It's a war for oil, Tony Benn tells protesters

Great Debates
101

Mandelstam: “it’s easy why both oil and the Cold War (the latter of which was is itself not entirely extricable from oil) might have greatly amplified the US’s desire to support a very friendly state in that region.”

Except that Israel does not produce oil, and Israel’s existence offends/offended/threatens/threatened several major oil producers. By supporting Israel, we distanced ourselves from the Arabs who controlled the major supplies of oil; therefore, I cannot see how in any way, any how one could suggest that our support of Israel was somehow designed to get us better access to oil. If anything, our diplomacy over the last fifty years has been to get access to that oil while not abandoning Israel as an ally. Unless you believe that we expected Israel to conquer the entire area and send the oil to us, I cannot see how one could make the argument that supporting Israel was in any way based upon oil.

“In analyzing the current situation in Afghanistan, I ask only 1) that we not be innocent of the oil context and our current administration’s particular vested interest in oil…”

What vested interest? That people they don’t know- and don’t even know if they know- may profit from the pipeline? Their money is in blind trusts so as to avoid any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict of interest, so they don’t know that they’ll “profit” from a pipeline. And would those “profits” be worth anything compared to the millions they’ll rake in from book advances by mere benefit of being President and Vice-President?

“and 2) that we therefore see US energy independence as a crucial aspect of the war on terrorism.”

I don’t see that at all. The war on terrorism is not a war on “people who believe our policy in the Middle East is wrong”. It is a war against countries and organizations that feel that they can commit atrocities against American civilians in order to get us to pay attention to their goals. Many of the organizations listed as “terrorist” have no care for what we do in Saudi Arabia, but are offended by our support of Israel- which, again, has nothing, nil, nada, rien, zippo to do with our need for oil.
Olentzero:“I’ll try to sum up: The pipeline is important to the United States, regardless of its economic efficiency. It wants a stable, friendly government in Afghanistan to ensure that pipeline can be built and there’s no threat of losing it. Only when the Taliban proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were not that stable, friendly government the US sought did the war start.”

Two questions, as I’m still trying to figure out your position.

#1: If there had been no major terrorist action on 9/11, would we still have gone to war with Afghanistan in order to remove the Taliban and replace it with a more stable government?

#2: If there was no pipeline- that is, a better route that didn’t go through Afghanistan was found, or the source of oil being used suddenly dried up, what have you- but there had still been the 9/11 terror and the Taliban still refused to hand over bin Laden, would the United States not have gone to war with Afghanistan?

If the answer to both is no- which I feel is the case- then the pipeline question is moot; we would be taking the same actions regardless of the pipeline issue, which means it’s not an issue. Situation A is answering “yes” to both, and Situation B is answering No to the first and Yes to the second.

I’m sorry that this is taking so long, but I’m still not quite understanding your position; it seems like you’re saying that the pipeline was a factor, but didn’t actually change what would have happened, and I can’t make those two ideas work together in my mind.

102

Huh, I’ve now been lumped in with Sam and Scylla. Did you get that guys? First, I’m a bloody commie (see race debates) now I’m a fascist or something?

The problem is not the political perspective as such of your “sources”, it’s their clearly manipulative spin. Mischaracterization of the materials to fit into preconcieved conclusions. If a “socialist” argument means getting facts wrong and twisting the history to fit one’s ideology, it deserves scorn.

Your inability to engage in source criticism is what is not conducive to debate.

(In re oil history, see Yergin and my prior economic cites on oil)

103

John, I must get back to you on the subject of a) Israel and US foreign policy and b) why energy independence is crucial to the war on terrorism. In the meantime though as to c) the pipeline issue in Afghanistan, I’d still like to hear your response to the article from the Guardian on this very subject which I linked back on page 2 somewhere. Collounsbury, same for you. As I said above, the Guardian piece seems to state Olentzero’s position in a more qualified way–and yet no one so far has debated it.

Sorry that I can’t answer the rest just yet. I really must go. Not only do I have a deadline, but my <gulp> parents are descending in less than 24 hours. To all US readers: enjoy Turkey Day.

104

You have a gift for the most generous reading possible of someone whose position coincides.

As for the Guardian article, what is it precisely you think one should debate? It’s exaggeration of the role of US policy per se in the creation of radical Islamic movements or even as a prime motivator? Rather tenuous suggestion that US forces are intended for an intervention to support the Monarchy is Saudi Arabia in case of internal unrest? Inevitable conflicts of a power in a region it has interest in?

BTW: no you do not recall correctly I am uncocerned about “cultural imperialism,” I rather simply do not find many arguments in re globalization as an economic force and the weak connections to cultural influence as a sign of whatever jargon has it, neo-imperialism, “late imperialism”.

105

Perhaps, sir, you should consider criticism of your sources not as a “pissing contest,” but instead as accurate. I have no problem with you relying on any source whatsoever for analysis of facts. I also have no problem with the ideological bent of a source that reports the facts accurately.
But, as this thread has demonstrated, the ISR does not report the facts accurately. It’s reporting of historical events has been markedly erroneous, starting with the assertion that oil determined the way the Ottoman Empire was broken up.
I am certain that there are journals out there that share your ideology, but that are more intellectually rigorous. I suggest you track them down and rely on them instead of the ISR.

Sua

106

You appear to be confusing two articles of the three I’ve so far posted: the Nation and the Guardian.

Here, for your convenience, is the one that seems to present a qualified version of O’s arguments. Must go!

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1023-10.htm

107

Yes, you are right. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. Why I confused Guardian and Nation, I can not explain.

108

All right you know what, I don’t care any more. I’m sick of the repitition. Live in your fantasy world where ethics is number one on the government agenda. I don’t care.

109

Alright. I’ve read the article.

Yes, the article makes a good case that a pipeline going through Afghanistan would be of strategic importance.

But at no point does this article- or has anyone else- provided anything close to proof that this pipeline is a reason, let alone the reason, we’re actually at war with the Taliban. In fact, and I quote, “I believe that the US government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however misguided that may be.”

The war with Afghanistan is about stamping out terrorism. All of this talk about it “really” being about oil and establishing a pipeline is a straw man. We made no threats towards the Taliban before 9/11, despite ample opportunity. No one here has put forth any proof that the Bush administration pushed for war in the hopes of establishing the pipeline- instead, we get veiled references to “former oil men”, as if to say that what’s good for Unaco is inherently good for Exxon and Texaco.
By destroying the Taliban and installing a friendly, competent government-- neither of which has happened, and neither of which is a guarantee to happen-- some company may have the chance to set up the pipeline. Likewise, by destroying Nazi Germany in a massive and destructive campaign, we made Western European markets free for American goods. But trying to state we entered World War II because Ford wanted to sell cars without worrying about competition from Renault and Volkswagen is ludicrous.

Let us not confuse the effects with the actual causes.

110

And you live in yours, where the government does shadowy, evil things for nothing other than the sake of doing shadowy evil things because they’re all shadowy evil people. After all, who else would risk thousands of American lives in order to make a few bucks for someone they may never meet or know?

I like my fantasy world better.

111

JC: We made no threats towards the Taliban before 9/11, despite ample opportunity. No one here has put forth any proof that the Bush administration pushed for war in the hopes of establishing the pipeline- instead, we get veiled references to “former oil men”, as if to say that what’s good for Unaco is inherently good for Exxon and Texaco.

While I agree that this cannot be simplistically reduced to a war over control for the Caspian oil reserves, I don’t think it’s quite true that nobody was considering aggression against the Taliban before 9/11. Another Guardian article suggests that such actions were being considered as early as this past July:

Moreover, the ties between the current administration and Unocal are not as chimerical as you make out, given that the high-ranking Bush official Zalmay Khalilzad is a former chief consultant for Unocal. Again, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories that this whole situation is just an oil grab, but I think the issues of combating terrorism and facilitating access to Caspian Sea oil are in fact somewhat intertwined in our current policy.

112

Let me restate, just in case anyone doesn’t understand why I consider the “we’re in this war only to establish a pipeline” argument to be not merely fallacious, but downright silly.

  • “Oil Men” are not some monolithic organization which works together in a uniform pattern of profits for all. A profit for Texaco in no way indicates that Exxon does well, especially if Texaco’s profits are gained from moving into Exxon’s markets. Likewise, some oil companies make profits from drilling, some from refining, and some from reselling.

  • This pipeline will not enrich all oil men. The people who buy the rights to pump oil at these Russian fields may make money (no guarantee there, but it’s likely). By adding more oil to the world supply, the price of oil drops, which hurts other drillers. It may also hurt resellers and retailers (and especially those who are all three) by driving the end prices down and therefore cutting into profits.

  • George Bush and Dick Cheney, having formerly worked in the oil industry, do not necessarily share an immediate and fraternal brotherhood with all others in the oil industry. Many oil companies were in direct competition with Bush and Cheney’s companies. Do you think that the executives of Microsoft and Netscape are intrinsically chummy because they all work in the Internet browser industry? Or would they be happy and content to see the others fail catastrophically?

  • George Bush and Dick Cheney, like all elected and appointed officials, have their investements placed into blind trusts so that they do not have any conflict of interests with their policies. If they happen to be invested in a company that makes money off this theoretical pipeline, it is either pure luck or illegal manuevering.

  • How many people, prior to the recent collapse of the Taliban, expected any measure of success out of the Afghan War? Given the humiliation bestowed upon Britain and Russia, most newspapers were predicting a quagmire of Vietnam proportions, with casualties and atrocities to match or exceed. The mess in Vietnam killed LBJ’s chances of getting another term and likely drove him into an early grave.
    So let’s recap. In order to make profits for a small group of people that Bush doesn’t necessarily know, and possibly hurt the profits of a small group of people he may know, Bush decides to get us into a war that seems likely to drag on for years, kill thousands of Americans, split the country, destroy his chances at re-election, and possibly drive him into an early grave. Bush, of course, won’t see any of these profits, as his money is tied up in a blind trust, and unless we’re talking about Bush making eight-digit figures from the pipeline (which, unless he’s one of a small number of owners of the company that actually owns the pipeline, is unlikely), whatever profits he might make were he illegally investing in specific companies would be more than dwarfed by the book advance and public speaking moneys he’d get in the year after he leaves office.

Is this the argument?

113

Kimstu, that was not a reply to you; your message slipped in while I was composing mine.

114

Really? When did he serve as such? It’s not noted on the statement by the Press Secretary following his appointment:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010523-7.html

He also released an interesting White Paper in 2000 on how Afghanistan needed to be dealt with:

http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/wq/23.1khalilzad.html

115

"Of all the Middle-Eastern lands, Arabia seemed to be Britain’s most natural preserve…

Yet the First World War was barely over before the cabinet in London was forced to recognize that its policy was in disarray. Its allies - Hussein, King of the Hejaz, and Ibn Saud, lord of Nejd - were at daggers drawn. Hussein complained that he was obliged to spend 12,000 pounds a month out of his British subsidy to defend against attacks from Ibn Saud, who himself received 5,000 pounds a month in subsidies. The British representative who relayed Hussein’s complaint characterized Britiain’s financing of both Ibn Saud and Hussein - when the were fighting one another - as absurd…

The defeat of Hussein’s forces ( at Turaba on May 21, 1919 -my note, Tam. ) was so complete that it brought Britain to the rescue. British airplanes were sent to the Hejaz; British warnings were sent to Ibn Saud. Ever the diplomat, Ibn Saud avoided confrontation, made a show of deferring to Britain’s desires, and claimed to be trying his best to restrain the hotheaded Brethren ( the Ikwhan, Ibn Saud’s Wahabi army ). Hussein proved a complete contrast, remaining obdurate; and it was only wirth difficulty that Britain forced him to accept a temporary armistice in August, 1920. Thus it seemed that Cairo and London had backed the wrong side, especially as Ibn Saud went on to new victories, capturing the mountainous province of Asir in 1920, and overthrowing thr rival house of Rashid at the end of 1921. Spearheaded by the Brethren, whose fighting men were estimated at 150,000, Ibn Saud’s forces went about rounding out their conquest of Arabia.

Against their will, the British were placed in a adversary position with respect to Ibn Saud by the need to shore up Hussein. British prestige was involved; as a Foreign Office diplomat noted, “we shall look fools all over the East if our puppet is knocked off our perch his perch as easily as this.” Yet the British could do little about it. As in Afghanistan, the physical character of the country was forbidding. Not even a demonstration use of force seemed practical; asked what targets along the Arabian coast the Royal Navy might bombard, officials along the Gulf coast replied that in fact there were none worth shelling.

Thus on the southern as well as the western and eastern frontiers of their Middle Eastern empire, British officials in 1919 began to find themselves no longer in control of events for reasons that they could not immediately fathom; and no course of conduct was evident to them that could bring the local populations back into line."

The above passages ( the bolded notes excepted, those are mine ) are excerpted from A Peace To End All Peace, The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, pg. 460-462, by David Fromkin ( 1989, Avon Books ). Fromkin’s own cites are available upon request.

I’ll note that further comment is made about the Cairo conference of 1921-1922 which are too extensive for me to quote. In essence, Britain sought to buy off the elevation of the Hashemites in Iraq and Jordan by raising the Saudi subsidy from 5,000 pounds, to 100,000. This also secured the fixing of the borders of SA with Iraq and Kuwait, and as far as I can determine, only those borders. In 1922, Britain had already had to intervene militarily with aircraft to crush an invading force of 3,000 to 4,000 Ikwhan that had come within an hour’s camel ride of Amman, Jordan. And despite the Cairo conference, the British could not prevent the conquest of their protege in the Hejaz in 1924-1925.

Britain tried its best to control and manipulate events in the Middle East to their advantage, but in the case of Ibn Saud, they were “played.” He took British money and eeled around superior British force, but he kept right on expanding as far as he could, in clear opposition to British interests, and swhen he thought he could get away with it, even British threats.

This adversarioal relationship with Britain, was, as I’ve mentioned, the primary impetus behind choosing an American interest to develop the oilfields discovered in SA in 1933. To quote Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud himself in 1933 - “The United States is far away from Arabia, and unlike any European power has no designs upon it.” ( obviously political relationships have changed in the Middle East since then :wink: ).

My take, anyway :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
116

Oh and Mandelstam, I’m definitely not an expert, just another schmoe like everyone else :slight_smile: . I haven’t written any scholarly papers on the subject. What I am is probably just a little bit better read on the history of the Middle East than your average American.

  • Tamerlane
117

JC: *Really? When did [Khalilzad] serve as [chief consultant for Unocal]? *

According to this January 2001 article, most recently in 1996 and 1997.

It’s not noted on the statement by the Press Secretary following his appointment

Gee, I wonder why not! You don’t think they were trying to avoid highlighting the Administration’s numerous oil connections, do you? :slight_smile: Seriously, I imagine that the typical procedure is to name appointees’ previous government posts and then only their most recent or current positions (which in Khalilzad’s case was with Rand up to 2000) and leave it at that.

He also released an interesting White Paper in 2000 on how Afghanistan needed to be dealt with:

Whereas in 1996, he was optimistic about the Taliban as an ally or neutral, as an article in Time by Christopher Ogden in the Oct. 14 issue (quoted in this letter) mentions:

I’m glad Khalilzad eventually wised up about the Taliban, but his conviction as late as 1996 that they were not a threat is of a piece with the general unfortunate US inertia and myopia concerning Afghanistan in the crucial years after the Soviets were thrown out.

118

Hi, I’m back. Because there was still a question of facts left open, I did a little digging regarding the accusation of erroneous reporting of facts from Neurotik and SuaSponte and I think I’ve found some sources that back up my (and hence the ISR’s) argument.

British Petroluem’s own history shows how far back oil had been discovered in the Middle East. For those without Adobe Acrobat Reader, the relevant text is as follows:

[quote]
[ul][li]1908 - Oil! The [William Knox] D’Arcy team (headed by the man who got the commission to explore for oil from the Shah of Persia in 1901. Biography here - O.) makes the first commercial oil discovery in the Middle East, at Masjid-I-Suleiman in south-west Persia[/li]
[li]1909 - The Anglo-Persian Oil Company is formed to develop the field[/li]
[li]1911 - A 138-mile pipeline between Masjid-I-Suleiman and a refinery in Abadan is completed[/ul][/li][/quote]

According to this site, the refinery at Abadan was constructed in 1909.

This site has a map from the February 1920 issue of National Geographic that indicates how well that region was producing by 1920, and that two more oilfields were believed to be in the area.

Now, what was the influence of Britain and France on the determination of boundaries on the Arabian Peninsula? Here is a map of the mandates and boundaries in the Middle East set by the Treaty of Versailles. As indicated in the list of signatories to the Treaty here, the only regional monarch to sign the treaty was the king of the Hedjaz. The monarchs of Asir, the Aden Hinterlands, “Koweit”, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, and of Nejd and Hasa did not sign the treaty and, presumably, were not consulted in the matter. (In fact, several of those territories are clearly marked “British Protectorate”.) Had they been, it’s probable they would have demanded to be allowed to sign the treaty as well.

This is evidence enough, IMO, to support the assertion that Britain knew well before WWI that there was oil to be found in the Middle East, and by the end of the war knew how much potential the region had for more oil. Thus Knightly’s argument that British oil interests had a serious influence on the determination of national borders (as I quoted from the ISR article earlier) in the early 1920s, because oil had already been discovered in the region, is neither factually inaccurate nor a misinterpretation of the facts.

119

Here’s a nice article in Salon exploring the Caspian pipeline consipiracy theory:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/10/29/central_asian_oil/index.html

Bottom line, the Caspian oil fields aren’t nearly as extensive as the mideast oil fields. No matter what we’d sill be buying most of our oil from the Gulf. Hell, even Mexico has more oil reserves than the Caspian. Why aren’t we bombing Mexico then? It will always cost more to bring oil out of the Caspian, since the Caspian is landlocked.

This conspiracy theory makes no sense. Someday we may be buying a bunch of oil from the Caspian countries. But there is no reason to suppose that oil will be cheaper or come from more stable countries. From the point of view of US based oil companies, why would Caspian oil make more money than Gulf oil?

No, Gulf oil will always undercut Caspian oil in cost of production. Which is why the conspiracy makes no sense.

120

Hmm, I’ve taken a look at your map and, quite frankly, it’s evidence that oil was not the focus of the British when they attempted to set the borders. Why, you ask? Because, with the exception of Iraq, all of the oil was outside the proposed French and British protectorates. If oil was Britain’s concern, wouldn’t it have made more sense for it to get the oil under it’s control?

Furthermore, the British didn’t set the national borders. They negotiated a pretty map, and ibn Saud ignored it. (There was a reason ibn Saud, as ruler of the Nejd, didn’t sign the treaty - he wasn’t going to honor it.) Compare the map you linked to the actual borders of Saudi Arabia - ibn Saud conquered the Hedjaz.

Also read Tamerlane’s post - his quotation sums up the situation nicely.

Sua