problem for the regime is their reliance on US technologically-driven military superiority to make the whole thing work. Satellites and computers play a major role in this and the Chinese (and probably not only the Chinese) are working hard to find a way to defeat these. Once such a way is found by an outside power, the US advantage will fall from 10,000 to one to something more like 10 to one and the US may well suffer the kind of humiliating defeat suffered by its Israeli clients in Lebanon. A technical advantage of only 10 to one can be overcome by numbers and sheer ferocity and the policy of the US regime has certainly created vast numbers of very angry people.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. foy:
Excellent thought provoking points, as usual.
It seems to me its about oil which happens to be in the Liebenstraum zone of the Zionists with the salesmen of the MIZA frothing at the mouth.
It was all about Oil when the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953.
The History of the Zionist neocons lobbying for war and regime change in Iraq is well known. Iraq had committed all the cardinal sins: supported the Palestinian cause, provided funds to the Palestinians, refused to become a vassal state, and possessed all that oil. At another level one benefit of controlling Iraq and the region gives the U.S the ability to deny oil to china. That is why Iran is next on the agenda.
That is why China and Russia have drawn a line in the sand and now said thus far and no further, (on Iran).
In the meanwhile 2 million Iraqis are dead, 4 million refugees.
Let the war crimes tribunal figure out why they did this, but first the have to be impeached arrested and handed over to interpol.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I personally think it’s all about the oil, but it is worth taking a look at James Petras’ article
“Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran” available below at Israel Shamir’s site.
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor62.htm
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Israel lobby and the oil lobby were enemies. the oil lobby was pro Arab.Cheney was the glue that put this deal together and gave us Iraq.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
C. ANDREV AND JACK:
Ofcourse the ‘oil Lobby’ or oil companies are opposed to war. It jeopordises supply and assets. It takes the likes of Kissinger to conceive of longer term plots to seize oilfields to control China. in the meanwhile the Zionist ideologues are hellbent on liebenstraum for russians pretending to be jews.
Bottom line: We have seen enough! Impeach them, arrest the fifth column at AIPAC and hand them over to the international war crimes Tribunal so we can cleanse ourselves of the crimes of these Sociopaths.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Here’s a suggestion for war rationale, and what seems a strong case for war in Iraq.
Imaginary briefing, summer of 2001:
Mr. President! Thank you for your time. Now, let’s talk about Iraq again. Saddam is passé, of course, but there are many practical reasons for invading Iraq. To begin with, Iraq sits on at least 112 billion barrels of oil. Iraq borders to Saudi Arabia and Iran, who sit on 262 and 133 billion barrels, respectively.
Iraq does not have religious conflict, as Saddam has turned his country secular. Iraq does not have Islamic terrorists, as Saddam has killed them off already. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction to threaten us, or the Israelis, with. They actually disarmed because we told them to. The Iraqi military is weaker than ever.
Saddam’s Iraq is not really an Arab country, but more like a East European, old style Communist state. That we can handle. A bridgehead in Iraq will give us leverage with the Saudis, who are damn unreliable, and with the Iranians, who are, er, really, really annoying. We will control the Persian Gulf for good. Plus, it will remind the Russians and the Chinese that we’re still number one.
What’s more, our success in Iraq will ensure a GOP White House and Congress for fifty years to come. It’s win-win-win, all the way. And so, in conclusion, as soon as we have a good excuse we better get going. It’s the opportunity of a lifetime!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Reducing the urge for this endless war over the need for oil is an over simplification. No doubt it plays an integral role, but not in the light of three side issues.
1) The basis for this war is more psychological and philosophical: The imaginary enemy is always the most feared. Call it “Islamofascism” or terrorism or a litany of other nonsense colloquialisms, and an uneducated public will get behind whatever means necessary to insure their security hook line and sinker.
2) With that in mind this now becomes a hidden war on personal freedoms aimed at speeding-up the process of robbing people of their God given rights in the name of preserving their freedom and security. (which has been happening since the plague of federally funded public education erupted around the turn of the 20th century.)
3) It is my opinion that the whole idea of global warming is not so much a threat as merely our technological capabilities have reached a point of realizing it’s effects. Be that as it may, it plays an ever increasing role in actually reducing peoples consumption of oil.
Oil is much too simple.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The DC hawks have had their sites on Iraq oil for some thirty plus years.
Google Miles Ignotus. And its not just about the oil. But the power that comes with controlling the oil.
Think Empire..looking at these issues thru foggy left and right lenses and finger pointing obfuscates critical thinking.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Is it too late to note that the United States imports only a total of 15% of its oil needs from all the countries of the Middle East combined? That the one country from which we import the most oil (16%) is CANADA?
So in terms of Iraq, just what country’s oil needs are we protecting and safeguarding for future exploitation.
Europe? China? Japan? The world economy?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To control the oil does not mean “For your citizens”. U.S.
and British oil wishes to control the oil for maximum profits.
This allows the “Doners” and “Lobbyists” to continue to
support the proper politicians, regardless of how the voters
feel about high gas prices. The simplicity of “Island Hoping”
in the pacific during WWII may have been the motivation of
the neocon chickenhawks, with the last battle in Saudi Arabia?
It is an unbelievable blunder on the part of Leviathan to
maintain an open border for America while telling the peasants
that there is an islamofascist on every corner!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Unless the argument is that there really is a huge Jewish conspiracy to control the world for the Jews and the Jews alone, you can’t explain the behavior of non-Jews as being totally supportive of Israel. It just doesn’t wash.
It’s about oil AND about Israel - because Israel cares about dominating the ME for two reasons: 1) because they want the money and power the oil would give them; and 2) the Zionists think they’re better than the Arabs (and everybody else, too, of course.)
So the Zionists pressure the neocons who in turn are in bed with the war profiteers like Cheney and the oil companies.
There’s no contradiction here, and no reason to be trying to start a controversy over what the reasons for the war are.
The reasons for the war are the same as the reasons for every statist war: money and power.
It’s that simple. And the people running Israel are the same kind of people as those running the US - people who want money and power.
Anybody who thinks it’s all about Israel has to explain Dick Cheney, who is not a Zionist and not a neocon. He’s a war profiteer, plain and simple.
Most of the people behind the military-industrial complex are not Zionists and not neocons. They’re war profiteers.
The oil companies are war profiteers in the sense that they make money when the price of oil goes up. They’re easy to understand.
The neocons are mostly ideologically driven fanatics. Many of them are Jewish and ardent supporters of Israel. But not all of them. So it’s a mistake to assume that the neocons are just part of some Jewish conspiracy.
You have to look at the ME situation as a “perfect storm” of confluence of the interests of war profiteers, oil companies, Zionists and neocons, and just plain corrupt politicians of every stripe.
Trying to decide who had the most influence is about as important as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Forget oil; that was available in Venezuela. The Iraq War was 1) to please the vanity of Bush by making him a great conqueror; 2) speed up the Rapture, the Battle of Armegeddon, the Second Coming of Jesus. Other reasons, for other factions, include: war profits; messianic nationalism; insane arab-hatred; sadism.
Yours faithfully,
Zhu Bajie
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Walt and Mearsheimer, in The Israel Lobby, make a powerful case that the lobby controls US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, but not the whole Middle East. They say for the Persian Gulf the Israel lobby can cheerlead different sections of the foreign policy and military decision makers, but not tell them what to do.
If you believe in some latter day Protocols of the Elders of Zion, consider that the US relationship to the modern Middle East began in 1944-5, when FDR cemented the US relationship to Saudi Arabia because of its oil. This was three years before Israel declared independence,23 years before the US began to support Israel diplomatically and militarily, and about four decades before anyone took notice of an Israel lobby.
Then, the real turning point came in the mid-1950s, when the US effectively dislodged Britain as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. As for Israel, its primary military supporter in 1948-50 was the Soviet Union, which supported Middle East anti-colonial nationalist movements in order to break-up the British empire. Then, France was Israel’s major supporter, which is why Israel fought the 1967 war with French, not US, weaponry.
From the 40s onward the object of the US was to secure control over Persian Gulf oil, which means control of over 2/3 of the world’s easily recoverable oil reserves. This is why the Persian Gulf, extending to the “stans”, Turkey, the Horn or Africa, Diego Garcia, etc. have numerous aircraft carrier groups and hundreds of US military installations, a good chunk built since the first Gulf War.
So, yes it has been about oil since WWII, and the best the Israel lobby can do is ride this wave, just like they sold themselvs to the US after 1967 as a bulwark against Soviet influence in area (discreetly keeping mum about the East Block weapons which Israel used in 1948).
So roll up those conspiracy theories and start reading about the history of the Persian Gulf. Michael Klare’s Blood and Oil is an excellent start!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hell NO it was never about oil as that has become a
convenient excuse for Bush and his jews namely Greenspan
to avoid the truth about protecting Israel at all costs
and taking out Saddam along with jewing all arab states
all the while the Fed lowered rates to 50 yr lows allowing
Bushs economy to look good and help out the jew loan
sharks in the process that has turned into a total
disaster on all accounts oil prices have shot up 500%
making Bush millions in kickbacks along with making both
rich arabs and jews trillions either on the ground or on
Wall St with bloated oil stock prices.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
An interesting debate. Save for Shrub’s comment, “God told me to smite Saddam Hussein, and I smote him” guess we will never know the twisted rationale for the invasion. Perhaps lending some credence to the invasion-for-oil thesis, a few years ago when asked about the need for improved CAFE standards for US autos, Cheney responded “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” Perhaps he had Iraq’s 300 billion barrels of oil in mind? Alternatively, in the Zion-cons “Clean Break” paper prepared for Netanyahu, the elimination of Saddam was a stated priority; why the authors, allegedly US citizens with a number serving as government functionaries, were not querierd on their foreign agent status for preparing policy directives for a foreign government (Israel) was curious. Another alternative could be the Kool Aid theory: After “the mother of all battles” turned into a 24-hour rout in the Gulf War, Wolfowitz churned out the Defense Policy Guideline that saw America as a “collosous astride the world” and our troops as “the cavalry on the new frontier,” part of the “unipolar moment” in the post-communist world where our military hegemony would reign supreme. (Bush Sr. allegeldy almost had Wofie fired when some of the DPG’s theorems showed up in the NY Times.) As someone mentioned above, PNAC (a first derivitive of the DPG) was the foreign policy platform for the first Shrub election run - would that we had paid closer attention at the time! Mix this in with Ledeen’s “creative destruction” theory - one very pleasing to Israel as certain hostile Arab states would be reduced to warring tribal factions - and, perhaps, here we are. As a final, most have forgotten OBL’s stated objective of his campaign - “To bleed America white in endless wars in the region.” Perhaps executing the enemy’s gameplan in not an optimal path to victory? Thus far post-9/11, the U.S. national debt is up 60% (it passed $9 trillion about a week ago for those that missed it) and the dollar is down about 60% vs the Euro. What did Pogo say about the enemy?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Richard Steven Hack;
You are absolutely right. I’ve used that “Perfect Storm” analogy myself, many times, in talking about the Iraq War motivations with friends and others.
People who try to pin it down to one group of actors are usually acting out of their own personal ideological, religious, or ethnic baggage.
You have to pretend you’re from Mars, as Chomsky would say. Look at the whole situation from the outside in, as if you had no vested interest or preconceptions.
Looking at the whole process of war scientifically, you are left with the conclusion that many disparate groups are responsible.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t know about you, but I’m paying $3.25 for a gallon of gas now. My family and I got thrown out of our house we were renting because the affirmative action negress that got the hand-out loan from Countrywide renigged on her deal with Countrywide and dumped the place on us, disappearing into the ether. Everywhere I turn, it’s jew with their fingers in all the pies, twisting laws, the media and every facet of government. It’s all obvious and it’s getting old. There is a huge wave coming and it is going to was this planet clean of these parasites once and for all. Oh, don’t doubt it for a second… itz coming.
govnn.com
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not one mention of the PNAC document in this entire article?
This was the blueprint of the invasion written by the signed parties five years before they took power. Why all the head scratching now? Can’t anyone here read?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
no it is more about anglosaxon hegemony to be imposed throught hte medium of bnritish propaganda and american military. itis the english race which has been pushing for perpetaul war for the n-benefit of thwe english race otherwise who would bother about a third rate country called england?
see this wikepedia article--
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
Carroll Quigley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
quote “Writings on the Anglo-American elite
Quigley became well known among those who believe that there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government. In his 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope, he based his analysis on his extensive research in the closely-held papers of an Anglo-American elite organization,[citation needed] to which he was given access.[citation needed] According to Quigley, the U.S. and UK governments were secretly controlled through a series of Round Table Groups, the group in the U.S. being the Council on Foreign Relations.[citation needed] He contended that both the Republican and Democratic parties were controlled by an “international Anglophile network” that shaped elections.
The Anglo-American Establishment was not published until 1982, five years after Quigley’s death, because of its controversial material:[citation needed] several publishers would not publish it when it was written in 1949, but the manuscript was found after his death on the Island of Rhodes.[citation needed]
The book argues that the real motive of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler was to instigate a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; by deliberately encouraging and assisting in Germany’s efforts to expand in the east so that Germany could have a common frontier with the Soviet Union.
He also claimed that Alfred Milner was the chief author of the the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Critics assailed Quigley for his approval of the goals (though not the tactics) of the Anglo-American elite, while selectively using his information and analysis as evidence for their views.[citation needed] “”
“”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
6th march,2007.
BBC comment(atleast her washingtons correspondent’s comments) on scooter LibBy’s gulity verdit on 6th march,2007--"it does not matter to white house as long as iraq war turns out to be all right”!! for BBc illegal occupation of iraq and killing of million civilians does not matter -it will be al r ight for american occupation. This is human rights and democracy ala BBc and british propaganda.
see and watch todays bbc and realize how much bbc and other british propaganda machinary is responsible for bush war crimes.
He also assuredly told that this “white house is quite safe"as wished for by the british ofocurse. during gore-bush florida tussle bbc was advocating gore to leave bush alone as britian was waiting for american missile defence to come her shore soon and so no delay in small matter of who should be presidentof usa be allowed.d-bit belicve it? look at all british propaganda between 1st novembr till 20th novembr of 2000.
it is high time that engish spies in american establishment be eliminated..
it is high time that these english spies in usa are taken care of .
=========================================================
these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been.
thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica.
these baptisat are called patrioit--now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence.
“ I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves.
He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?”
“ but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal.”
The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1]
In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases.
==================================================================
britain is the number one parasite nation of this world and is the main eviul brain behind american offensive (perpetual war) everywhere in the world. Why? Because only through american military might can a fourth rate country like england hope to have some influnce in the world.
and the rest of the world is resopibnsible for this-why has aljarreza engagesd the british journalists like frost in the english version?lokk how much propaganda english eversion al zareeja is making agasint irana nd zimbawe -in otherworlds doing the bidding for british media and british govermnet lies.
it is high time that thr british are removed forcibly or killed from evrywhere outside britian or may be even inside if they are not goign to stop destrying other nations.
britian must be deafeated militarily-not a great diffciluty with a coward nation-and must be eliminated as serious challnege to humanity
Click to flag this comment as abusive
what i wrote about 10yrs ago still holds true.
year--1997
Irak is right in demanding ouster of anglo-saxon spies from hollowed Iraki’s soil.In name of uno, and before that leage of friends ,and now Amnesty International, this heyena country called england has installed a lot bof speis all over World and has virtually hijacked Americans to do their domestic and foreign policies for furtherance of british (england’s ) interest than even American ‘s interest.
These days for last few years a lot of Kurdish refugees(who by the way are more aryans than all the europeans combined-though it is irrelevant here)are escaping from Turkey because of Turkish pressure. But nobody has ever stopped Turkey from having her air space nor has anyone bobed them. and why should anyone?Who has given right to a handfull of countries to be a policeman? Could they dare demand such thing at time of so called cold war? Every december,ever since gulf war there is a show of bullying tactics by anglo-saxons in middle east. There is really no ground but excuse is created because this race feels uplifted when others are insultated. Also there is a low cost exercise in bullying any other nation by military postures. Why should Iraq not have weapons as he desires?in 1981, when the israelis had bombed the iraqui nuclear reacto(a few days before going critical) it was britain)govt, and british media) who had vwhemently opposed Israeli daring action and did a lot of anti-jewish propaganda. Atleast Begin had a reason to fear from the arab enemy of israel. even in ‘82 Lebanon war it was britain which was most vociferous in criticizing Isreali militay action at the same time minimizing the Isreali Airforce’s achievement in destroying Bacca’s valley missiles through high tech method.In fact What americans did in gulf war was what Isreali had achieved way back in ‘82 in Lebanon war and America obtained that military know-how from Israelis after Lebanon war. But gulf war is justifiable on basis of military superirity but not Lebanon war. In fact when an american general said that america learned a lot from Israelis’ achievement then the american defense minister Winnberg said that itAmerica learned not from Israeli but from British. Ofcourse we all know that Wnnberg was (awarded sir) more of anbritish defense minister than american one. He was pro-british and anti-jewish (and antirussian and all others aswell). In fact in lebanon war the american foreign secratary was changed because the british did not like Hague’s attitude. This much britain exercises influence in american affairs. Now having installed all the stooges in Arab world britain has discarded her sham veil of Arabists and openly insults(through america ofcouse because on own britain is not even a fourh grade power)the arab world.Talking about the stooge, have you wondered why these days even Yeltsin’s bad health no longer makes any headline news in anglosaxon world?Before any cold that Yeltsin had was niticed and still before that any peon from Russia had a headline news ‘ material. The reaon is simple. Britain has installed in Russia not only a mad man likes yelstin but also a second line of stooge successor to him. After Yelstin usefullness is over then he will be replaced by those second line of british stooge who at the moment are already controlling Russia and destroying her everyday. Democracy ,as understood today, basically means any system which gives free hand to britain to exploit other races. If their is one example of what an evil this so called capitalism is and what a saviour communism(britain does not dislike communism, she dislikes other’s prosperity and independence whether it comes from communism, nationalism or what ever)is: this ruinous example of Russia is the real lesson. China is right to hold on to her nationalistic pursuit. It really is a war between anglo-saxons and the rest of the world. It is a race war.Sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it would be and this danger would be sorted out.
You remember that at the height of cold war in mid 80’s there was a lot of activities of C.N.D. You would expect that with so called cold war finished, this C.N.D. would be asking to the british peoples to leave the nuclear weopons given to her,out of pity and filiaty, by the United states. But exactly opposite happened. C.N.D. has been defunct since than. It is as if that was a front of the british govt. to show by way of propaganda that that country had some moral voice.In other words, C.N.D. was a sham created by the british to give them respectability. Ofcourse when a non-anglosaxon country aould perfect their nuclear weopon,as France rightly did, then there would be a lot of hue and cry by the anglo-saxons’ media. France and china are right in strenghtening their independent military power. The real danger to world comes from england and her anglosaxons agents. France understand that and Germany was a fool in not supporting France in Nato meeting this Summer. Just as Cnd has been proved a sham of british propaganda, more so is the sham which goes by the name of amnesty international. It is interesting that as soon falkland war started, within a few weeks this amnesty international presented a dozier on Argentina. In the same way as soon gulf war started(soon after Iraqui’s intervention in kuwait) the same amnesty international presented a dozier and report on Iraqui’s atrocities. an fact many of the amnesty allegations were just a copy of what british media was saying and which later on proved to be fabrication and great big lies. But bthis did not dent the reputation of amnesty international. british propaganda ensured that. IN ‘88 when Dalia lama,at the height of Tibetan disturbances, visited west, the then british prime minister refused to meet Him. Later on with the demise of Russia and usefullness of China gone and with manipulation to keep power in Hongkong somehow intact, the same british media and government ,like dog, started barking at China. It is interesting that amnesty international selectively targets those very countries(as it did china after cold war) who are out of faviour(because they would not be a brtish sttoge)of the british media and govt. This is not surprizing as amnesty international is the creation of british govt, and british media. england with the most appaling record of human rights in last 200 years of her evil rule, needed some organisation to keep the others from chrging england off her past and current evil practices. In other words it went for aggresive posture in propaganda war so that others can be demoralized and stopped from ponting out the real evil which is england. That is why amnesty international is one armour of the british lies to exploit the rest of the world. Amnesty international must be ignored and an independent human watchdog (which england will simply ignore) created. One purpose of amnesty international is to create an atmosphere for hatred towards the would be vitims of british exploitation so that a victim could be blamed to have deserved the consequences. That is why ,now amnesty international sometimes threatens China, sometimes India and etc. India because india needs to be cowed down and also so that India does not make nuclear wepon and thus feel free from future american(read english and anglosaxon)aggression. This is all to create an atmoshphere of mis information. The other countries are also responsible(out of sheer inferority complex) for giving these instuments of british propaganda so much imporatance. If they simply ignore and then the british lies and then themselves go in offensive(they can do it-no problem)against british exploitation and propaganda then tose countries would not in such dire strait as they are now. Think, this deteriration has happened in only last 20 years(thogh the british have been at this game for a long time but they were not always succesful when others have been vigilant).Ignoring and fighting all this anglosaxons propaganda, the other races(yes it comes to that) must unite and support each other against this common enemy england. The other nations should also go nuclear and assemble as much arm as possible ,collaborate on it and ignoring this anglosaxon race they must be prepared for war which tjhen would be prevented otherwise it would come inevitably. The other nations need to arm themselves to protect themselves from anglo saxon race. Thinking any other way is simply kidding oneself. And it can be done and will be done.
WE throw a challenge to these low lifes-if the English feel themselves
ao powerful them let them attack and win even Irak(already weaken by u.n.sanctions)without the help of u.n.sanctioins(that means Irak would have same freedom to acquire arms and means and Arabs and Israeli had in thier war)
and with out u.s.a. England is neither Isreal of today nor Sparta of yesterday.Let them be reminded that at height of thier empire in 1917, England was almost defeated
by Germans when German army’s 3/4 th division was concentrated on Eastern front. These english are that weak and coward people.But thir mouth will have to shut for ever
when all the whites ,European and Thirld world unite against this english disese.
There is no point in telling them truth, they understand only one thing which they will soon get-tatal beating physically-the only language these animals understand. Hitler,who these worship
was wrong about the jews who were only british agents-what Hitler said about jews applied not to jews but to the english(anglo-saxons).race-pity he did not do the the british what should have been done instead. Well It is never too late.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Avatar Singh,
I have suspected Amnesty International for some time of being the tool of a new world order. They have forced a break with the Catholic Church over their support for abortion. To hear that they are in fact a propaganda wing of British media to cover up British attrocities worldwide does not surprise me in the least. Thank you for exposing these criminals here and I hope you will be a regular contributor to Taki’s Top Drawer.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ass kicking Christian evangelical religious fanaticism is as great a motive for the invasion and occupation of Iraq as “loot” (oil). George Bush is such a fanatic who views Islam as a satanic force that must be destroyed. Religious chauvinism and superstition have been as great a force in human history as greed and primitive acquisitiveness and should not be discounted or ignored in the present Iraqi catastrophe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One interesting fact that no one talks about is Afghanistan. Why did we pull back so soon? Its been said that the drug trade that happens there has all its funds travel thru Israel and its was a priority to get that back up operating at full tilt. Now the drug lords runs that government and its $$$ for everybody thats involved. So you can call it oil money but Don’t forget the drug money form the middle east als.!!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The frame “Was It The Oil, All Along?” in much too limiting.
A move as big as the Iraq invasion is never about “it. There are always two-fers, three-fers, twenty-fers, etc. in a move this big.
Anytime one hears, “the reason for”, “was it” in a significant geopolitical manuver one would be better served to be on “the” alert;-)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is important to bear in mind when asking the question “was for the oil,” that controlling oil reserves has much greater implications than the price of gas. Most importantly, he who controls the oil controls who can wage war, and who can not. No oil, no war waging.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
??????????????????????????????????????
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Strange how little the commentators seem to examine the mechanics of 911. The majority of those blamed by the administration being Saudis and $100,000.00 being wired to Atta by Saudi Client State Pakistan (Saudi paid for the F16s the Pak Air Force flies)--begs SOME questions about Saudi complicity & assistance in the train of events being discussed. We do NOT know what occured on 911 in the same way we do not know WHY Iraq was invaded and occupied with long term permanent fortifications and structures See the youtube tape** interview with a cabinet member (Paul O’Neil) who IS talking.......... http://youtube.com/watch?v=inyCkCvqRO0 “From the very beginning (NSC meeting Feb. 2001)there was a conviction that Saddam was a bad man and had to go”.. “It was all about finding a way to do it” “That was the tone of it” He is speaking about what Bush was saying. “The president saying...’Go find me a way to do this” Was anyone listening? Did someone “find him a way” Just as the Democrats and the Americans don’t want to find out WHY they invaded---They do not want understand how the pivotal catalytical event that paved the way to war was orchestrated. Allowing the present administration to investigate 911...too much like allowing the third Reich to investigate the reischstag fire. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oil was surely a motivation (at least in the context stated by Dan Stewart above), but it was not oil alone.
It was also all of the following:
1. Israel Zionists and the International Jewish Lobby.
2. The Military Industrial Complex (as more broadly defined by Naomi Klein in Disaster Capitalism).
3. Fundamentalist Christians looking to assist Israel and advance God Armageddon agenda – as well as to continue a thousand year religious war.
4. American Nationalism and World Dominator whackos.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The cost of the war does not matter because the oil is not for cheap oil to run our economy but for expensive oil with American companies controlling the spigot.
Oil execs say it, Bush said it to Putin, and the Oil & Gas Journal said war may have been only way to stop Saddam from producing more and driving prices DOWN when the sanctions came off.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/oil-too-cheap-if-no-iraq-war-says-oil.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have stated from day one that the Iraq slaughter was primarily done for the benefit of Israel. Why? Because Jews run the US government. Jews also own or directly control practically everything that possess any monetary value, as well as every major news outlet. They also loan the US government most of the money used to fight wars of aggression against helpless victims who are sitting on valuable natural resources. As long as Jews control the world, you will never see anything different from what you are seeing right now.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Patrick,
Please comment on David R. Henderson’s article “The Myth of the Oil Weapon” at
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_11_05/cover.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew Capp wrote:
“It would also cause me to question why the US would fight a war over a resource that hasn’t really gone up in price, when compared to the number of dollars they have printed. That is, until you realize that only dollars can be used to buy and sell oil in Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia will soon no longer be “Saudi”, and will no longer be the proverbial 800 poudn gorilla that enforces the “American dollars only” policy regarding oil.”
I think that he’s got it mostly right. Oil has kept the US dollar in top billing as the world’s reserve currency. If it should lose this position the printing presses will essentially have to stop, resulting in the US facing the debt collectors. Saddam had just switched over to trading in euros before the invasion. Iran is threatening to do so as well.
The importance of oil as a resource certainly cannot be overlooked, especially given that world oil production has, and if not then soon will, peak.
Declining oil production (due to depleting world reserves) will kill economic growth. And without economic growth the “American way of life” as Dick Cheney fondly referred, will pretty much be dead.
I see all the top US leaders as being fully aware of all these dynamics. Their actions aren’t so much those of mad men and women, but those of horrified men and women, the deer-in-the-headlights look; and sensing that they cannot run out of the way of this impending disaster/collapse, and choosing to not try and outrun it, running in front of the oncoming vehicle, they’ve opted to try jumping straight up in the air, hoping that they can jump high enough and that the speed of the vehicle will travel far enough to avoid collision; but alas, the vehicle is a semi (too long) and it’s slowing down…
I’d also add that this is all a pretty good distraction from the general financial meltdown that’s going on. Have to wonder whether the war wasn’t also seen as providing cover for the banksters…
I’d be curious as to whether anyone has any good information/reference on the 75-year oil contracts that were signed in the mid-to-late 1910s with western oil companies. If these were still operational then they ran out in the early to mid 1990s, the same time during which sanctions were running. One has wonder whether Gulf War I wasn’t initiated in order to keep the contracts from being opened up and lost to US oil companies: either through greater national control or to other countries (perhaps China).
Also, someone mentioned that war and oil companies didn’t mix. While they may not like war, this doesn’t mean that they haven’t advocated for it as a last means to get what they want:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/web20020712
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.