Actually, we do need Iraqi oil (and Saudi even more). In a few more years the Saudi and Iraqi supply together will be almost half of the world supply, and a few years after that will be over half of the world supply (esp when Kuwait is thrown in there as well). Our presence in Saudi Arabia , our interference in the Iran/Iraq war, our general Middle East policy for years has been effected by the growing need for a stable oil supply. The world economy runs on cheap oil, and over the next several years most cheap oil will be coming from this region (as other regions are running out of the cheap, easily extracted oil).
I would not say that war with Iraq (if it happens) is totally about oil, but oil is one of the major factors behind the whole situation (would Sadam even be in power without oil in the region, would he or any other Arab country have modern weapons if the Soviets and West had not been trying to prop up one side or another to guarantee a safe oil supply?)
In fact, oil may be one of the reasons that war does not happen, as an actual all out invasion/bombing could lead to a huge supply disruption with the possibility of fired oil wells wasting a much needed resource, plus Iraq and Saudis and the Kuwaits are very dependent on oil revenue to keeping their economies afloat.
Still, the proximate cause of the current crisis is 9/11. We would not likely be this close to war with Iraq if that event had not taken place.
Do you have a reliable cite for this? I was under the impression that their market share was falling.
Most likely, since the Cold War was not just about securing natural resources. It was quite global. We fought proxy wars in Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Latin America…and many of those countries had little or no strategic value.
I don’t doubt that oil is on the minds of the Bush Administration. It has to be. As elucidator said, it’s a giant elephant sitting in the living room. It’s probably not the cause of the war, however, because few oil producing countries are stupid enough to even think about cutting off the oil supply to the US. Not only would it hurt them economically (the main reason why the OPEC oil embargo was lifted), but it would drastically increase the chances of their country being visited by the military.
I probably exagerated the situation somewhat, but from these links (which appear credible to me) and other articles in main stream press, the non-opec supply of oil is running out(getting harder to find and more expensive to pump) so that the easily extracted large reserves of middle eastern countries are more important to the global economy every year.
Certainly we fought communism all over the place, but most of the areas you mention did have some strategic value, Africa in particular is the sole source of many important minerals and other resources. I think many would argue that all wars and conflicts involve some sort of struggle over resources (including land and people).
What makes oil more special as a resource is the total dependence of every part of the world economy on cheap reliable energy (especially for transportation. The world economy has changed to a real global marketplace based on relatively cheap shipping. Raw goods are bought from one country, shipped to another to be made into piece parts, then to another for final processing, then shipped all over for sale and re-sale. When oil prices go up (due to the fact that it is a finite resource that we are using up faster than nature replenishes), it will effect every commodity and country more than any other single resource.
The world will have to go back to a more local based economy when the costs of shipping become prohibative for many commodities (especially food - that will be a problem too).
Better planning will help with the transition to a non-oil based energy economy, but the way things work this will happen in a quick forced way that will lead to much suffering when the oil prices start to really go up. Some say that is 40 years off, some say more like 10, either way it will happen.
So, what I’m hearing is that the US is going to invade Iraq under the Aegis of a UN mandate, and sieze Iraqi oilfields which it will then turn over to US oil companies? I don’t buy it for a couple of reasons:
A land grab by the US government/oil companies (which are evidently identical in some posters’ eyes) would make the US a pariah in the eyes of our Allies, especially the French and Russians, who have massive deals in the works with the Iraqi Government.
Waging war costs money and burns an awful lot of oil.
It’s political suicide for the administration to squander Taxpayers’ money so they could hand a plum to their buddies at Exxon.
Remember what Saddam Hussein’s troops did when they left Kuwait? Do you think he will leave the US invaders pristine oilfields and refineries? Anyone who wants to exploit Iraqi oil will be left an unholy ecological disaster that will have to be cleaned up (at enormous cost and Zero profit) before any infrastructure can be rebuilt .
Again, Oil is a factor - not the main reason but a factor. Indeed I stated above that because of the oil war might be averted (at least a full scale invasion type war). One of the reasons we were so quick to stop Sadam the 1st time was because he seized the Kuwaiti oil and was a threat to the Saudi’s. Imagine his bargaining power if Sadam had grabbed up the Saudi oil fields as well.
It is not as simple as “get rid of sadam and grab the oil”. It is a complex issue that is more about guaranteeing a stable supply of oil (at the best prices as well) than it is stealing that oil.
Of course to give you a cynics answer (not mine - but my understanding of some people’s point of view) to your above listed reasons :
We will certainly give some plums to our allies - the split of the oil is a pre-war bargaining chip to get their support
War would be quickly over (as before - in theory anyway) and what oil is burned(including #4) will be largely outweighed by the end result of having control of what is still in the ground(lots left in the ground there).
Look at US history and many many politicians mis-used their influence to get their supporters lots of money, very rarely have they been taken to task - and losing the next election is a small price to pay when potentially trillions of oil dollars are at stake - plus the next election can be financed even easier , and as we all know -the candidate spending the most money usually wins. For the “behind the scenes power brokers” one candidate’s political career can be sacrificed (after all they can arrange a pardon and a nice cushy job for the one offered up as the scapegoat).
I really don’t subscribe to the above statements, but some people do, and there is some historical precedent for such a cynical view of power and money in politics. Read about the railroads getting started, the biggest land grab in history and many fortunes made and lost with lots of corrupt politicians. Look at the teapot dome scandal.
Anyway, as I said before, the oil might actaully help keep the shooting war from starting if Sadam can bend enough to the dictates of the West.
“1. A land grab by the US government/oil companies (which are evidently identical in some posters’ eyes) would make the US a pariah in the eyes of our Allies, especially the French and Russians…”
This administration has shown absolutely no qualms about becoming an international pariah. Witness the Kyoto accords, the ABM treaty, etc. etc. They believe that the United States is too large and powerful to significantly ostricize. And they’re right.
"2. Waging war costs money and burns an awful lot of oil. "
Which is the crux of the issue, really, and probably how the oil companies got the military on board. What happens, the military planners say, if, say, the Chinese get uppity and the Middle East goes to hell? Iraq and a radiacalized Saudi Arabia cut off all oil exports to the West, and the American military machine grinds to a halt. Now, imagine the same scenario, but with the American military occupying the Iraqi oil fields. We could then effectively tell OPEC to screw off.
“3. It’s political suicide for the administration to squander Taxpayers’ money so they could hand a plum to their buddies at Exxon.”
No, it’s political suicide to ignore your big campaign contributors. That’s why this whole thing is being spun with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” angle.
I think that if the Saddam regime is toppled, a new Iraqi regime will be put in place under the watchful eye of the powers that did the toppling like what happened in Afghanistan.
I don’t think it would behoove anybody to just render all the business agreements with France, Russia, et al. null and void because of the regime change. These aggreements will be renegotiated with the new regime or simply kept in place and since there won’t be any impediments to US oil companies to do business in Iraq, this will allow US companies to come in.
Remember that one of the values of Iraq is it’s amount of untapped potential resources. Saddam wouldn’t be able to touch those. As for existing wells, refineries, etc. yes, he left an ecological nightmare behind after the Gulf War, but ultimately the oil continues to flow.
It’s not a strong feeling, it’s a fact. Unocal never disguised nor hide its interest in this pipeline, and you can easily find on the net, from very official sources, references to its former projects, to their cost, etc…It’s nothing secret. What is debatted is whether or not it influenced US policies in Afghanistan.
A policy isn’t necessarily dependant on the personal interests of the country’s leader, and not even on the short-term interests of major companies from the country considered.
It’s certainly in the best long-term interest of the US to keep a close hold on as much oil reserves as possible through friendly governments and national oil companies. Reciprocically, France, being totally dependant on imports, has an interest in keeping its sources of supplying as potentially diversified as possible, and indeed is worried by the perspective of being someday dependant on the good will of the USA if this country was to gain too much influence in too much of the major oil producers. That would be true even if France had no oil company with any interests in Irak. Oil is an absolutely vital good, and any government is going to keep a close eye on oil reserves and on who controls them, directly or indirectly.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Not to count my own point, but Unocal has publicly denied any interest in a pipeline since late 1998. But when war’s imminent, you have to be little more careful with your pr.
Speaking as someone who has worked twenty years in various capacities for a French-based oilfield services company, the idea that the US would invade Iraq and turns its oilfields over to US companies as spoils of war, and without due compensation to the former owners, is utter bunk.
In that part of the world, oil and natural gas in the ground is always the property of the government or a government-owned company. Any oil or gas company wishing to operate in that country has to pay the local authority for the privilege of carrying out exploration or development operations, and pay handsomely. I see no evidence that the US is contemplating direct siezure of Iraqi oil fields, nor that any oil or gas company would pay the follow-on regime any less than they would have to pay Saddam’s government currently (assuming the embargo on Iraqi production were lifted).
As for supposed benefits to Bush’s “oilmen” (and oilwomen), where’s the smoking gun? Someone here please show me precisely how former Exxon executive Condoleeza Rice benefits economically from helping competitor Unocal build a pipeline in Afghanistan. Show me precisely how Cheney personally benefits, economically or otherwise, from an invasion of Iraq. If we’re talking political, rather than economic benefits, just how many votes do you think oil execs have, anyway (hint: no more than a few thousand)?
Strange Interlude
As an aside, there IS one group of oil-related companies that would immediately benefit from an invasion of Iraq. These are the companies that put out oil-well blowouts and fires, and I have it on good authority that representatives of all the US-based wild well control companies were invited to a November meeting with high-level US military officials to discuss contingency plans should their services be needed in Iraq within the next few months. BTW, one of these companies, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, is unlikely to survive without a large short-term increase in revenues, but there is not the slightest evidence that the US is contemplating setting or changing invasion timing on THEIR behalf.)
/Strange Interlude
Sure, oil’s a factor, from providing Saddam the money that he needed to work his mischief on his citizens and neighbors, to the fact that the loss of the 50% of our crude imported daily would instantly turn all those SUV’s into garden sheds, but cripes, let’s get a grip.