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

[Adil]

Dear Mandelstam.

I must confess that I cannot recall, at any time in this discussion, where I referred to the “oil motive” claim as a “conspiracy theory”, per se. Yes, I did state at the outset that it was an insiduous claim, which only should have betrayed my initial scepticism of the claims made in that article. As a point of context, my response was aimed at Tony Benn’s remarks, which he had consistently made on a number of other occasions, including BBC’s Question Time. I will try to explain why I see nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I submit that my opinion on any topic could be flawed. Although, if I was really as close minded as you seem to imply in your remarks, then I would need to apologise to myself for having started this discussion in the first place. I have been watching the discussion closely, and as far as I can tell, I have been encouraged to see some highly articulate viewpoints expressed, including yours, and I certainly did not expect to see the discussion extend to such a length. Maybe I was too narrow minded to comprehend this?

Why did I call Tony Benn’s remarks an insidious claim? Forgive me if I am wrong, but I though perhaps we are at war simply because the Al-Qaida terrorist network, which we understand to be aided and abetted by their puppet Taliban regime, were the cause of the attacks on the WTC on September 11, not to mention the Pentagon attack, and a possible attack on the White House through Flight 93.

Occam’s Razor says to look for the simple explanation first. Is not the blood of thousands of Americans and other nationalities sufficient cause for a nation to defend itself anymore? It does not have to be a explanation that also automatically assumes that we have to unconditionally cast aspersions upon U.S. and British motives for enagaging in this war. Some say that the simplest explanation is that these countries cooperate with no one unless they see a clear benefit to themselves. That may well apply to Russia or Pakistan - the bottom line is that they can’t afford not to. But could we say the same of the U.S. and Britain? I suspect not.

Please understand the basis of my scepticism. Yes, I confess that I would not label myself as the biggest fan of the Guardian newspaper. However, as you can understand now, my initial scepticism was not based upon a dislike for a particular newspaper or a particular person. Therefore, as a point of courtesy, I would appreciate it if you would not express doubts upon my motives. I don’t believe that subscribing to my opinion, even expressed in the manner in which I did, necessarily entails the notion that I am relatively close minded.

Certainly, the Guardian article does lay out the case for the potential strategic importance of a pipeline in that region. But if the oil motive theory is really true, then why did the U.S. not take advantage of the opportunities for oil when those U.S. embassies in Africa were blown up in 1998, when the U.S. military was attacked the same year through the USS Cole and the barracks at Riyadh, and when the terrorists were caught smuggling explosives across the Canadian border for the thwarted Y2K attack, and for first attempting to blow up the WTC in 93? All this suggests, to me at least, that correlation, or such chance association, must not be confused with causation here. Furthermore, if we assume for the sake of discussion that this is really an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - i.e. a war against terrorism and for oil - then it has to be understood that the initiation of war was contingent upon a chance event, the events of September 11, the onset of which was completely unrelated to any plans of controlling the flow of oil in the Afghanistan region. However, Tony Benn’s remarks are not even based upon this double motive, as he goe even further, by asserting that this war is only for oil and nothing to do with terrorism. As I see it, he can make such a comment only by unconditionally expressing doubts upon the motives of the government, something which I completely disagree with, because of the lack of any respectable basis for it. That is why I refer to his claim as insidious. Does that merit such a claim to be labelled as “conspiracy theory”? In the light of the basis he has provided, you decide.

In any case, I have been very happy to see your opinions being aired in the thread, and if I have inadvertantly offended you, please rest assured, that was never my intention.

[Mandelstam]

Okay, I have a few minutes to devote to answering the rest of John’s post:

From my earlier post:
“But it seems to me that we’ve reached some kind of consensus that you can’t simply deny oil interests a) in the history of the West/Middle East relations and b) in the particular vested interests of the present administration.”

John’s reply:
“A.) While one cannot deny oil interests in the history of the West/Middle East relations, one can certainly deny oil interests in the matter of getting us involved in the Afghanistan situation. In fact, I do.”

I hope I’ve already established that I never misunderstood–nor misreprsented–your position in the first place. <bows>

Onto more useful stuff…

*"Let us consider. Why is Osama bin Laden trying to get Muslims to destroy the United States? From what I have read, the main reason is our interference in the state of Saudi Arabia, namely placing troops in the country in order to protect the ruling government.

But if one removes oil from the equation, do we necessarily drop all assistance to the Saudis? They have a neighbor to the north (Iraq) who has shown itself interested in domination of the region and willing to use and manufacture weapons of mass destruction (researching nuclear weapons, building chemical weapons). Quite frankly, remove all oil from the country and we would likely still be there to protect the Saudis from being overrun by Hussein as Hussein tries to make himself the Pan-Arabic power."*

Would we really? Has it been US practice to intervene in such matters when African nations with little economic or geo-political importance have been unstable? In fact, when he campaigned George Bush was against such meddling for meddlings sake. Moreover, the author of the Nation article I posted takes the position that there is no external threat that requires permanent US military presence in Saudi. Do you disagree? I generally find The Nation to be reliable, but I’m always ready to consider alternative points of view.

“Of course, the other reason bin Laden asserts is the treatement of Palestinians by Israel; I still have yet to hear any reason why a desire for oil gave us any reason to involve ourselves with Israel despite your assertions, Mandelstam.”

What I believe is that–in addition to the US’s special allegiance to a Jewish state (there are more Jews living in the US–myself included FWIW–than there are in Israel)–that the US had other “realist” interests in supporting a Western-style state in a region with such important economic and geo-political significance. Since old-fashioned imperialism is a goner, and as third-world politics are very unpredictable, a stable ally such as Israel might–from the realist point of view that dominates in international relations–be deemed to be worth the cost. Remember, I don’t think that anybody in power when the US/Israel alliance developed in the way that it did ever anticipated this kind of terrorist threat to the US. To Israel, yes, but to the US no.

This is not, I stress, a reductivist argument (“oil explains everything”). This is simply an acknowledgment that political motivation and historical process are complex. To me something as important as oil can never be left out of the picture. So I don’t agree that “you…can’t tie [the Palestinian situation) to oil in any way, shape, or form.” On the contrary, you can’t entirely comprehend the Palestinian situation unless you take all significant factors into account.

“Therefore, I reject the idea that had the US no need for oil, there never would have been a 9/11 bombing.”

Has anyone made such a claim? I certainly haven’t. I don’t recall that either Tony Benn, Olentzero, Kimstu, jshore, or anyone else in this thread made that claim. It strikes me as a very silly kind of claim to make since it’s invoking a material resource–oil–that is so substantial and widely applicable that to use it in this fashion makes no sense. It’s kind of like saying that if the French peasants had no need for food there would never have been a French revolution. Or here’s another one from a different tack: if the Puritans had no need for religious liberty back in the 17th century they never would have come to the United States, there would have been a different country entire there, and therefore there would have been no 9/11. I’m not interested in such speculative arguments expect, perhaps, for movie-making or fictional purposes.

“B.) I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why oil is such a vested interest in this administration. I have heard allusions that because many members of the Bush administration had worked with or for oil companies, that therefore all the Bush administration’s goals must be to fatten the oil companies. I have already stated why people who work in the oil industry do not necessarily automatically love everyone else who works in the oil industry. I have already stated why working to fatten the oil companies’ pockets makes no money for Bush or any administration member. I am still waiting for a coherent answer as to why Bush works to enrich oil companies at the cost of the national good or national security that does not sound like a weak plot from an X-files episode.”

Well I feel as though I’ve read several “reasonable arguments” to that effect in this thread alone. For example, I take the Seattle editorial to offer an extremely reasonable argument of how it is that Bush’s environmental policy favors the oil industry at the expense of the national interest, both in environmental and anti-terrorist terms. I don’t think the tone of the article was at all like a plot from an X-files episode any more than were the articles posted by Kimstu.

Bear in mind: the question of this administration’s vested oil interests is both older and larger than its specific relation to 9/11 and the aftermath. I’d be totally happy to debate the point with you, and can post lots of links to reasonable arguments made by all kinds of people(economists, environmentalists, academics, political theorists). But I think this would call for another thread. Something like: “Does the Bush Administration put Oil Interests ahead of the National Interest?” If you’d like to start that kind of thread, by all means do. Or if you’d like to ask me to start one, please ask.

“Therefore, I reject your contention that we are in consensus upon these issues.”

Well, to be accurate, you and I have indeed reached “some kind of consensus” “that…you can’t simply deny oil interests a) in the history of the West/Middle East relations.” You say so yourself at the beginning of your post.

As to “b,” which relates to the “particular vested interests of the present administration” it appears that I did indeed underestimate your entire refusal to see any tendency connection whatsoever between 1) actions that favor the oil industry, 2) numerous members of an administration with vital links to that industry and 3)what I’ve defined as “vested interests.” So, yes, “some kind of consensus” has not yet been reached between ourselves on this matter. My apologies for the confusion on the matter. That’s why I qualified my statement with “it seems to me.”

I believe I’ve already answered your # C.

A pleasure as always

[Mandelstam]

Roseus, briefly. Not insulted in the least. Thanks for the long post. It was your excerpt from the Slate article that gave me the impression that you had deemed an entire swathe of the debate (I don’t think there’s anything as coherent as "two sides’ involved here ) as “conspiracy theorists.” Now I see my impression was mistaken. As the link to Benn has been lost, I’ve had to rely on memory of something I read days ago. I though Benn said (or someone in the piece) that oil wasn’t the only motive (as in the Guardian piece I posted). Would you mind posting some other links to Benn’s statements? I’d appreciate it–and, so long as it’s a direct quotation, I don’t care if it comes from The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Private Eye, Hello! or The Sunday Sport. Well–if it comes from The Sport, I’ll make sure my little son’s not looking on when I click on the link ;).

[Adil]

Yes, Mandelstam, you are quite right. The original link seems to have been made redundant. However, the orginal headline itself, the basis for the topic of this thread, is still available through Ananova here.

[Mandelstam]

Well, Roseus, (now Adil, apparently), thanks for reposting the link for me. I think I must have been confusing it with another account of Tony Benn’s speech which was more contextualized. This would indeed give the impression that Benn thinks it’s only about oil–though I’m fairly certain I read something else that didn’t gave a somewhat more complicated picture of his speech with more quotations from the speech itself. In any case, I think others have tired of this thread, but I did want to acknowledge your repost.

[Olentzero]

Actually, I haven’t - John raises some arguments I want to take up, but doing so would take up such a large chunk of my workday that the Powers That Be here in the office would be displeased. I plan on throwing in on those this weekend.

[Mandelstam]

Well, O., I personally haven’t tired of the issue(s) so I’ll look forward to your response. I’m not sure that John is still reading though…