Was the war about oil?

[Bromley]

We’ve all heard the classic anti-war slogan about how the war was/is all about oil. Even (Iraqi) government ministers have said so, so it must be true .

“The weapons of mass destruction is just an excuse,” says Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s deputy prime minister. “The Americans are after the Iraqi oil.”

And then there’s all the juicy restructuing contracts. And probably some other stuff that I’ve forgotten.

Okay, now I’ve always argued that this simply wasn’t the case. Oil may have played a part, as it did with Kuwait, in that if it wasn’t there then you can bet that the US wouldn’t be as interested in the region. However, that doesn’t mean that they’ve gone to war twice with Iraq just to corner the oil market.

Still, in many ways I’m arguing that from a position of ignorance equal to that of a person just repeating a slogan because all of his friends do. So is there anywhere where I can find a reasonable analysis of the cost of the war vs. the gains from present and future oil and reconstruction contracts? (Financial only - we’ll assume that the evil, faceless oil cabals don’t care about a few dead soldiers). It doesn’t have to be terribly detailed.

I’ve not trawled through debates (either SDMB or elsewhere) on this simply because I expect that I’d spend a large amount of time trying to figure facts out from spin.

I’d like to avoid getting it moved to Debates, if possible.

[Ravenman]

There is no factual answer to this question.

Clearly, the war was started for a multitude of reasons, but the degree to which oil – if, indeed, it was a factor – can in no way be factually established.

I will say as a factual matter, however, that none of the Administration whistleblower types – Paul O’Neill, Rand Beers, or Richard Clarke – has indicated a view that oil was a motivating factor for beginning the war. They have, however, indicated that there had been some early discussions or planning about oil as an issue for post-Saddam Iraq. Cite. (See “Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq” midway through article.)

[Ravenman]

Oops, forgot to address your request for economic studies. This was the most alarmist. It basically pins the total extended economic cost of a war at between $99 billion to $1.9 trillion over ten years (quite a range, eh?), and takes into account potential effects on oil production. Basically, the most optimistic scenario foreseen in this study was a $40 billion benefit to the US economy through lower oil prices.

In comparison, the US has appropriated $121 billion so far for the war and the reconstruction of Iraq.

[LemonThrower]

I will be interested to see what facts we can develop on this thread.

In the short term, I am not aware of facts that show it was about oil. The war creates additional risk that drives up the price of oil. Prior to the war, Iraq was producing a decent amount of oil under the oil for food program. Numerous commentators attribute recent spikes in the cost of gas in the US have more to do with foreign exchange rates and refining capacity than the war.

Long term, there is a better argument. Saudi Arabia is a major supplier and is unstable politically. By maintaining a presence in the region, we maintain some protection over that supply or alternate supplies. In other words, the US demand for oil is consistent with establishing a democracy in Iraq. Whether that is the same as saying the war was about oil can be debated, but I don’t think it is.

The war in Afghanistan arguably was more about oil, even though the non-oil argument for the war was stronger. This is because of a major oil pipeline through the region that was jeopardized by the Taliban.

If you ask the CIA, they would probably tell you that the US dependence on ail is a major security threat. I am skeptical. I mean, if Saudi cut us off tomorrow, the price of oil would skyrocket but countries like Mexico and Venezuela would boost production and the price would come down in no time.

[rjung]

While oil was not the only reason for the war, I do think it’s the dominant reason.

Start with The National Energy Policy, aka “The Cheney Report,” from May 2001. Chapter 1 talks about the “growing energy crisis,” which can be summarized as “the United States needs cheap energy sources for the next 20 years”:

In 2002, net imports of petroleum accounted for 53 percent of domestic petroleum consumption. Increasing dependence on petroleum imports is projected, reaching 70 percent in 2025 in the reference case (Figure 99).
–Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025, January 2004

Now, pay particular attention to Chapter 8 (PDF) of the Cheney Report, which emphasizes the need to secure foreign oil sources in order to meet projected increased oil consumption in the US. To summarize:

Under the Hussein regime, Iraq was a major oil supplier to the United States. It provided an average of 566,000 barrels per day in 2002, or 5% of total imports. Many in Washington hope to obtain far more oil from Iraq in the future. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Iraq possesses proven reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, more than any other country except Saudi Arabia, and it is thought to possess another 200 billion barrels in undeveloped fields. Iraq could become a leading oil supplier in the decades ahead, if a stable government is established that opens territory to exploitation by U.S. firms.
–Special Report: Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy

Iraq’s role is especially important given that Saudi Arabia is getting harder and harder to squeeze for oil:

According to the Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia’s net petroleum output must grow by 133% over the next 25 years, from 10.2 mbd in 2001 to 23.8 mbd in 2025, in order to meet anticipated world requirements at the end of that period (4). … Western analysts believe the best way to achieve this increase is to persuade the Saudis to allow substantial U.S. oil-company investment. The Cheney report calls for exactly that. However, any effort by Washington to apply pressure on Riyadh is likely to meet with significant resistance from the royal family, who nationalized oil holdings in the 1970s and is fearful of being seen as overly subservient to the United States.
–Special Report: Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy

None of this information is new; America’s dependence on cheap oil has been known even before the Carter Administration. Even before he became Vice-President, Dick Cheney and the other neo-conservatives at the Project For A New American Century (many of whom are now working in the Bush Administration) were already urging the United States to attack Iraq – onstensibly because of Saddam Hussein being a bad person, but also in order to “secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies”.

On September 15, 2002, the Sunday Herald of Scotland reported that the PNAC had drafted a plan to seize control of the Persinal Gulf region, regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein was still around:

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘‘regime change’’ even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a ‘‘global Pax Americana’’ was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: ‘‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’’
–Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President

Finally, to throw some gasoline on the fire, the PNAC admitted in 2000 that there was no way to make a sudden and dramatic shift in US policy towards the middle east – unless a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophic event occurred:

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year (1998), the group called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam’s Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round of terrorism,” according to Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War.
The Plan: Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

Some things to keep in mind when you hear Bush talk about the “war on terror” while he’s on the campaign trail…

[bibliophage]

This is more of a debate than a factual question. I’ll close this thread rather than move it because there are already plenty of threads in GD on this subject, including this one from a couple of days ago: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=250090

bibliophage
moderator GQ