It is true that an actual declaration of war is an act of Congress but this war in particular is Mr Bush’s personal doing. It was clearly his initiative. While it may have been stupid–criminally stupid, even, figuratively speaking–and motivated by petty revenge, it was not a criminal act.
In any case, I was referring to his personal decision and not an official declaration of war.
“Georgie made us do it!”
A quality refutation to a war crimes tribunal that will make! It just shows one more way we have achieved superiority to the the “I was only following orders” school of war for profit.
Tris
Sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking. The way the United States controls Iraq’s oil is simple - we’re there and we’ve got the most guns. If we decide to shut off Iraq’s oil production, nobody else will be able to stop us.
As for the less overt means of controlling Iraq’s oil, we’re back into the issue of how American corporations are making deals to insert themselves into the profit taking. It probably won’t involve actual gunfire but when some American businessman is meeting with an Iraqi subminister and he mentions how he’s known George Bush since they were teenagers together, you think that subminister isn’t going to put two and two together and then tell the representatives from Elf Aquitaine and Royal Dutch Petroleum that he’s sorry but they’re going with Exxon Mobil.
By this rationale we control the all of the oil in the entire world (as well as a number of other things). I mean…if we decided that no one could ship oil out of the gulf…well, who would be able to stop us if we were really that crazy? Our Navy alone could pretty much shut down oil logistics…if we really wanted too.
And of course, the Russian’s COULD shut down the oil too…so that would mean they control it as well. I mean, they COULD nuke the entire region from orbit…just to be sure. And the Chinese also control the oil based on this rationale. And even our Euro buddies COULD shut down the oil by the expedient of turning the entire region into glass…if they really wanted too.
Actually no…I don’t think that will be the case. Even if it is, I am not seeing how this answers the question, to be honest. By any chance, do you have any evidence showing how this is currently (on in the past) working?
Yeah…it’s a damn good question. I wish you luck in getting a straight (non-ranting) answer too it though…you are going to need it. I’m guessing the answer is going to revolve around evil corporations controlling the US government (and being controlled back by the evil US government in a sort of circular argument thingy). But it will be interesting to see if anyone actually DOES try to answer it straight, because like you it’s something I’ve been curious about for quite a while.
-XT
Oh yeah…the OP. Nearly forgot about that. Well…I don’t think the US is there to ‘seize control’ of Iraqi oil. Not in the way the left wing loonies mean anyway. I think the US saw an opportunity to expand our influence in the region, as well as (well, before the fecal matter hit the rotating impeller) too display our military power to the various non-friendly (and friendly too I suppose) regional governments. Also, I think that the US saw an opportunity to install a friendly government in Iraq (worked out well, ehe?), and to secure a better logistics base of operations for future flare ups in the region than Saudi (or Kuwait) was for us. Finally I’m fairly sure that the situation in Iran factored in heavily…from all of the perspectives mentioned (i.e. we wanted to awe them with our military capabilities, we wanted a better logistics situation wrt Iran, and we wanted to be in place in case of future flare ups).
I think the Iraqi oil itself had little to do with the US invasion…it was the REGIONAL oil and strategic considerations that were the important thing. JMHO there.
-XT
I think we’re saying about the same thing. Other countries might have the theoretical ability to project force into Iraq but we’re the ones on site and we’re bigger than anyone else - if we’ve decided Iraq is within our sphere of influence no other country is going to displace us. So the American government has a major military presense in Iraq and that gives American businesses an advantage in business deals in Iraq. (I hope nobody’s disputing that the current American government has a co-operative relationship with American corporate interests.) And the main money product in Iraq is oil (unless you count the American military presense itself as a money product).
So the situation is that the United States is using its military power to influence Iraqi oil production into a direction that favors American business interests. That may not be the textbook definition of seizing control of Iraqi oil but it’s pretty close.
Personally, I don’t find this to be completely disheartening. It at least indicates there is a working plan behind our presense in Iraq. I’d rather think that evil’s in charge when the alternative is stupidity.
I can see why you think so, but keep in mind, sometimes good intentions and stupidity are not disastrous, just not as positive as might be hoped. And evil intentions can be curbed by intelligence, by a sharp awareness of consequence. But evil intent and stupidity! Take Pearl Harbor, for instance. No question but that a sneak attack to start a war is an evil intent. But they picked the one country on the globe that for sure and for certain would kick the living shit out of them. They might have grabbed off some goodies from the Brits, the French, and the Dutch, and maybe even gotten away with it.
[Belushi-san] But, noooooooo! [/belushi]
According to this, all the Western oil companies seem to be competing equally, and even Chinese and Vietnamese oil companies may win contracts for the smaller fields. Some alert the John Birch Society: the Reds are going to control Iraq’s oil!
Ravenman, it is important to remember we are discussing far flung grand strategy. This is one color among the kaleidoscope of reasons we went into Iraq. Other, more immediate and pressing goals (such as good old military keynesianism), have already been covered. With that in mind…
It depends on the relationship between Nigeria and Shell and details which I do not know. The vast majority of the world’s oil is pumped under the auspices of nationalized oil companies and regulatory boards, so I imagine Shell is there under a contract and at the invitation of the Nigerian government and the resulting profits are split via a prior agreement which doesn’t amount to Shell getting some ridiculously unfair amount. If that’s the case, then the Nigerian government controls their own oil.
When the shit hits the fan Anglo-American companies will sell the oil to America (or American interests). Russian or Chinese companies in Iran and Sudan and elsewhere, not so much. The chessboard is being set up, although I hope we never have to play.
Rape? A rather bold verb. But of course we will take the oil under such a macabre scenario. Free market what? When the American economy is crashing because we suddenly discover that, why no, there’s not infinite oil in the world, there will be a mad scramble for what’s left. I mean, I guess it’s possible that the oil companies could end up shipping to China or the EU if the price is right, but that’s why the 40,000 troops are there. But again, an unpleasant scenario which I do not like to dwell upon. I have car insurance but I’d rather not think about going through the front window and landing in a ditch.
One thought which troubles me greatly is that we won’t be talking about several decades, but several years. As in, single digit from now. I hope to be grossly incorrect on that point.
I’m not sure how anyone could say the Arabs were trying to conquer Israel in 1967 and 1973. They just felt like charging towards the border and getting machine gunned down. Also, the USSR didn’t wish to set up nuclear missiles in Cuba to set up a credible first strike capability against the States. If one were to examine the missiles closely one would discover they were actually filled with candy for the Cuban children.
Or if that nonsequitur is too opaque: just because a nation fails at doing something doesn’t mean they weren’t trying to do the thing they were quite obviously attempting to do. External events can and will interfere. This makes the real world exciting to follow.
Currently, the Iraq oil industry is still nationalized. The Hydrocarbon Law is one of the 18 benchmarks. It remains on the table, for now. If it it signed, it will be privatized and opened up. Will it be? Who knows.
But like I said some time ago, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that instead of Anglo-American companies coming in and setting up shop to privatize Iraq’s oil we could instead see a wave of Chinese companies coming in under the wing of the fledgling Baghdad government or, if it collapses, under contract with regional centers. It would be extremely awkward when they say “hello” to our soldiers on the way to work, but it’s possible.
That is pretty silly. I’m actually embarrassed that anyone could say such a thing. I mean, the United States going to war and manipulating the behind the scene politics to further U.S. business interests? Unthinkable. Never happened. Only other countries do that.
Forgive me, but it sounds like you don’t really know anything about the oil trade, except a dogmatic belief that the US controls Iraqi oil.
What is your evidence for this?
You seem to be laboring under the impression that hoarding Iraqi oil is going to make a whit of difference. Even under the most rosy scenarios, Iraq’s oil production is never going to reach more than probably 4.5 bbl. US consumption is currently about 21 bbl a day, of which 2/3rds is imported, and probably less than 1 bbl is currently Iraqi oil. So even if get get the other 3.5 bbl, we have to import another 10 bbl per day to keep the economy working. What’s going to happen to the cost of the other 10 bbl? The market is going to adjust and it is going to get proportionally more expensive due to hoarding of all of Iraq’s oil. Why would oil companies want to sell Iraqi oil exclusively to the US when there’s more money to be made overseas? Answer: they won’t and there’s no way the US can force them to. Every single supply side economist – the type that advise the White House about free trade agreements and tax cuts – would agree that trying to hoard Iraqi oil will only make things worse. This scenario you’re laying out simply makes no economic sense.
Yes! Just because the martians haven’t abducted me doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get me. It’s just that they haven’t succeeded yet, thanks to my lucky martian repelling bottlecap!
I was going to ask for some evidence to support this allegation, but then I realized, this is probably the best evidence you can offer of this conspiracy theory. So nevermind.
We still seem to be talking about different definitions of what it means to control Iraqi oil. It doesn’t mean that George Bush is personally cavorting around in the middle of Basra yelling “Mine, mine, mine” like Scrooge MacDuck. What it means is that the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil have now been shifted from foreign companies to American companies and the terms of these agreements are more favorable than they were prior to the occupation.
You make a very reasonable point that oil companies now have access to work in the Iraqi oil fields. But as I understand it, the arrangement means that whatever companies are brought in WON’T own the fields, the Iraqi government will. I understand that Iraq will create production sharing agreements which give a certain share profit to whatever company wins the contract.
Thus, oil companies will be acting as contractors, not owners. I understand production sharing agreements are used in dozens and dozens of Third World countries, so unless someone can explain why I’m wrong, these aren’t even going to be concessions, in which the winning bid would actually own the oil being pumped out of the ground.
But that’s ALL foreign oil companies who are advantaged now – BP, Shell, and everyone else. Hopefully we will know in the next several months which companies win the contracts, assuming the new law ever gets passed. But I’ll make you a bet: I think a significant number of contracts will go to non-American oil companies. Want to put your theory about Iraqi oil subministers to the test with a little wager? 
What marshmallow is suggesting is indeed control, as in, Uncle Sam is going to be telling Iraqis where their oil is going to go within the next ten years or so. That’s quite different from what you’re saying.
It’s very hard to debate a book I haven’t seen and can only respond to your excerpts. Does Mr Palast think that the reason for the war was Bush catering to corporate greed, or is he making the point that the reconstruction schemes for Iraq were stupid? I’d agree with him on the latter. Your quotes don’t seem to support the former.
More that corporate greed played a role in it, along with neocon ideology, as well as an older and more “realist” foreign-policy tradition (the role of which ultimately was marginalized) – but corporate greed and neocon ideology eventually came into conflict. At any rate, the excerpts do show that (1) officials in the Bush Admin were planning to take over Iraq one way or another from the moment Bush took office, (2) corporate interests, oil interests in particular, were heavily involved in the planning, and (3) Iraq’s oil was always uppermost in their thinking (although different factions had very different ideas about what to do with it).