No blood for oil…we hear this frequently. Do the people proclaiming this slogan think we are going to plug BP and Exxon lines right into the fields and loot Iraqi oil? Do they think we are going to facilitate lucrative deals for allied oil companies? Surely we would not commit so flagrant an offense when we know people are alreadt expecting it…or would we?
I doubt it. I wonder really at many of the people screaming such things. Do they even stop to think at all? Remember when you see this it is usually in the context of a mob, and mobs generally are not renowned for intelligent statements. do not know about elsewhere, but here in Australia, the signage etc that is supplied to them is all supplied by Socialist International. Comintern anyone?
Did Bush even say the word “oil” last night?
lol 
Perhaps some of them think that strategic control of the distribution lanes of that oil, rather than any overt attempt to loot (other than creating an advantageous atmosphere for American corporate involvement) is the underlying motive. And yes, we would do that even though other countries are already expecting it. (See the Carter Doctrine, introduced in the 1980 SoTU Address)
The underlying question regarding US interests, access to and influence over the world’s oil supplies is not only where and how to apply military muscle, but also whether to apply it in all or most cases. The “no blood for oil” slogan is a statement of opinion regarding that basic equation.
Thanks, xenophone41, for that first link in particular. It lays out quite nicely why oil is a critical consideration for our impending actions in Iraq. I further agree that the US has no intention of looting Iraqi oil. But it would be naive to think that oil does not play a role in the motivation of the US to establish a new regime in Baghdad.
The link you provided included this:
I’d like to expand on that, based on some theories I heard months ago.
As most everyone is aware, 15 of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia is home to the most holy shrines in the Islamic world. OBL is from Saudi Arabia, and the country’s population has a large concentration of fundamentalist muslims. The majority of the funding for Al Quaeda continues to come from Saudi citizens. The Saudi royal family is not a particularly popular government. Their policies of “friendship” with the US only weakens their relationship with their general population.
The events of 9/11 further polarized the country. It has been speculated that the Saudi government is at risk of being overthrown in a popular uprising. It is reasonable to expect that if this were to happen, an islamic theocracy may be installed. And that potential outcome is extremely troubling for the US long term national security interests (see the Carter Doctrine).
Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world. Combined with Iraq, they represent over 40% of all known world reserves. Losing access to the both Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s oil supplies could significantly dampen the US military’s ability to conduct large scale operations (at least over a long period of time). Oil is the lubricant that drives the US military machine.
It is fair to assume that any party in control of the oil will be interested in selling, and that the US will need to buy. Free market forces do work. However, it is not in the interest of the US to purchase oil from a coountry that will simply use their wealth to oppose, potentially through terror or otherwise, objectives that are contrary to the strategic interests of the US.
Waiting for the potential fall of the US-friendly Saudi government, and then invading Saudi Arabia with US troops is a non-starter. The entire muslim world would consider their most holy lands defiled by infidels. Since Saddam’s government is secular, this is much of less of an issue wth Iraq.
Making sure a regime in Iraq will sell oil into the international market and not use the proceeds to develop weapons aimed at the western world is of critical importance to the US.
If you doubt that oil has anything to do with our actions in Iraq, you probably don’t understand the long range projections for the oil markets (increasing demand, dwindling supply of a limited natural resource). You probably also don’t understand the critical nature oil plays in all western economies, not to mention military power. To suggest this action has nothing to do with oil is simply naive. Granted, however, that “no blood for oil” is a dramatic oversimplication of the issue.
But it fits so nicely on a placard.
Wouldn’t the US get handy access to more oil by going to other way, being nice to Iraq and lifting the blockade? That strikes me as being a much easier approach, if in fact it’s all about oil.
RickJay, it’s the difference between having an agreement with a crucial vendor over his hours and pricing, and having the key to his shop in your pocket plus ownership of his loading dock. In this case, the particular vendor not only doesn’t like us, but his product is even more crucial to a lot of our competitors than it is to us.
Easier, and I would suggest, significantly cheaper than the cost of not only waging war, but then occupying the country and ensuring a democratic government is installed.
AZcowboy, that was the smartest post I’ve ever seen in any of these war debates. Give yourself a hug!
Thanks, Greensabre - even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while!
RickJay, while I agree that it would be easier, I think the same problem remains - that Saddam will simply use our money to develop WoMD and target western interests.
The problem we see today with Saudi Arabia, and that we have no easy solution, is that the money we spend for their oil gets distributed to the radical population, which then sends to the funds to the likes of Al Qaeda.
I don’t think we need the key to storeroom of a critical vendor - or own the loading dock. I think we need to stop paying a direct competitor. The more we buy, the faster they grow. It’s a vicious circle.
While I am sure we would like a US friendly government in Iraq, they don’t have to be our friend - just not our enemy. Much easier said then done, btw.
Great post, AZCowboy. I’m continually startled by the naivete of the “No blood for oil” crowd, as if the US was sitting around thinking, “Hmm, we need more oil. Who can we invade?” Yes, oil plays a role. No, it’s not the main role. If Iraq was a perfectly decent nation, even if they hated us and refused to sell us oil, I highly doubt that we would wish to invade. But if we think they might need invading, and we’re on the fence, then stabilization of the oil market in the ME is certainly a potential perk that needs consideration.
Jeff
How much oil are we talking about and how much blood
(sorry this is a rip off of a satire article I read recently but can not recall)
kingpengvin, that’s actually a relevant question. Fundamentally, this war comes down to a moral question (are preemptive invasions acceptable even to remove a loathed and dangerous tyrant?) and a cost-benefit equation (are establishment of temporary control of the region and a tenuous possibility to install a friendly democracy worth the blood price?). The no-blood-for-oil protests, rather than naively assuming only coarse motives on the part this administration, are presenting an open-eyed assessment of both aspects of this issue.
Personally, I think it’s more than a bit naive to take the administration’s rhetoric about democracy and freedom at face value.
The role of Oil in the Iraq situation is that Saddam has been using his tremendous Oil revenues to fund the development of WMD, including nuclear, AND that Saddam has shown a propensity to attack other oil sources (Iran and Kuwait), which would further fund his weapons development. AND that Saddams use of gas shows that he just might really use a nuclear weapon as soon as he gets one. Saddam visibly and vocally supports Palestinian terrorism, and has said he wants to dominate the region. We could experiment and see whether Saddam Hussein will give a WMD to the Palestinian terrorists. Israel will not go along with the experiment, however.
This also means that just cleaning up Iraq with “Inspections” and then leaving (turning off the inspections and sanctions) will result in Saddam Hussein starting his weapons program all over again. Iraq could buy most of what he wants on the worlds arms markets, possible even from North Korea.
There is a real chance that Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would be deterrable, and there is evidence for this, like the fact he restrained his use of chemical weapons in the first Gulf War because he was threatened with nuclear retaliation. There is counter-evidence, mainly the near suicidal invasion of Kuwait and his refusal to retreat when threatened, and his current intransigence regarding inspections. But a chance may not be enough, since we are talking about nuclear weapons.
Also, letting Saddam Hussein bequeath his oil revenue to his sons means that the US will have to maintain a small Cold War against Iraq for many years.:mad: As more and more countries develop their own nuclear weapons, the number of Cold Wars required would only grow. The Security Council clearly has its hands full with the current mess, and the recent nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea seem to be too much for it to handle. This means the US would have to bear the brunt of being the world policeman on the issue of the spread of nuclear weapons.
Cite?
I personally think the case that it’s all about oil is absurd. If anyone thinks the U.S. is going to war solely for that purpose they’re out of their mind. Simply put, we’ll never get away with it. I know Tony Blair has come outright saying that the idea is preposterous. Can’t say about the Bush administration.
Well, lets say it is all about oil. This is a hypothetical. So the hell what? France has alterior motives also. They’re against the war because they make “money out the yin-yang” from Iraq. Much of their dealing is illegal and thoroughly covered-up from the media.
Cite?[br]
For good overview of the Iraqi nuclear weapons effort see
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION:I R A Q, on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been maintaining the “Doomsday Clock” for about 40 years. The clock is a notional clock that shows the time as closer to midnight when the international situation is more dangerous, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Ulterior motives for peace is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than ulterior motives for war