They’re starting a war because they’re rich? 
I think it is simplistic that it is about money. What it is about is influence and control. I don’t think Cheney and co are in it for the money. What they are looking for is long term oil access, and to stop the subsequent petrodollars going to a tyrant like Hussain.
While there is plently of alternatives at the moment, most of the worlds oils reserves are in places that are unstable to say the least - Russia, Saudi, venezuela etc. To have Iraq under control would be a big plus for the US.
As Sam Stone pointed out, if the Iraqi war was about securing contracts for US oil companies, the US would have invaded Venezuela (and Colombia, I might add) long ago.
Oil is an important factor, however. Saddam has longed for nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles for a long time. In addition to Tel Aviv, Saudi oil fields make a tempting target or threat point: one well-placed missile could wipe out 75-95% of Saudi oil production (Pollack, 2002, p272). Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait together account for 22% of global oil production. That could create quite a supply shock, larger than the crises of 1973 and 1979 when 3 and 6 percent of the global oil supply was withdrawn, respectively.
So, yes, this crisis is partly about oil, in the sense that avoiding a 2nd global Great Depression is in the national interest and Saddam’s access to deliverable nukes risks that eventuality, assuming he doesn’t launch on Tel Aviv first.
Isn’t this the point - the US peaked in oil production in the 70’s and has only a few decades worth of oil left.
eg http://www-physics.mps.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/AAPTSU02oil.pdf (pdf)
At the moment the US is just sucking it out of the ground very quickly.
That’d only be true if the U.S. followed the sort of cookie-cutter foreign policy that the Bush’s are so busy denying that they follow with respect to North Korea. -Not that I think the war’s solely about oil, but that’s no reason to let pass such a bogus argument.
Here’s an interesting article on the Iraqi oil fields from the perspective of some of the competitors to the american oil companies: LUKoil takes its oil case to Iraq. A simple search on Halliburton Kazakhstan turns up a host of oil company intigues. Not surprisingly, many of them do involve Iraq.
That may be your point, and you are welcome to it. That, however, was not London_Calling’s point; he argued that the US is after Iraqi oil because it doesn’t control any oil itself. L_C’s point has no basis in fact.
Your point is interesting, and if you want to make an argument that the depletion of US oil reserves is the motivation for a potential war in Iraq, please do so. I will read it and either agree or attempt to refute it.
Sua
Hmm this seem like a better argument to invade Palistine. I mean why attack the supporters, when you can attack the terrorists?
Oh really? I can see argument to say that they’ve not gotten rid of what they’ve had. And they have violated some of the embargo. But continuing to develop WMD? What’s your evidence?
Do the people of Iraq really want us to “free” them. We’re invading their country. There are plenty of folks who fear and hate Saddam, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they like the US or desire their presence.
Overthrowing Saddam does not gaurantee a friendly government in the long term. I think one of the reasons he was left in power is the same one that made him our ally to begin with, he’s a force of secular stability in a region where radical religious fundamentalism has great power.
Is this a good thing? You might as well mention every other Arab country in the region.
To me it’s not so much about oil as power. The oil is an important part of that power. Not just the oil in Iraq but the whole region. A power play like this communicates “We’re in command, we don’t care who you are. We will not be opposed.” I’m not sure what military signifigance that the Mideast has geographically, but for now I’m sure it’s the oil that defines our primary interest in the region.
Sua - Apologies for the delay in responding.
How very dismissive.
Let me re-state then: the external supply – none of it – is controlled by the US directly. It’s the same argument and it’s a function of capitalism we can all readily grasp: Like, say, any dominant supermarket chain in any national market, the US (in the global market) recognizes it’s (now, post 9/11) vulnerable and wants greater control over suppliers because of the potential adverse effects on it’s economy (half the population of Saudi is under 25 years old and increasingly radicalized, the crisis today in Venezuela, the increasing reliance the US has on Russian oil……).
The world is full of uncertainty if you don’t control your supply you are unnecessarily exposed and – to the mind of free marketers like Cheney – if you’re the only superpower, you damn well ought to be in control of your supply.
I do believe much, if not most, of the current motivation to deal with Saddam is derived from a desire to obtain greater control of supply but I don’t think that’s all it is – this is a multi-tiered agenda with different timelines attached.
The fact that the US is able to supply half it’s needs is of little import. Here’s why – I copy this from here for ease and simplicity, it reflects my current take;
*"Since its inception, the Bush Administration has launched two great foreign policy initiatives: a global war against terrorism, and a global campaign to expand American access to foreign oil. Originally, each possessed its own rationale and mode of operation. As time has passed, however, they have become increasingly intertwined, so that today the war on terrorism and the struggle for oil have become one vast enterprise.
The underpinnings of the Bush foreign policy can be found in the national energy policy paper of May 17, 2001, known as the Cheney report. This report became infamous for two reasons: Cheney wouldn’t release the names of the people he consulted for it, and the report recommends drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But these controversies distracted attention away from the gist of the report, which is spelled out in chapter eight, “Strengthening Global Alliances.” There, the report “recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.”
The report says the United States will become increasingly reliant on foreign oil. At present, we obtain about half of our petroleum from foreign sources; by 2020, imports will account for two-thirds of U.S. consumption, the report predicts. From this, it draws two conclusions: The United States must maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia and other oil producers in the region, and the United States must diversify oil suppliers around the world. “Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security,” it says, but “our engagement must be global.”
This means developing close ties with major suppliers in all oil-producing areas, including the Caspian region, Africa, and Latin America, which the report calls “high-priority areas.”*
- in numbers, that means a rise from 10.4 to 16.7 million barrels a day between now and 2020, or from half to two thirds. According to Uncle Dickie Cheney.
Thus (my thinking at the moment), the central thrust of US foreign policy in relation to Iraq derives from this (so called) ‘Cheney Report’, plus a little know document Condie Rice apparently wrote in the wake of 9/11 at the request of Bush on the subject of (something like …it hasn’t been released, nor will it) ‘What can we do to turn this into an opportunity ?’
On a different angle, I don’t believe this is simply about the US being able to* function* (in an oil crisis). Rather it’s about maintaining a free flow around the world in order to maintain markets and market confidence – the absolute pre-requisite of any US presidential first-termer is to get reelected; without a world in which oil flows without inhibition and where a reasonably boyant market remains confident, that simply ain’t gonna happen. He knows this from his father. Bush needs not the US economy* but the world economy to work* if he’s to get re-elected.
Finally, I also think there is something new afoot in US foreign policy; new ideas, a new philosophy for which the engine of change is primarily Cheney. But I’ll come back to that in another post, maybe a new thread.
So that’s the essence at the moment;
-
Greater control of the 50% it doesn’t control (OPEC and non-OPEC) because of the realization that dawned post 9/11 about vulnerability in relation to Saudi, as well as the exposure to potential economic blackmail from elsewhere - which is, frankly, unacceptable to the Cheney US as main player in a global free-market philosophy,
-
The additional realization of the potential for an increase in non-controlled supplies to 2/3 of national demand (Cheney appears to take no account of the impact of hydrogen engines from 5 years onwards),
-
Acceptance that the key to a stable economy (itself the engine of re-election) is consistency and reliability of supply, worldwide. I repeat; worldwide. and
-
Development of a new foreign policy philosophy, one based less on international cooperation (UN, Kyoto, ICC, WTO, etc) and more on exploiting the amoral capitalist potential of USA.Inc as the main player in the global village market place: In other words, USA.Inc as Microsoft writ large.
[For those interested, the Cheney Report is available in pdf’s http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/”] from here
I was interested by this posting about how war with Iraq would actually affect oil prices. Recently, I used this analysis in a discussion on the effect of lower oil prices on the US economy. The response was that the US government wanted to invade Iraq so that the global oil prices would decrease. This would then lower prices to the consumer in the US, which would stimulate the economy (more money to spend elsewhere etc). Although this undermines the argument I hear being continually perpetuated by the anti-war camp that US Government officials want the war because of some shady deal that will help line their own pockets, I do feel as though this may be a credible link between oil and war…or am I missing something. Will lower prices to the consumer help stimulate the economy and is this a good enough reason to go to war?
Also, where can I find out about the French and Russians dominating the oil exports after a potential war? (a link)
Howyadoin,
Isn’t it enough to want to keep
- Billions of dollars,
- Chemical and biological weapons (for purpose of the argument, let’s assume that either he does have them, or he does not but the US is convinced he does, ok?), and
- Access to terrorist organizations
out of the hands of a man who has invaded two of his neighbors in the past 25 years in an effort to increase his command of the world’s oil supply? A man who stands at the crossroads of the world economy, creating missiles?
Hussein has his hand on the throat of the world economy. This is a bad thing. Like it or not, having a strong world economy is a good thing. Hussein also has the ability to launch missiles with biological weapons. This is also a bad thing. Hussein taking his Middle Eastern competitors off line as energy sources via these missiles would be a very bad thing. Imagine what could happen in a worldwide depression… This could affect the release of the next L/O/T/R movie! The intarweb as we know it would surely be affected, particularly those parts of it that rely on income to pay people and/or operate the necessary facilities.
As I stated earlier, the fulcrum of this stance is that either Iraq has WOMD, or he does not, but the US is convinced he does. One could get the impression, especially after Powell’s presentation, that people have already made their minds up in large part. Some seem to believe that Iraq has WOMD, while others think the US is making it all up. These views are more prevalent in the world at large than here, although they certainly have been represented here.
There have been previous discussions in this thread of what benefit accrues to the US from making it all up, and the discussions were excellent. There isn’t much to add as far as public opinion in general. As usual, the extremists have seized the high ground on either side of the debate outside these friendly confines.
If the US is convinced Hussein can and will wield WOMD, which could plunge the world into either a depression or a plague, does the US really want the fringe nuclear states to be even more destitute than they already are? Crazy Ivan’s going-out-of-business sale would be well attended, I’m sure…
Also, this is the economy of the entire world that we are discussing here. Is any industrial nation so disconnected from the markets of the world that they would not suffer from a depression? I’d rather not think about a plague.
If one allows that economic activity could be considered the engine of advancement of civilization (that’s a debate for another time), then the stakes become more clear. Securing the supply of oil is an important economic factor for all industrial nations, not just the US.
Oil is indeed a factor in the effort to remove Saddam from power. But the potential horror we avert is more important than petrodollars.
Just the cacklings of a corvid…
-Rav
P.S. There are far better posts in this debate than mine. I’m just trying to simplify this and relate it to more tangible things…
I agree with the following assessment by Uri Avnery (http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/150.html):
Excerpt:
If so, what is the war about? In one word: oil. There is a strong smell of oil in the air. Without smelling it, one cannot understand what is going on. But once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush & Co., while cynical and hypocritical, are utterly logical. These, then, are the American war aims: # To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world’s biggest. #To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil reserves # To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Control of most of the worlds oil reserves will free the Americans, at long last, from the whims of the oil market. Their hand, and theirs alone, will be on the tab. They, and they alone, will fix the prices of oil all over the world. If they will want prices to rise, they will rise. If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With one single movement of the hand, they will be able to deal a crushing blow to the economies of Germany, France and Japan. No country in the world will be able to stand up to them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France oppose the war. It is directed against them. It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq, establish democracy and leave. The very idea is ridiculous. The US enters Iraq in order to stay there, for years and decades. Its physical presence in the Arab and Muslim world will create a new geo-political reality. Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire uses its military power to promote its economic dominance. History is full of examples. Indeed, one could say that all of history is an example. But there has never been a super-power like the US, with no rival left, using its immense military might in order to ensure its domination of the world economy for generations to come.