What fraction of the current price of oil on the futures market is driven by current circumstances and future concerns over the new-found components in the instability in the region? I mean the war in Iraq, the stimulus to militantism it causes elsewhere, the prospects of the “Bush dogma” leading to war in Iran, and other possible factors I might have omitted?
I hope the following won’t distract from a careful, objective answer to the above. (no, seriously, please)
However, how much justification would I have in the conspiracy theory that Bush and Gang invaded Iraq and didn’t give a rat’s ass about its reconstruction and etc, etc, etc, with the intent of driving up the price of oil?
An even better question, which ought be answered first, is whether we have any more objective mechanisms by which to answer my question, such as a way to predict the price of oil considering only the costs of extraction, the costs of exploration, the future demand, the future supply, etc. Or, perhaps, do any markets exist which predict how much supply will shift from the middle east to other countries (ie, a prediction of a shift might equal a belief that supply from the middle east will be broken).
Without such more concrete angles, answers by analysts to my question may be determined 40-70% purely by supposition and bias, rendering them near-useless.
If you want to know what specific percentage of oil prices are caused by mid-east turmoil, I’m afraid you won’t get any concrete answers there.
Your theory though, seems dubious. For it isn’t enough for Bush to invade Iraq, he would have to purposely fuck up the invasion to drive oil prices up. If all had gone well and a stable, pro-western democracy had formed in Iraq oil prices would be pressured downward as a result. (NOTE: I did not support the invasion of Iraq at all). Another problem is that by having our army pinned down in the Iraqi quagmire, the U.S. is less able to go to war in Iran, thereby screwing up a big part of this “Bush doctrine.” Additionally, the voter anger over rising gas prices and impatience with the Iraqi debacle would have been predictable and it seems unlikely Bush would intentionally kill his poll numbers, destroy his own legacy, damage his ability to get things through congress and put shackles on his party just to please his oil buddies.
Well, if the invasion had gone well, then Bush would be happy because he would have the solid precedent to convince America to invade Iran. Remember #2 in the Axis of Evil? The invasion of Iran, which would definately not go well, would have been far more effective in disrupting the supply of oil than a botched one in Iraq.
I think the hope might have been that the invasion of Iraq really would go well.
I think that in the 90s, when any supposed plans would have been hatched (and when the price of oil was truly desparate), the plotters could have very honestly looked at Iraq, seen a secular and stable people, and felt that they’re the type, as in several Asian contries and more recently in the USSR, to be returned to democracy (which, after all, they’ve briefly experienced).
Maybe that is why Bush et al. didn’t have good plans for what to do after the winning of the groundwar. Perhaps my understanding is lacking in this (and honestly, I came here to learn), but it was mentioned quite often that those plans just weren’t thought-out ahead of time. Maybe at first, they thought they wouldn’t even really need them.
But by the time it came to invading, it was pretty clear that a decade-long depression had taken its toll on the Iraqi people to the point where invading would just unleash a hornet’s nest. Then it might have been realized that a) it’ll take a miracle to get America to then go into Iran (even if they spend the necessary fortune to straighten out Iraq) and b) hell, let’s make the best of it anyway.
Besides a lack of a plan, one might even detect malfeasence. Dedicating 130k-something troops, a number then understood to be inadequate, to peacekeaping out of a total of 1.2m active members of the armed forces “because you go with the army you’ve got,” and pouring only a tiny fraction of money into Iraq’s economy (infrastructure and sheer dumb employment) that was spent on the armed forces as a whole… are not strategies that an occupier would commit if he were serious about creating security and subduing an insurgency.
Anyway, obviously I’ve woven a tale and there’s many points at which it may be false. However, yes, I think the occupation was fundamentally botched. And now I’m asking for your informed input to investigate if there could’ve been a motive. You know, like what the justice system does.
This supports my hypothesis that Bush didn’t want a smooth reconstruction. The alternative is that they were pure retards, and all the other evidence just doesn’t point in that direction.
I think one reason it took them so long to respond to Katrina might have been that they couldn’t figure out which corporation would be getting the fat contracts. Stories of supply trucks being turned back just do not make sense except in light of them arguing whose trucks to send.
As for Bush’s aides needing to make a DVD to show him, and other examples to similar effects… This is an enormous accusation to make, but I honestly do not believe that Bush is in any way in charge. The argument is simple. Experiencing decades of alcoholism has been conclusively proven to cause extensive, profound brain damage. This damage is evident in Bush’s speech, among other things. During the first year in office, it was also clear that he wasn’t responsible for much work. He spent four months on vacation, excercised an hour a day, and went to bed early. This might just be me, but I also have never seen him give a thoughtful, spontaneous answer to a reporter. Recently he’s gotten better at the pre-scripted replies, but much of the time he is not even let near reporters. Also remember Harriet Miers, the brain-dead Supreme Court nominee who Bush swore would act appropriately on touchy issues in office because “he could see into her heart.” I think she was a stooge as well. Now of course in any cabinet the president’s contribution is secondary to that of everyone else. We never elect a president, we elect a cabinet and whether or not Bush is actually responsible for our policies matters little (except to those who did not understand their task at the polls). The real significance, however, is that if the above is true it underscores the lengths of lies and deceptions that the people in charge are willing to go to.
Hm, I think it might be worth diverting this dicussion to another thread because I genuinely want my original, factual question answered. The current conversation isn’t even related to Cecil’s column. However, I do enjoy how this section of the boards is condusive to slower-paced discussions and attracts its disproportionate share of intelligent posters.
Also, his advistors might be ignoring other views not because they are ridiculously stubborn or stupid, but because their unstated goals are different than of the people offering their views.