OK, to begin with, I do agree that we’re over there because of oil, and if the region weren’t oil-rich, we wouldn’t bother with it. Even if we accept the argument that the U.S. is involved in Iraq primarily for the noble cause of furthering equal rights and democracy, it’s hard to get away from the fact that, again, we probably wouldn’t care if they didn’t have any oil. But they do, and most of us probably believe that a stable democracy makes for a more stable regional situation than any other system–whether or not we think it’s righit to meddle.
But I have to wonder when people say our ultimate goal is to ‘seize’ the oil. How can we seize anybody’s oil? By what mechanism do they imagine we would do that? Aside from the logistical and ethical reasons against doing so, it just doesn’t make any sense. OK, so I seize Country A’s oil fields. But Countries B, C, and D, also have large oil reserves, and underlying all is the fact that the oil-rich countries need to keep pumping it as much as the consuming countries need to buy it. I could drive the price up by refusing to pump any of my oil, but I’d be shooting myself in the foot, if I happen to be the USA.
Just a pet peeve: we got a lot of threads where someone claims that “such-and-such” is a common argument, but then don’t actually link to a specific instance of that argument being made. It’s kind of hard to deduce the thinking of an amorphous argument putatively made by some vaguely defined group of people.
In this specific case, I’m not sure “seize their oil” (as opposed to the more general “going to war for their oil” that you mentioned) is actually that common an argument beyond anonymous commentors in anti-war blogs and the like.
I think the most common strain of this theory is not that the US is seizing Iraq’s oil fields to advance US interests, rather Bush is seizing Iraq’s oil fields to benefit Haliburton and Exxon-Mobil. The oil gets pumped same as before, sold same as before, except instead of the money going into Saddam Hussein’s Swiss bank accounts it’s going into Haliburton’s.
Its attacking the subset of a group/position as a means to discredit the larger rationale. Of course the Iraq War is about oil, because Iraq is about oil. Without oil, Iraq might as well be Upper Volta. Is it about “seizing” that oil? Of course not! The intent is perfectly innocent and well-meaning: to foster the development of a pro-West democratic government that will be thoughtful and wise. A thoughtful and wise democratic government will naturally prefer to offer their resources to thoughtful and wise democratic nations, like us. If, out of gratitude, they make generous concessions to American businesses, well, that’s only natural, isn’t it? But that’s only a happy coincidence.
Boiling all that down into “seize the oil” is a distillation without nuance, not so much wrong as clumsy and simplistic. It gets more play because the anti-anti-war crowd loves to portray their opponents as simplistic and naive, fuzzy-thinkers who instantly accept the worst scenario as fact because they hate America, blather, rinse, repeat.
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world in addition to a considerable amount of natural gas. Many in the know believe there are enormous unexplored wells (100-200 billion barrels) because Iraq’s oil infrastructure and exploration efforts have been seriously hampered by decades of wars and sanctions. As an additional perk, the oil in Iraq is of the utmost quality and extremely easy to drill.
Well a good start would be occupying it with 160,000 troops and 180,000 contractors and constructing massive bases followed up by the implementation of the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law – which generously gives Iraq’s national government oversight of 17 out of 80 known oil fields.
However, nothing is set in stone. I don’t know how the future will play out. The current administration is incompetent to the extreme. The Iraqis, for their part, were clever enough to force elections and we are now in a bit of a pickle, because the Iraqi parliament will not sign the Hydrocarbon Law. If they do, very “interesting” things will happen. Either they will all be forced to leave the country or they will be killed. I imagine the Green Zone would come under a serious thread of being overrun. The current unpleasantness would be a fond memory of stability. Why? Because the Iraqis are smart. They understand the future of their country is their oil. Any thoughts of allowing foreign companies to reap massive profits by siphoning their state’s blood is unthinkable and widely unpopular. In addition, the Iraqi oil union, made up of tens of thousands of oil workers, would probably do some interesting things as well to sabotage such an effort.
I think the funniest thing that could happen would be if the Baghdad government is somehow able to stay relevant and ends up rekindling the old relationships Iraq had with Russian and Chinese oil companies, surely with far lower revenue sharing compared to what we’re telling them they should do for us. Wouldn’t that be grand?
This is what I’m not following. I suppose one could say that we control Iraq’s territory – we can pretty much do what we want. But how are we controlling the oil? The US isn’t taking possession of oil. We’re not preventing oil from being produced. Revenue from oil sales doesn’t go to the US. We’re not dictating the price at which Iraqi oil is being sold. We’re not determining who may buy Iraqi oil. We’re not directing the flow of Iraqi oil to the US. So how are we “checking” the EU, China, and India? They’re buying Iraqi oil on the market just like the US is.
I agree. Saudi Arabia has a lot more oil. So what does this have to do with anything, other than the fact that the US and the world view oil-producing countries as important?
I’m not following how a de-nationalization of oil fields means US control. Again, I’m not following how one can conclude that the US “has control” of the oil if we don’t appear to be influencing where the oil goes or how much people pay for it.
I pretty much agree with this. One point I was trying to make in the OP, and I believe I left out a key clause, was that even if you accept that the war is about democracy, well then why there and not some place else? Because Iraq’s got the oil, and it stands to reason that a stable democracy better secures that supply for the world market than an unstable government would be. So even if it’s about democracy, it’s still about oil.
Correct. The Iraqi oil industry is still nationalized. The current situation in Iraq in general is a major failure. Except for maybe Naomi Klein, I don’t think most people think the present day debacle was the way it was supposed to work out. However, once Iraq’s oil is (ideally) privatized and handed over to Anglo-American companies (outside those 17 sites) we will effectively control it.
Correct. And also correct if the Hydrocarbon Law is passed, for the near future anyway. For this particular angle, you have to look several decades into the future and envision macabre scenarios which will hopefully never come to pass. But if the world is still as dependent on oil as it is now and when nearly every country in the world has hit peak cheap oil, having Iraq be a de facto American protectorate will be seen as quite the wise investment.
Yeah, now. If the HL is signed and U.S. and British companies are allowed to co-opt the old, construct the new and subsequently operate, man and run the oil industry of Iraq we will of course control it. Assuming we get our way of course. We very well may not. Take Britain and Iran back in the 50s – the nationalization of Iran’s oil was a complete disaster for GB. After the coup they thought everything would return to normal but events didn’t work out that way, they were reduced to sharing control with the U.S. and various other Euro countries, being reduced to 40% of what they had before. Better than losing 100%, but still a pretty big loss.
I’m of the opinion that the secret agenda for invading Iraq was to install an America-friendly government that lets us keep a large military force there, from which to spread democracy through the middle east at M-16 point.
We wouldn’t bother with all that if there wasn’t a vital resource worth fighting for, but I don’t think that’s the same as a “reason”.
How so? The US does not control its oil companies. This is like saying that the Dutch control Nigeria’s oil because Shell works some of those fields.
Also known as, engage in unfounded speculation. But you’re still not explaining how we’re going to “check” those other countries. Are you saying that decades in the future, America is going to abandon free market principles and go back to mercantilism, using Iraq as a colony to rape it of its resources and deny other countries the ability to buy Iraqi oil on the open market?
So you are saying that the Dutch control Nigeria’s oil supply because Shell runs the fields. I see.
How does the hydrocarbon law or the US controlling the oil fields benefit Haliburton. Haliburton is a service company, like Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Weatherford etc. They do not own any mineral rights or oil block. They probably could not give a tinkers cuss if the operator was Exxon, Total, CNOOC or the National Iraq Oil Company. If anything the trend for service companies is to team up with national oil companies, as the NOC tend to have a lower level of experience and are more willing to buy in that expertise from the service companies. Saudi is a prime example of this in the degree of cooperation with service companies in assisting them in getting production up. ARAMCO are one of the biggest buyers of hi tech completions and well placement technology which is a big earner for the service companies.
Who owns the mineral rights or is the operator has two benefits for the international oil companies (IOC) home country.
The countries position is improved with respect to oil supplies. During peaceful times it is just commercial business, however if there is a crunch then the IOC can sell preferentially to its parent country thus helping ensure supplies. Supplies can be coordinated between allies etc etc . The control and subsequent loss of Iran was a a major issue for the British as Iran was the major source of fuel for the Royal Navy
Tax benefit from having profitable oil companies. The govenrments do make a chunk of change from tax of oil companies.
My personal opinion is that the whole purpose was to ensure Iraq did not get into a position of political and military strength where it could put pressure on its neighbors and become the global swing supplier over Saudi.
Who actually owns and produces is not that important, so long as they keep production up and sell to the US and will sell to the US in a time of crisis. If the hydrocarbon law could be swung to favour Production Sharing Agreements, which are generally good the the operator and less good for the country where the resource is, then that is a bit of icing.
Something I haven’t seen mentioned is the fact that Iraq had oil and service agreements with European nations before the war (France and Russia). Remember these were two vocal opponents to the war and they are now in a position to be muscled out of all their contracts. As it was all their contracts had been stall by the UN after the first gulf war. Very few oil rich countries have the means to extract their wealth indigenously most of them rely on companies from the countries that can. This gives the oil extraction and service companies a bit of influence in those places. Since Uncle Sam only hands out no bid contracts to our favored vendors Iraqi oil revenues may no longer enrich European interest. Add to this the fact that US companies were barred from doing business in Iraq altogether before the war. I would not be surprised if part of the current Iraqi oil problem stems from us refitting European designed Iraqi oil facilities with American vendor supplied parts.
I was around when the President decided to go to war, and I don’t remember either of those reasons.
I know there are lots of folks who think there is some sort of deeper conspiracy but my observation is that we are in Iraq because Mr Bush is a rather dumb man who has no real understanding of history, no grasp of geopolitics, and a macho cowboy-like shoot-the-bad-guys mentality toward solving problems. I think it is a simple as that. I think he is sincere but dumber than a watermelon.
He has held a grudge against Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War. It is easy for such a personality coupled with a simpleton’s world view to go wrong. And he did. In the post 9-11 political atmosphere it seemed un-American to oppose him and a weak Congress went along.
As time has gone on the Presidential positioning of the war has transitioned from “eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction” to “liberate Iraq into a stable democracy” and now to “fight the war on terror.” I do not think Mr Bush has enough mental firepower to truly understand any of it, and he relies instead on a quiet inner assurance that he is doing the right thing for history.
While such people are easily manipulated, at the President’s level there is no cabal; no conspiracy; no secret plan. There isn’t even enough thinking power to create or participate in a conspiracy. Whatcha got there is a sincere but stupid man. That’s why we are in Iraq, and that’s why we have stayed there.
It depends on who you’re calling “we”. Most of us would say “we” and mean the people of the United States. And as you pointed out, the average citizen isn’t getting a cup of oil out of occupying Iraq. But as Lemur and Marshmallow have posted, some people mean “we” in the sense of the corporation they work for. And some of these corporations are doing quite well in Iraq, collecting profits off oil sales as well as other lucrative business deals.
Once again, the actual war criminals get a free pass.
Whether by direct action, or constructive inaction, War, in the United States of America is declared by the Legislative Branch.
George I, and now George II are just convenient personages, accruing either glory, or shame for the actions of the elected legislature of the People of the United States.
Tris
“We have met the enemy and it is us.” ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo ~
What a bunch of nonsense. marshmallow in particular is saying that the United States controls Iraqi oil. Neither “we” nor “the United States” are synonyms for “oil companies.”
I am seriously interested in someone explaining to me how an American oil company extracting the oil from a field means that the US, as a political entity, controls the oil in order to “compete” with Europe or China or whomever.
I get that some believe that Bush went to war so oil companies could get richer. I think it’s a silly theory, but I can follow it. The slogan that the US is in it to control Iraq’s oil is baffling because (a) we don’t seem to be controlling it at all and (b) the US government doesn’t even really control American businesses. I’m willing and interested to listen to an explanation of “the US controls Iraqi oil” but all I seem to get is non sequiturs about Britain and Iran in the 1950s or how Iraqis will be killed if they support the hydrocarbon law. Can nobody offer a simple explanation and examples of the ways in which the US is controlling Iraqi oil?
