In 2004 the US oil companies produced approximately 8.5 million barrals of home grown oil a day. We imported approximately 10.5 million barrels a day. The US has no oil reserves. If your in the business of pumping oil, you better find some other oil to pump. When the US oil is depleted anyone can build a refinery buy oil on the open market and compete. Better not let any refineries just set there to be bought buy potential competiters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would the USA have invaded Iraq if it exported only pickles and cabbage?

Any thinking person would know the answer is "no."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how anyone can be truly surprised that US leaders would make military and foreign policy decisions with oil as their guiding value. First of all, that's how it's been since World War I, when mechanized weaponry became a big part of the battlefield. Second, wars throughout all of history have been all about securing access to resources. This idea of wars with noble, lofty intentions based in human rights is simply PR and has no basis in reality. Finally, oil/energy is a HUGELY PROFITABLE business - our entire society would grind to a crushing halt without it. We need that energy, whether we want to admit it or not, and many of us are more than happy to pay out the nose for it. With so much money at stake, it makes sense that Big Energy would do whatever they could to ensure the continuance of their fortunes.

The idea just isn't that far-fetched to me. What, do we suddenly expect the robber barons to go Robin Hood on us or something? That's the impression I get when people dismiss the connections between oil and US military/foreign policy as mere crackpot conspiracy theory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I believe that this was Washington's intent (to allow American oil companies free reign over Iraq's vitually untapped oil/natural resources; what we generally call democracy over here), I really doubt that it will amount to a hill of beans when all is said and done because when the Iraqis realize what they have signed on for--and when Iran's influence grows even stronger--I suspect that they are going to pull a Chavez or a Morales on us.

Which is to say that they are going to nationalize their oil resources (which can only be prevented, I suspect, if the United States maintains a large military presence there though this is a somewhat dubious--and perilous--position because it will eventually penetrate that the American presence in that country is fueling the rebels. By the way, prefer to use rebels as opposed to terrorists because if someone had invaded our country I highly suspect that those of us that defend it however we could would be called terrorists) and kick our oil companies to the curb.

And the worse thing is (for the Bush Administration and whatever administration that follows it after his impeachment) is that the American public will be so skeptical of their governments' motives that they will not be able to reinvade (perhaps because the "Vietnam syndrome" will be replaced by it's more modern equivalent: The "Iraq syndrome").

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Josh, while much of what you've written is true (as you say, it's a matter of public record) it's just not correct for the anti-war crowd to declare that the invasion was "all about oil." That blanket statement strikes me as a dangerously incomplete explanation. Not only is it a (gross) oversimplification of what's happened, it also seems to preclude thoughtful debate and discourse. Certainly, strategic concerns and domestic oil interests played a role, the question is how much of a role? Maybe more, maybe less, reasonable people can disagree. Personally, I think that while oil concerns may have provided an acute, short-term excuse for the administrations actions, there were (are) much more powerful and subtle cultural, historical, socio-political and even economic factors at play.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article and good comments (so far)..

I think we (industrial societies especially) are in for
quite a ride when oil production peaks and starts to
decline.. Our economies can't handle that, I'm afraid..

In that sense, the desperate attempts of the US are
understandable, though despicable..

Another informative article can be found at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0505-23.htm

= The Real Oil Story: The Oil in Iraq

Peace and good luck!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep in mind that the goal is not always finding more oil, or getting more access to oil for our major oil companies. It's really about securing oil. By turning Iraq into a terrorist state, we have effectively removed Iraqi oil from the market. The potential risk of pumping in Iraq adds to it's cost, making our own domestic oil more economical to produce. At $70 a barrel, many previously capped wells in America can become economical again. Peace in Iraq = greater oil production = lower price per barrel = more capped wells in the US. In fact one can argue that higher oil prices are better for our economy. But what it really comes down to is whether you are primarily a consumer or producer/investor in the energy sector. Obviously this administration is heavily influenced by the producer/investor side, and we on the other side are paying the price.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There was no plan for Iraq only in the sense that things didnt go as they'd planned.

See some of the (volumnous!) plans going back to 2001 that Josh might have been talking about are here

Reports From the Future of Iraq Project - declassified from State Dept in response to FOIA request

Thanks Josh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Iraqi oil was previously in the hands of the dictator Saddam Hussein, not "the people." Hussein did buy some support by public works and welfare like all politicians, but a huge amount of the oil money went into his pockets and those of his friends. Can't you leftists see that government ownership just puts control of resources into the hands of another elite? I suggest that an Iraqi oil corporation be formed and shares ~given~ out to the Iraqi people. That would be true ownership and control. Enough fairy tales about how things would be a utopia if only we had the "right" people running the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's never so complex a task than to answer a simple question. The reality is likely there was a number of people who lobbied and "educated" the President and his staff on going to war, with very few (e.g. British History Professors) arguing against.

Likely the reasons had something to do with;
- Money (Iraq was about to accept Euros for Oil)
- Oil (2nd largest known (easy) deposits, hedge against possible collapse of Saud)
- Israel (reminder to Arabs that you have a body guard)
- Short term history (sense of job not finished)
- Geography (a great spot for a base or two or three)
- Politics (likely no, but yes if based on American currency (see above)) and sympathetic to US Middle East policy.

It unlikely had anything to do with freeing the people of Sadam, or bringing stability to the region as the best stability is stasis or "no change".

Depending who writes history, we might get more insight on the reasons for the war in Iraq, but my guess is there are too many facets to single it down to one line item. Certainly the risk of currency change over or neutrality to Euro from US created a big enough risk both foreign and domestic to make this a go. You'll note that "mission accomplished" flight deck speech was timed to this demise and return to US dollar exclusively for oil in Iraq and not the end of hostilities.

Simple question, complex answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first thing I noticed was how much this all reminds me of the Carter years. I haven't seen any lines of cars at gas stations, though, and apparently people are driving as much as ever. So really, the price of a barrel of oil is going to have to get much higher before any of this is "news" at the level of Carter.

Second, I totally agree that the Iraqis will not put up with being screwed in a bad deal, constitution or not. If they don't like the deal, they will tear it up.

Third, what does this sentence mean?

"Iraq has eighty known oil fields. Seventeen of them have been discovered. "

That is a mind-boggler. How do you discover something that is already known? Those kinds of sentences cast doubt on everything else a writer is puttiing out there. It may just be a simple mistake, no idea. But it's a HUGE simple mistake.

Fourthly, the price of a barrel of oil is totally controlled by OPEC, which is to say, the Saudis. Here's how they do it, and have been doing it for decades:

1. Slowly ratchet up the price of a barrel. Any excuse will do. Popular ones: "We're running out!" "Dictator X is on the loose!" "The White Devil is leaning on us too hard!" etc.

2. Watch in amusement as oil exploration in the US and other non-OPEC territory explodes. Old, bad wells get pumped again, new, bad wells get drilled. It's worth it because oil is expensive (for the moment)!

3. When many, many, many banks have loaned all kinds of money to many, many, many wildcatters and new exploration companies, it's time for the big trick. Just start pumping more of that OPEC crude. Cut the barrel price by 1/3, by a 1/2, whatever.

4. Watch in even greater amusement as the western world declares bankruptcy en masse. All those bad wells are no longer profitable.

This is important because the big guys understand this. You don't see Shell and Exxon falling for this crap. That's why they're making so much money right now, they aren't plowing it into new, bad wells because they have seen this five or six times already, and they know there is plenty of oil out there. Those big companies are just riding the cash wave, just like the Saudis, just like OPEC.

Of course we care about Iraq because of oil, but it's not the *Iraqi* oil in particular, it's the whole oil-producing region of the world. The good news is that democracy, even badly-designed, poorly executed democracy is great for Iraq and also great for us, because it makes the oil-producing part of the world more stable. There is such a thing a win-win situation, and this is one of them.

I have no doubt that a minority of Iraqis would love to go back to the days of Saddam, just like a minority of Americans would love to go back to the Taft administration. But, overall, their sea of oil is turning out to be a huge, lucky asset in getting them some human rights and laws instead of a very cruel dictator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, many an Iraqi can only wish for a dictator who kills his enemies in mass when they rebel. Yet, dictators do not starve a half million children, since they have to be selective on which ones to kill. Dictators do not destroy the infrastructure of their country, esp, that portion which will spread disease throughout the land,i.e. water treatment plants, hospitals, etc.. Dictators normally don't level whole cities, they may kill a lot of inhabitants. Dictators try not to stir up sectarian war and strife, because once one group gets strong enough they will try overpower the Dictator. Saddam was terrible, but it took several years at least 20+ to kill the number of people we have killed or contributed to their death in only three. Now if Saddam is guilty of killing folks for uprisings and he was the nation's leader, what are invaders and occupiers guilty of if they kill uprisers (insurgents, terrorists, Baathist, etc..)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warfare divides into two broad categories -- those requiring fuel-based "delivery systems" (conventional war), and all others. THE PRIZE by Daniel Yergin documents in exquisite detail how previous conventional wars were won and lost over timely delivery of fuel for combat vehicles.

For example, Rommel's North Africa tank campaign aimed at securing Middle Eastern oil (including Iraq's) for the Nazi war machine. It failed only because allied air control over the Mediterranean deprived it of fuel. Japan and Germany both lost WWII, quite literally, because they ran out of gas.

The Twentieth Century's World Wars were won primarily with American oil, via supply lines defended by the US military. With subsequently depleted reserves
Americans are no longer positioned to fuel a protracted conventional war.

In a long conventional war, the US would lose to any enemy controlling large supplies of securely deliverable oil. For anyone wishing to participate in such a war, control of the Middle East is a prerequisite. You must be ready to start the war there -- Hitler amply demonstrated the folly of considering oil as a combat objective.

Being a dominant superpower requires a "central command" from which vehicles suitable for a "long war" can be based and fueled. Such a base must be defensible, with round trip distances to targets matched accurately to real world vehicle cababilities (Hitler fell just short of of capturing Russia's southern oilfields because logistical calculations failed to take into account poor fuel mileage due to muddy roads).

Iraq is a uniquely sensible location, from a military standpoint, for a superpower central command. The oil underground is of such quality that it can be used in vehicles almost without refining. And many potential enemies are within easy striking distance -- a "target rich environment" if there ever was one.

North America, by contrast, represents a poor military headquarters for conventional warfare. Oil supplies are dwindling, and most potential enemies are reachable only through very long and vulnerable routes.

To the extent that Iraq can stand as the world's pre-eminent military base, it can have special benefit to North America by guarding many major tanker traffic choke points. But otherwise, why bother? Conservation makes better defense policy than combat, with superior security.

The US, by most historic standards, has few enemies. Setting up the best base ever from which to fight a protracted conventional war requires definition of an enemy. What force could arise in the future with such haunting evil that a country must be stolen and demolished in preparation?

Antonia Juhasz in THE BUSH AGENDA calls our attention to a merging of corporate and miliary objectives. We should well ponder that nexus.

What if, after all, the great war to be fought from Iraq is not between nations, but against a "stateless" enemy. Terrorists may be stateless, but in numbers and resources they appear to be small timers.

What if, by contrast, some great corporations, rising to a perceived "manifest destiny" implied by their demi-godly status as immortal "artificial persons", declared a new kind of war on mere mortals. This would be war on a grand scale. Homeric.

How could corporations do such a thing without their own military? Perhaps they could find a sympathetic "mercenary" force, well equipped, borrowed from an otherwise unchallenged nation, paid for in part by the hapless donor citizenry.

What would a rogue stateless fusion of military and economic power look like, were it to be concealed in plain sight? What ruses would it construct, what false rationales? How would the secrets be kept?

Iraq raises many unasked questions. The place of oil is a key part of the puzzle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rest, as they say, is . . . hogwash. The demise of Bechtel's Aqaba pipeline proposal had nothing to do with the first Gulf War. Iraq rejected the pipeline in 1985. The failure of the proposal caused nary a blip in U.S.-Iraq relations; as late as 1989, President Bush issued a national security directive to increase economic and political ties with Iraq. What triggered the Gulf War, lest we forget, was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. By then, the pipeline was a distant memory. (Jonathan Marshall)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Basically this article really just rants against the fact that we set up Iraq to be a capitalist democracy after we toppled Saddam, it doesn't even remotely prove that we invaded Iraq for oil. Of course we're not going to set it up along the socialist "the government owns all the oil" model as the author would presumably wish, like the other middle eastern oil producers; our whole point was to set up a capitalist democracy in the middle east to offer a third path, an alternative to the false dichotomy of dictatorship and islamic fundamentalism that pervades the region. Just to avoid being accused of an oil grab, we set up a national oil company (a rather socialist deviation from our otherwise capitalist norm) and gave it ownership over all of the existing oil fields. Yet the author twists that around as if it's some sort of evil conspiracy that we allow private enterprise to invest in and own future oil field developments!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's assume the primary strategic purpose of the War in Iraq was to secure access to oil fields and break OPEC, and let's assume that this action is in America's economic self interest. Let's also assume that when the decision to go to War was made, it was reasonable to project that life for the average Iraqi would be better after the American led invasion than under Hussein. Under these assumptions, why is it necessarily wrong, ie immoral, to invade?

I know you're probably laughing out there, but take this seriously. Can't an action be simultaneously for the actors advantage and the betterment of others?

We can have a seperate argument on whether or not the assumptions above were reasonable when the decision to go to War was made, but for argument's sake, let's just take the assumptions as true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is a Google--Israel + oil pipeline + Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Up in The Mix.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]