How is this war about oil?

Great Debates
21

Are there any global policy examples or legislative examples other than fiscal policy examples?

Some more quotes from that article:

“Even so, it is seen by some as holding more democratic potential – because of its wealth and educated population – than many of its neighbors.”

“At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, CIA Director George J. Tenet offered a modest assessment of the prospects that overthrowing Hussein could prompt a wave of reform. ‘I don’t want to be expansive in, you know, a big domino theory about what happens in the rest of the Arab world,’ Tenet said. ‘But an Iraq whose territorial integrity has been maintained, that’s up and running and functioning … may actually have some salutary impact across the region.’”

I cannot speak for the actions of the oil companies.
More articles:

Restoring Iraqi oil supply may take years after war
CBC News, 06:38 AM EST Mar 25

“Exports dwindled to almost nothing a week ago. The last shipment of Iraqi crude left the Ceyhan terminal in Turkey on Thursday, U.S. officials said. Iraq’s 1,685 wells in the Basra area in the south and around Kirkuk in the north have stopped pumping. Ironically, the world’s oil markets have hardly noticed. Oil prices have dropped from nearly $40 US a barrel in mid-February for future delivery to $27 Friday for oil to be delivered in May.
The reason: there is plenty of oil.
For weeks, Saudi Arabia has pumped as much as 9.5 million barrels a day - 1.5 million barrels above its OPEC quota. Also, Saudi Arabia is said to have 50 million barrels in storage and in tankers already on the high seas.”

“A “heavy American hand” in resurrecting Iraq’s oil industry could result in a “serious political, security and public-relations backlash,” said a recent analysis produced by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker Institute at Rice University. It urged the Bush administration to take measures that “assures skeptical publics that the United States has no aims to take over Iraqi oil assets.””
The fight over Iraq’s oil
BBC News, Friday, 14 March, 2003, 08:25 GMT

“Although there is a wide gulf between them, both these points of view have one thing in common - basic misapprehension about the scale of Iraq’s oil industry and the timing for new production.”

“No US administration or any British government would launch so momentous a campaign - and take such risks - just to facilitate a handful of oil development contracts and a moderate increase in supply half a decade from now.”

“For that reason, any temporary military authority would be keen to see the “new” Iraq maximise its oil earnings and would be loath to get much involved in the decision making about the long-term future of the industry.”

“One of the reasons that the “It’s all about oil” discussion gets off on the wrong track is that it makes the assumption, often without realising it, that Iraq would turn over its current 2.8 million barrels per day of production capacity to international companies. But that’s a misleading assumption. Why would a new Iraqi government want to split revenues?”

Overall, the view I was trying to express is that President Bush’s primary objective is in establishing a democracy.

22

“there is plenty of oil”: as long as there are no expected disruptions in the long-term suppy, and the Saudis keep doing their bit to stabilize world markets in the short term.

50 million barrels may sound like a lot, but it’s less than a week’s production for the Saudis under normal circumstances. That’s not exactly a glut; it’s just enough to give a little breathing room as long as the Iraqi oilfields aren’t trashed (so far, so good) and the Saudis step up production, as they have. It’s enough to take oil prices down from panic levels. The world is still not awash in oil, and there’s nothing ironic about the price drop.

One long-term worry that’s been publicly discussed over the past year and a half is the possibility of an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia. If that were to happen, and if Saddam was still in charge in Iraq, we’d have no big, reliable supplier that could adjust production in circumstances like these. An Islamic Arabia might take the same approach that Iran did after their revolution - that is, punish the Western infidels by selling far less oil to them, at a much higher price. And Saddam would have gone along for his own cynical reasons.

A friendly Iraq would give the West a big insurance policy against that possibility. Iraq wouldn’t be able to produce as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but they’d be able to cushion the blow somewhat. If they’re our new buddies.

You see, there’s a lot of ways this can be “about oil.”

You must be a White House insider, then. Given the multitude of publicly-expressed reasons for this war, I don’t think anyone who’s not on a first-name basis with Bush can possibly say what his ‘primary objective’ is.

23

It looks like some of the contributors to this thread are already familiar with this document:

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

I haven’t finished it, but it’s a must-read for anyone who wants to read this Administration’s tea leaves.

The 33-page document doesn’t mention “oil” once. But look at what it does say:

Now just what, pray tell, do we think the United States wishes to freely trade with Iraq? What could possibly put Iraq at the top of the list of nations to overthrow and rebuild in our own image?

Perhaps the CIA World Factbook supplies an answer:

If it ain’t about oil, what is it about?

24

Yeah, I remember all this being said before - in 1973, at the time of the original oil crisis.

By 2000 (or well before; back then, IIRC, they thought we were 15-20 years away), nuclear fusion reactors were supposed to be providing us with a cheap and inexhaustible supply of power.

25

It’s still there.

Best estimates are that there’s enough oil under the ANWR to supply US energy needs for something like six months. (Maybe eight. I can’t remember.)

26

I heard almost two years based on consumer use.

The economics presented in the OP are some what misleading because the expenses come from the US and the profits are accumulated by private companies for retooling and refinacing and revamping the Iraqi oil trade. The Us companies that get monetary gain aren’t putting out the $ to foot the bill of teh invasion.

27

Gee, look who gets to help rebuild the oil fields in Iraq! Without having the contract even go up for bids? Why, Halliburton of course.