No. What is happening, in my opinion, is somewhat similar to what happened in Iran in the mid 1950’s (see Operation Ajax). It doesn’t matter if the Iraqi oil is sold to the US, Europe, or an Asian country, what matters is that US based oil companies are making the money on the sale, and not an Iraq oil company. Some royalties will be paid to Iraq, but most of the profit will be to the oil companies. So no, it’s not so we can buy oil at $60 per barrel, but so that US companies can sell oil at $60 per barrel.
If what I said above is true, then I disagree. Like Iran, the Iraqi leader that supports the US raiding of the oil will never gain legitimacy and will eventually be overthrown by the Iraqis.
Of course, you’re well aware that the oil industry in Iraq is nationalized and all oil sold from Iraq is sold by the State Oil Marketing Organization, essentially a division of the oil ministry, and that the revenue from those oil sales constitute nearly all of the operating budget for the Iraqi government.
Where do you get the idea that it is American companies selling Iraqi oil?
I didn’t mean to imply that they were. I just wanted to point out that an outside power could take control of a country not only to secure a source of oil, but to also control where the profits of those oil sales go.
It’s possible that it may yet happen but it’s certainly nothing that I could prove in GD. It is a plausable explanation of the need for enduring military bases. Time will tell. It did happen in Iran, and I don’t think the Iraqis have forgotten about that, or that the US and UK were the outside countries involved.
So, you don’t really have anything to back up your hypothesis, other than to favor the philosophical possibility that history could repeat itself, rather than focus on the facts that there is no indication that what you’re suggesting has happened, or is about to happen. Check.
Wow, by that logic, Japan, Germany, and South Korea must be LOADED with oil! Whoo-hoo!
Nonsense. The rationale for US military presence in the Persian Gulf for many years has been to keep the oil flowing. The oil goes to a highly fluid market, not directly to the US or US companies, but the US is very aware of two things:
The US is very dependent on oil and the US economy is vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices.
Disruptions to supply or even the threat of disruptions to supply are sufficient to make people in the oil business frightened, and make oil prices worldwide rise uncomfortably.
Even though the oil may go to China, Europe, or wherever, the US is interested in a constant, reliable export of oil from the Middle East. Memories of the oil shocks of the early 1970s live long.
Note: this doesn’t mean I agree with the permanent basing of troops in Iraq.
Would you care to explain why you think there is a difference? To me it looks exactly the same…the US was in Europe, South Korea and Japan because those regions were deemed vital strategic areas, necessary to our national security. The ME is exactly the same. Or did you think it was all about Bush and his buddies getting rich?
At that time the number one priority was containing communism, and in the case of Japan and Germany stealing their military technology and scientists. Today the number one foriegn policy goal is to keep the oil flowing. Sure we have bases in Europe and S. Korea for secondary goals but oil is still the big one.
Well, at this point it’s all pretty much conjecture, right? I’ll admit that I don’t have much, if anything, to back up my hypothesis. Of course, pretty much everything in this thread is conjecture, so I don’t think you should reject what I say out of hand.
First, and getting a bit off topic, is the idea that history, even recent history, has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I think it does, and I don’t think that it’s unreasonable that an Iraqi citizen might question the US interests in the oil fields. We do know that Dick Cheney, who is one of the chief proponents of the Iraq war, had met with an Energy Task Force, the agenda of which has yet to be disclosed. Did they talk about taking over the Iraq oil fields? I can’t say that they did, but you can’t say that they didn’t. The fact remains, Cheney did push for the war that lead to our control over the Iraqi oil. So, did he discuss this during the secret meetings? The smart money says he did.
Second, and again this is off topic to the subject of this thread, is the fact that the average Iraqi may distrust the US because he believes that the US is making an oil grab. In that case, the idea that the insurgency is led by Al Quada may be false. The insurgency may be led by Iraqis who don’t want the west to rob them of their oil. If that is the case, then every time the administration says we are fight Al Quada in Iraq they might be lying to us. So are they lying? I don’t know, but I do know that at this point I have reason to be a skeptic.
Look, I don’t believe ANYONE is telling the truth right now. Anything anyone in power is saying is probably false, or at the very least intentionally misleading, but what they are DOING speaks for itself. What we need to do as citizens is to try to decipher what is really going on. The historical precedent may not be an accurate marker of what is going on today, but it is a benchmark of what has taken place before. There is no reason that it couldn’t take place again. We can’t dismiss it.
I don’t believe it’s about oil (yet), but rather to provide a launch platform in that part of the world. Bases in Germany have been all but shut down, including Ramstein, so in order to launch a strike at the Middle East, we have to launch from England and overfly countries that may or may not want us to do so. Iraq is strategically located to provide air support throughout the Arab world, along with North Africa, Pakistan and India. Even China, if the need should arise. It would be a real thorn to Russia, should she become a bear again.
This is also why we are building the largest, most expensive embassy compound in the world there. If it hasn’t already happened, someone is going to land a $50M contract to build a huge listening post in that part of the world, staffed to the gills with CIA operatives.
Secondarily, a military presence in that area could insure that the oil keeps flowing. Nobody can possibly believe that the U.S. would allow that lifeblood to stop coming our way, as it would quickly strangle our economy. Oil is what keeps things moving and as long as it keeps coming, regardless of price, there shouldn’t be any move on our part to seize control. Anyone thinking of pulling that sort of stunt, whether by choice or by invasion of another country, would have to be aware of the possibility of near instant annihilation of their government by a large U.S. presence nearby.
A bigger question is: how is Bush planning to staff all those installations without jeopardizing our own national security? What will be the cost to taxpayers to build them and provide the necessary aircraft? And where is the money going to come from in a country where we have an eight trillion dollar debt that is growing at $3.5B a day?
The US has pulled out of its military bases in Saudi Arabia, as of summer 2003. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was one of Osama bin Laden’s longstanding grievances. So as Malodorous pointed out, it’s probably not accurate to suggest that the Saudi bases didn’t cause problems.
There are new US military bases in Djibouti, Qatar, and Central Asia as well as in Iraq, to offset the loss of the Saudi bases and to expand US military presence.
In theory, Iraqi oil is still a nationalized industry under the control of the Iraqi government, but this is not going to be the case for the development of new Iraqi oilfields. In practice, American (and other foreign) companies have indeed been influencing oil policy since the Coalition Provisional Authority took over from Saddam’s government. Their pressure for privatization of oil resources and production is reflected in the new Iraqi constitution, as well as in pending legislation: