Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Great Iraq Oil Grab

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 22, 2006.


The official reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq don't hold water. So, as the man said, follow the money ... straight to the oil fields.
052206_story
Advertisement

There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Pentagon planners wanted to name the invasion of Iraq, "Operation Iraqi Liberation." Only when someone realized that the acronym -- O.I.L. -- might raise some uncomfortable questions, was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" born.

Supporters of the Iraq war airily dismiss chants of "no blood for oil" as a manifestation of the antiwar crowd's naïveté. They point out that Iraq's government still controls its oil and argue that we could have simply bought it on the open market.

Both of those claims are true on their face, but bringing Iraq's vast oil wealth under the control of foreign multinationals -- with U.S. firms the best positioned to develop it -- was always central to U.S. plans for Iraq. That Iraq's oil will continue to be "owned" by the "Iraqi people" is what differentiates classical 19th-century colonialism practiced by British officers in pith helmets from the neocolonialism the United States perfected in the second half of the 20th century. The newer brand can be summed up like this: We'll respect your sovereignty and abide by your domestic laws -- as long as we can help you write those laws to guarantee our firms' profits.

That's the central tenet of corporate globalization. Trade deals like NAFTA -- and the agreements implemented by the WTO -- are designed to "harmonize" countries' domestic laws regulating everything from capital flow to food safety to the environment in order to make them friendly to international investment. In Iraq, that philosophy was taken to an extreme, at gunpoint and with disastrous consequences.

Oil -- the engine that drives Iraq's potentially rich economy -- was the prize that made it worth a full-scale commitment of American armed forces.

Oil lust

It was a prize that the first oil presidency -- the president, vice president and national security advisor are all former oil execs -- lusted after long before the attacks of 9/11. The Washington Post reported that even as the Bush transition team prepared to take power in 2001, changing Iraq's regime and seizing its oil were already on the table:

Early discussions among the administration's national security "principals" -- Cheney, Powell, Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- and their deputies focused on how to weaken Hussein diplomatically. But Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz proposed sending in the military to seize Iraq's southern oil fields and establish the area as a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Hussein.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told author Ron Suskind that Dick Cheney also supported an invasion of Iraq before Sept. 11, and the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported on a top secret National Security Council document dating back seven months before the terror attacks that gave some insight into the vice president's thinking:

It directed the N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with [Cheney's secretive] Energy Task Force as it considered the "melding" of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."

In her new book, “The Bush Agenda,” Antonia Juhasz detailed how, six months before the invasion, the administration brought in a group of oil executives to advise them on Iraqi oil policy (this occurred as President Bush was telling the American people that he had no intention of going to war). The State Department also set up a consulting group under the "Future of Iraq Project" called the "Oil and Energy Working Group." After some back and forth among the various consultants, a consensus was reached that Iraq's oil "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

But they couldn't just say that, or the war's proponents wouldn't be able to sneer at those unruly antiwar types. After the invasion, the administration did a yeoman's job of deflecting the criticism; Bush called Iraq's oil wealth its "patrimony" and promised it would stay in the hands of the Iraqi people. When all of Iraq's state firms were privatized, the administration exempted Iraq's national oil company.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Brilliant article
Posted by: nbrown on May 22, 2006 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo! This is an excellent argument about oil and other "strategic interests" in Iraq. Very well done, thank you.

This makes me wonder how liberals can continue supporting the war. Since the motive is oil and power, doesn't it make sense that no good will come from it? Imagine a robber breaking into someone's home and shooting one of the four occupants. A neighbor says, "finish the job," in full knowledge of the plot to steal jewelry. But the robber should not stay to finish the job because the job is EVIL!

Have a look at these Iraq war photos to see the evil of war manifested. This is your tax dollars at work. See it make Halliburton smile?

The only sane, human thing to do is to bring our troops home now.

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

» RE: Brilliant article Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Brilliant article Posted by: nbrown
» One Sided View Posted by: TWilliams
» RE: One Sided View Posted by: nbrown
» RE: One Sided View Posted by: sweetmorganlefey
» RE: One Sided View Posted by: Democritus
» RE: One Sided View Posted by: butabiscut
LIES EXPOSED
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 22, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the oil. It was always about oil. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq it was obvious to me, a high school drop out, that Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction. It was never about democracy. Since when has the United States of America given a flying fuck about democracy in the middle east? This is the administration, after all, that is only in power because it stole two, count 'em, TWO elections! Since when has George W. Bush, the authors of the Patriot Act and the tidal wave of human shit that comprises his administration given a rat's ass about democracy in the middle east or anywhere else on this awful planet?

It's almost endearing to see our commander in chief shamelessly scampering around the country trying to re-write history. Just a few minutes ago, CPAN rebroadcast a speech at a republican gala on wednesday. The hideous little bastard was desperately trying to pump up the base but, judging by the camera cuts of the audience reaction, alot of those GOP operaters didn't look very happy. As a a matter of fact, many of them looked absoutely demoralized - and why wouldn't they be? They know damned good and well that they're doomed. They know that the electorate, dumb as most of them no doubt are, are beginning to awaken from the right-wing coma that they've been snoozing under since they stupidly sent a brain-dead, failed "B" movie actor by the name of Ronald Reagan to the White House twenty six years ago.

Oh yeah! The chickens are coming home to roost, kiddies, and it's not gonna be a pretty picture. The republican party is as good as dead and good riddence to them. Oh sure, there might be republican mayors, supervisors and city councilmen in the future but as a international threat, the GOP is all but finished. All of us have to make a renewed effort to make sure that George W. Bush is the very last republican president. In his speech on wedensday, the First Fool actually referred to it as "the party of Lincoln". Don't ever call it that again. President Lincoln's influence on his party ended at exactly 7:22 in the morning on April 15, 1865 when he breathed his last breath. Were he to rise from the dead, he'd be working overtime for the destruction of the party he was instrumental in creating.

For a political junkie such as myself, it just doesn't get any better than this. The next five months are going to be very interesting. Oh yeah.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

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

» RE: LIES EXPOSED Posted by: solrev
» RE: LIES EXPOSED Posted by: Earthie
» RE: We're all as good as dead! Posted by: symcokid
» Yep but the Dems are no better Posted by: TWilliams
» RE: LIES EXPOSED Posted by: oldguy
» To oldguy: Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: LIES EXPOSED sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Behind Closed Doors
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 22, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been only 100 years since the develoment of the internal combustion engine based on use of fossil fuels. The region of the world whose countries have the largest oil reserves have been increasingly exploited and dominated in an accelerated manner parallel with the need for oil ever since. The British were the colonialists in the first half of the twentieth century and America became their heir apparent after WWII. But unfortunately our social and political insitutions have not negotiated the issue of conservation rather have committed to policies that are entirely consumption oriented. All this happens behind closed doors. Rhetoric and ideology become the essential and cultivated methods to feed public opinion. The difference between the real motives of those secretive groups who have the power and the reasons they give for public dissemination has and will continue to fracture the foundation of our country. The USSR ultimately imploded because they could not sustain economically the military force they had created after WWII. America has a larger military force now and it consumes our economy and will eventually threaten, as it is now, the infrastructure of our country. And just like the Russians the politicians of this country lie to their people, while suppressing the truth, and just like the KGB are now using security institutions to spie on and control its own citizens. We need to open those closed doors! I think we can handle the truth.

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

» RE: Behind Closed Doors Posted by: Tom Degan
neocolonialism
Posted by: rsaxto on May 22, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA terrorist attack on Iraq is simply the new neocolonialism which is mass murder for American corporate greed. Taking over control of Iraqi oil with colonial-built "laws" is the icing that supposedly will keep tight control over profits made from Iraqi oil. The United Nations should demolish this criminal procedure and free up the oil money to be used by Iraqis to rebuild their shattered country. If this does not happen the USA will remain the sick beast who murdered and stole for greedy dominion. Impeach the prime Bushies and give the oil money back to Iraq where it belongs.

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

» RE: neocolonialism Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: neocolonialism Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: neocolonialism...Thank You Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: UNCLE SAM NEEDS YOU! Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: neocolonialism Posted by: feller
» RE: neocolonialism Posted by: davewuxi
funny lefties
Posted by: BJT on May 22, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Left wing hippies are still clinging to the "no blood for oil!" cliche without knowing the bigger reasons for the wars in the Middle East.

Of course we went there to secure natural resources and profits for the corporations under government protection, but that is far from the only reason.

In November 2002 Saddam announced he would sell his oil for Euros. Understand that the main backing of today's US Dollar is that it has been the ONLY thing you could buy oil with. If Saddam could sell his oil for Euros, it puts a chink in the global demand for Dollars, and our economic hegemony (and perhaps with it our economy) comes crashing down. In response to that very urgent threat to the Empire, the Bush gang invaded.

Now Iran is selling oil for Euros. The Empire cannot allow that to last. Count on an invasion of Iran.

Russia wants to sell its oil internally for its own Rubles. In short, the world has realized Dollars are not in their best interests, since the US Dollar will be declining in value by about half in a relatively short period of time. Since the global use of Dollars is the USA's biggest foothold on economic hegemony, expect very interesting times in the years ahead as the United States turns from prince to pauper. Expect inflation to go through the roof. If you don't own any gold or silver already, get some. Prices are very low and will be skyrocketing as the Dollar devalues.

These oil wars are not simply over control of natural resources. The young American Empire is in a global fistfight and losing. You're seeing it throw frantic swings in the Middle East to keep from getting knocked out altogether.

Own some gold and/or silver and you won't get the economic rug yanked out from underneath you like the rest of America. Don't just stick flowers in your hair and prance around with peace signs and placards. You'll get smashed like everyone else when the next manufactured depression hits. Educate and prepare yourself.

http://www.house.gov/paul/ - this guy knows what's going on
http://bulliondirect.com - good place to start buying precious metals to preserve your savings
http://libertydollar.org - silver-backed currency so you can get involved in returning America to a monetary system that isn't evil

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

» RE: funny lefties Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: Earthie
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: Evoman
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: BJT
» RE: Fucking idiot Posted by: jdwilliams
» RE: Fucking idiot Posted by: Llama11
» Fucking thank you. Posted by: BJT
» Um, point of order... Posted by: Jesse
» RE: funny lefties sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: feller
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: indy675
» RE: funny lefties Posted by: jbloggz
Iraq is not as stupid as America
Posted by: solrev on May 22, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you are in the oil pumping business and you are running out of domestic oil, you go where the oil is at. The oil boys underestimated the Iraqi. The terrorists or patriots (your choice) will never let America succeed in Iraq. There is a silver lining in every dark cloud. The Iraqi revolution to come will create a strong alliance between Iran and Iraq backed by a Shia fundamentalist authority. This will stabilize the Middle East if they can stop the American backed insurgency to create a bigger Shia vs. Sunni war.

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

» Shiism and Oil Posted by: xaxado
Iraq has oil?
Posted by: crz53 on May 22, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh,
Nice article, but DUH!!! Anyone who ever thought that this entire clusterfuck was about anything but oil is either an idiot or a Republican stormtrooper. To get a very in depth understanding of the powers and interests that are really driving currents events - including Iraq - I recommend reading Michael C. Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon". It's huge, but well worth reading.
- Mike Lorenz

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

.....and I told you so.....
Posted by: Zemiti on May 22, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The chickens are coming home to roost alright, and yeah, doesn't take a genius to see that this looney president is taking us all towards global cinflict....as I said it here, I will say it again; the US will be in the middle of the next world war because of its crude globalisation ambitions....the Iraqi war was about OIL (energy need), as much as all the covert machinations in Latin America are to overturn the DEMOCRATICALLY elected leftist parties that controll THEIR own OIL (energy resources)....the sabre rattling over Iran; since when has the US given a fig about nuclear proliferation when first and foremost it has broken the very NPT rules itself?...as for democracy, PAH!, the assasinations and liquidations that went on in Latin America, Africa some parts of Europe against people who differed (and still differ) with/opposed US policies which did (and still do) not serve their own interests!...the jerrymandering in counties' internal affairs by covert means that have ushered in dictators and war lords, wreaking havoc and creating long lasting instability and internecine violence....sound familiar in this Iraqi invasion?....it was the OIL (to secure cheap/affordable energy supply), always has been and still will be for sometime yet (let alone the billions to be made from the mayhem)....the US public (which has been duped many times in the past) has to act, not talk and do nothing, to arrest this rot! Otherwise, next will be Iran, then we will all be dragged into a war on a pretext of a perceived threat only in the minds of these murderous blood thirsty politicos who use other people's children to fight a war they never, will never and do not have the stomach to fight, or send their children into, themselves!; all for some grubby fistful of dollars!! On whom does the honour fall, what honour [with pirates and thieves like these]!!

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

End the war - Please
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 22, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But let's not repeat the mistake of the Hippies. The Hippie movement was not only to end the Viet Nam War. It was to bring about a new era. It was a fight to take control of the corporate establishment. The establishment was the architect of that war and it had to be controlled.

The Hippies brought the establishment to its knees and ended the war. Their mistake was that they thought that they had slain the beast and that the people were in control for all time. They forgot the one piece of wisdom that free people must never forget. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom". They relaxed.

We will again take control of the government and force the establishment to end this war. We will again be in control. This time we should realize that by winning one point we've not won the battle. We must forever keep the corporate establishment under the control of our government. Under the control of a :government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

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

» RE: nd the war - Please Posted by: jobeob
» RE: nd the war - Please Posted by: feller
Wars for control of oil and expanding the empire
Posted by: jreinhart1 on May 22, 2006 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This war on Iraq is not the first, or the last for the control of the world's energy supply. Gulf war I was a fabrication and a first step to dominate this region. There were no Iraqi troops on the Saudi border as there were other eyes in the sky showing nothing but sand, and Bush gave the green light to Saddam via April Glaspie and stated that we (the US) have no intention in intervening in middle east affairs, a fact that is not lost on members of congress like Ron Paul(R) of TX. Again, it was Dick Cheney that created the misinformation and the Rendon Group that sold the war. Kuwait was drilling into Iraq oil reserves and would not quit.

Another US hypocritical moment is Rumsfeld. He was for Saddam before he was against him. The US consistently voted in the UN, under Reagan to ignore Saddam's gasing of his own people. The US also helped him, with other European nations to use weapons such as these during the Iran-Iraq war and after the Gulf War against those that Bush pushed to overthrow him. Juan Cole has an excellent section on this in his article "fisking the war on terror" which is available at www.juancole.com/2005/08/
fisking-war-on-terror-once-upon-time.html

If one want to know how expansive the American empire is, another excellent article listing US military occupation of other nations can be found on CounterPunch "America, Love It or Leave It" by Ben Tripp at www.counterpunch.org/tripp05202006.html

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

You mean to say that military spending does not make us safer?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 22, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in my day, it was called “gunboat diplomacy.” When you want something from another nation, you send your navy to their shores. Before that, it was called “world history.” It’s nothing new. It’s just that in a time of thermonuclear weapons, whoever has those can rob whoever doesn’t have them.

That was the reason the UN was formed after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, since the UN had no power to stop the US from threatening to use its weapons and the US would not give them up, all the other Security Council members had to develop their own weapons. The US alone now has some 3-5,000 nuclear weapons. When Kennedy and Nixon argued in 1960 about the missile gap (with Demo Kennedy criticizing Ike’s administration for falling behind the Soviets, a reality that was soon affirmed by Sputnik) the US had somewhere around a half dozen ICBMs.

Since then, the US always has been a threat. It’s just that we had not invaded other nations with whom we were not at war until Reagan. BushII just expanded the Reagan precedent. That makes us an empire in the traditional mold.

Welcome to the destruction of Planet Earth—not from aliens; look, mom, we did it ourselves.

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

» Very true. Posted by: jreinhart1
Backstory
Posted by: Arvy on May 22, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello all…
Found a link to a pamphlet published by General Smedley Butler, (at one time America's most decorated marine) called "War is a Racket!" (quietly ignored by 'liberal' American press).

Here's the link: http://ellensplace.net/racket.html

Please read it (it's an education to say the least!) and you'll see that the current "American Empire" is merely the latest expression of what has been going on since before the ancient greeks. Every war ever fought was fought on the grounds of self-defence. Even Hitler was "defending" Germany from Polish terrorism. The Japanese were "liberating" the Chinese. JFK was 'protecting' the Vietnamese from the Soviets (by destroying Vietnam) and the Soviets were 'liberating' Afghanis from CIA influence when they invaded Afghanistan (in the 80's).
Only EDUCATED PEOPLE can protect themselves from this kind of manipulation.
Remember: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

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

This is not news
Posted by: bookwoman on May 22, 2006 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As noted this is old news. Just after the United States attacked Iraq, an article appeared about the pre-Iraq meetings of various large international oil corporations where they divided up the Iraq oil reserves. They even made a map showing which company could drill in which area. This was not acceptable to the U.S. oil companies who wanted major control over the "divying". That has always been the reason for the war. Richard Clarke tells of President Bush stopping him in the halls of the White House on 9/12/2001 urging him to find a connection between the attacks on our country and Saddam Hussein. This was a set up from the beginning. The "mushroom shaped cloud" remark was a cheap shot, and the build up to the war was a cynical exercise working toward what would press the right buttons to get the most Americans to jump on board. The planning and the rhetoric went on for months. That is why the protests of members of Congress that they didn't think Bush would use the authorization they gave him is so empty and makes me question their intelligence and their ability to continue to lead us out of this "quagmire" which Bush and his people have created.

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

» Maybe not news but documented Posted by: Lincoln fan
America Hates Loosers.
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 22, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Bush has failed to "win" in Iraq. People view him as a looser.

The most of the public has not turned against Mr. Bush because they object to his imperialist policies, but because he has failed to steal control of the oil from the owner of that resourse-the Iraqi people.

Murder and plunder are acceptable by most in the public, especially the Christian Right, if it is of advantage.

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

» RE: America Hates Loosers. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Only 1/3 of the story.
Posted by: kryptx on May 22, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's obvious that oil played a part in the invasion. The rhetorical argument always says something like, "would we have invaded if their only export was cabbage?"

But the fact that Iraq controls oil is more significant than just the fact that we could take some to feed the oil companies and our economy. I think that view misses some important points about Iraq and oil. So, with that in mind, here are the three reasons that I believe Iraq's oil was significant to the United States in its invasion:

1) Oil is a valuable resource, which provides income to the government that controls it. The United States does not want a country that violated U.N.-negotiated ceasefires 17 times to be in control of such a valuable resource. As it happens, the Oil for Food program turned out to be a great example of what happens when you let a corrupt dictator control as much oil as Iraq has.

2) Oil is necessary for strategic endeavors, and Iraq is uniquely positioned in the middle east to help us deal with potential future conflicts with other nations in that area. I wouldn't be surprised if the administration foresaw these potential conflicts and started looking for jumping off points for military action in the middle east. Saddam's already weakened, he's violating sanctions, we can make it look like he's seeking WMDs, AND he has a huge amount of oil that we can use in the "real" battles with his neighbors in the future -- he is the obvious target.

3) See above. But as the article states, oil for U.S. corporations was the cherry on top. It just sealed the deal.

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

"No constitution was ever before as welll calculated as ours for the extensive empire" T. Jefferson
Posted by: brad on May 22, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article Jashua. It appears to me as if the neocons intended to hide their motives in plain sight, much the same as the long history of US territorial expansion. It appears so overly simplistic that it institutes a self reluctance to accept its simplicity.

The War can be seen as an extension of the neoliberal globalization project into an area that was unwilling to self impose US cultural, political, social and economic imperialism. The global system would slow when sections containing large natual resources were not aligning themselves with the dominant order. Territorial imperialism was always a project to instil the requisite "form", to construct and facilitate the further inclusion of resistant areas of the globe into the political economic order. What Hanna Arendt saw as the return to "simple robbery" to reignite "the motor of accumulation". The current attempt to colonize Iraq is in a long, very long, line of the falure of colonial projects. However, let us not slip into a slumber, the project of global colonization will continue through more "benevolent" means. The article and the many more needed on the same subject, can begin to articulate the undergirting drive and therefore, expose the continued project of US Empire.

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

Iran and Saudi Arabia
Posted by: brunowe on May 22, 2006 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember reading an argument online (unfortunately, I can't remember where) that the strategy also envisioned weakening the power of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The plan was to have a friendly (and non-OPEC?) Iraq with privatized oil production that could blunt the ability of Saudi Arabia and Iran to effect oil prices. Theoretically, such an ability could have avoided the spike in oil prices consequent to the recent saber-rattling with Iran.

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

Great article - on a topic the mainstream media won't touch
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 22, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When US soldiers first entered Iraq, they knew it was all about the oil. They named their first forward base "Camp Exxon". We saw soldiers stationed at the Iraqi Oil Ministry while the museums were left to be looted. Iraq has 100+ billion barrels of high-grade crude - of course it is about oil! What is amazing is that the US media can gloss over this issue while promoting government propaganda about 'spreading democracy'.

Note also that the world is approaching, if not already at, the peak of oil production. There are no reserves left to be dumped on the market to reduce prices - not that the oil industry is unhappy about high prices, as long as the consumer will pay and doesn't turn to alternative energy. Oil industry execs hate to talk aout peak oil for this very reason - if people switch to alternative energy, they will be left as the owners of black stinking goop - a "stranded asset". This applies to Chavez and Morales as much as it does to Saudi Arabia and ExxonMoil. However, in an oil-limited world whoever controls Iraqi oil will more or less control the global oil market. The PSAs are the planned instruments which will bring Iraqi oil under the control of the US military-industrial complex.

You can't get the mainstream media to analyze this issue, or even to do much reporting on it. The vast American oil market is at stake, after all - wouldn't do to upset the SUV drivers. Imagine if we all drove cars that got twice the mileage - that would translate into a 50% reduction in gasoline sales. That's good for national energy independence, good for limiting climate change and global warming - but bad for the bottom line of the oil industry.

The US corporate media is just that - a globally linked, heirarchically dominated system whose editors are so completely cowed by their corporate paymasters that they don't dare touch a story without permission from above. Pitiful, really - but also a serious threat to world peace and democratic principles. Bush could never have invaded Iraq without the media cheerleading and pimping him for months in advance. (note that the mainstream media seem to have all colluded to drop the domestic spying story, as well - apparently not as exciting as blowjobs in the Oval Office)

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

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 22, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
". . .knowing that fully privatizing Iraq's oil production would give their critics powerful ammunition, took an approach to Iraq's oil that largely flew beneath the media's radar. "

LARGELY flew beneath the media's radar?! In virtually every news article and commentary that I hear or read concerning the debacle in Iraq, the one word that is never, ever spoken is: "oil." To the media, this word in reference to Iraq is worse than referring to "plague" in the Middle Ages. It is obvious that every single "news" department has been instructed by their corporate masters to avoid talking about the 800 lb. gorilla sitting on a billion barrels of oil (oops...sorry...) right in the middle of the room. And you know what? It's worked; "The People" are now deaf, dumb and blind to what is right in front of them – or just do not care.

The article also mentions the fact that beside oil (oops again...), Iraq is at a trade nexus and has a well-educated workforce (ahh, cheap labor from an impoverished, vanquished nation once again). I've been saying this since the immediate post-invasion, when the media interviewed Iraqis on the street about the "war." To a person, they were extremely thoughtful and articulate, i.e: intelligent and well-educated (and who was responsible for that?) This vast low-cost but capable labor pool is something else the "mainstream media," and thus the public, has overlooked as a reason for invasion. Hell, even most anitiwar protesters have not caught on to this. (Oh, yeah, and don't forget that Iraq has a decent agricultural base for a desert country – something else we're going to "appropriate" through genetically altered and patented seed stocks.)

Why do "we, The People," knowing even a little of history (as one of the most poorly-educated on that subject in the world), refuse to believe that the invasion of Iraq happened for the same reasons as virtually every other war and occupation throughout time: for territory and treasure? Follow the money, indeed.

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

"Peace in Iraq isn’t in U.S. interest"
Posted by: cognitorex on May 22, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is now wholly obvious we will never pacify, integrate and/or achieve anything remotely near peaceful democracy in Iraq.

If history is kind, future writings will say the democracy goal was sincere, not just a cover to set up a puppet government to control Iraq's plus or minus 3 million barrels a day.

If the Iraq Mission drags out forever, we will control Iraq's enormous oil reserves, forever. An unqualified success in Iraq would cost the United States it's control over the only available oil resources with which to guarantee U.S. self sufficiency. Winning integrated peace in Iraq is not in our best interest.

The Sunni's and Shiite's are not going to set aside 1300 years of differences and dance with flowers in their hair. Men and boys, native and foreign, will blow us up as occupiers a la Northern Ireland, Palestine and Revolutionary America ad infinitum and not remotely because they hate freedom, which is patently absurd.

Our men from Texas have brought home the big one, the multi-billion barrel reserve.

We're going to have inflamed terrorists talking about our “mission" till the stars dim in some distant millennia, but rightly or wrongly, for good or for evil, right now, "We got oil."

Published Cape Cod Times September 30, 04'
# posted by cognitorex @ 9/15/2004

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

Excellent article but want more information
Posted by: MountainMike on May 22, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an excellent article. However, I would like to take this a step further to find out the full timeline from Neo Con think tanks to blue prints for our oil strategy to invasion. I am probably asking for a book. The picture I get is many people from Bush senior's administration were disgruntled with not taking down Saddam and his lack of cooperation with UN inspections. Some of the people involved in the neo con side are Jewish and had an obvious and understandable interest after the SCUD attacks on Israel to take down Saddam. All of this would have gone nowhere without oil being the driving force for huge corporation sponsorship. A detailed account of the process would hopefully expose a few people, show how sinister the process was and help us learn and not repeat the same process in the future.

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

What private property
Posted by: gladwyn on May 22, 2006 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What concept of private property are these manaical kleptomanics in the White House protecting in Iraq? Using Jesus as a bayonet they crucify the iraqis in Abu Grahib and grab the oil for the good old US.

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

Is This Paragraph Accurate?
Posted by: Wacre on May 22, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The principles embedded in the transitional oil law can't be dismissed down the road by Iraq's legislature with a simple vote; they were built into the country's Constitution, a document that Iraqis approved without having a firm grip on its details."

Is the paragraph above really accurate? I suspect that the only thing keeping Iraqis from considering the whole Constitution--or whichever parts they choose--null and void is the presence of US troops on the ground (perhaps another reason that US troops will not be withdrawn in their entirety anytime soon).

Besides, I doubt--even with the presense of American troops--the Iraqi people will allow their future oil resources to be, essentially, stolen by American developers. Now it is probably the American presence fuelling the insurrection, tomorrow it could be their constitution, if the Iraqi people consider it to be onerous. And while I don't know if the Iraqi people know the details of their own Constitution (many Americans don't know anything about theirs except in the broadest of terms, so this is not outside the realm of possibility) but I would imagine that such knowledge would be all that was necessary to turn the fires of insurrection into a firestorm of internecine warfare.

So, whatever the Iraqis choose to do--including voiding any onerous sections of their Constitution--I'd imagine that America has little, if any leverage to stop them. After all, at this point, what are we going to do, invade the country? Depose the government we have invested so much time, effort and billions of dollars to put into place?

I doubt it. Such a course of action would only destabilize an already weak government, give America internationally even more of a blackeye (if that's possible) and undermine our influence worldwide for many years to come.

The American hand, as it currently stands, is extremely weak, primarily because the only suit is force; and that card has already been played and proven to be inadequate.

As a nation we have little recourse than to let events play out.

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

Poor article. Typical "Start with the hypothesis and find the facts to suit it" layout..
Posted by: eocilian on May 22, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberlemmings are gaining a reputation for being short sighted and having very little knowledge of logic and reasonning. You're supposed to collect as many facts as possible and form a hypothesis from them, not form a hypothesis, taking the facts you like and discarding the ones that would crush your argument. This is exactly the same way in which racists compose their apologetic propoganda, only showing the bad things that black people do and ignoring the good that they do.

"PSAs are the worst possible deals for countries; in Latin America some of the worst PSAs gave domestic governments royalties of just one percent of their natural gas revenues."

Government doesn't matter, you complain about how capitalisms turn into plutocracies and the governmnet and coorporations merge into one corrupt monopoly. This is a problem, but actually supporting this government/economy combo in the form of socialism is completely hypocritical! The less the government gains from the company's revenues the more goes to the people who invest and work in the company and the more food goes into children's stomachs. Something socialists hate!

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

follow the money
Posted by: daviddorin on May 22, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you follow the money to the iraq war, dont forget the defense contractors and there lobbiests.

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

Shh!!!
Posted by: Erik1968 on May 22, 2006 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My worst nightmare is that Bush et al finally admit they went to Iraq for the oil, and then suddenly support for the war skyrockets because victory means cheap gas for us.

I'm worried that this will be Rove's "October surprise" that puts the Republicans over the top this fall as gas prices soar.

So keep it quiet!

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

» RE: Shh!!! Posted by: feller
Great Article, Wish WE Had Known Then
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 22, 2006 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see my site: http://www.stateofthepeople.org for my comment.

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

SANE versus INSANE
Posted by: Cathyc on May 22, 2006 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sane amongst us KNOW whats going on in the world today and the insane do not - that's why they are destroying it, ergo GLOBAL WARMING - which is the ultimate madness!!!

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

» RE: SANE versus INSANE Posted by: feller
I just explained. Government controlled economy = plutocracy/kleptocracy, just look at Venezuela.
Posted by: eocilian on May 22, 2006 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The go from plutocracy to socialism and nothing changes. People still live in poverty and why? Because nothing's changed except the leader in charge, that's why.

Socialism and plutocracy and both cheeks of the same ass! What we need is economic freedom and masculine liberty lovers who hate both the right and the left.

You may hate democracy and everything in it, but all you are doing is blaming people for human nature that exists in yourself aswell as others. I'm sorry I can't make the same promises as your god-like leftist bull poo sprayers and can't create the perfect government in 10 seconds flat, all I am doing is being a realist. It is difficult to override the evils in human nature, but at least those minutemen in the american war of independance tried to make a difference instead of coming up with some stupid ideology to control the masses and blatantly trying to become the new tyrant ignoring the self-evident right of all humans to have the freedom of speech and be considerred as equals under justice. It may not seem like they made much of a difference compared to today's democracy with slavery and women not getting the vote, but at least they were pointing in the right direction.

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

I see no problem
Posted by: TWilliams on May 23, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we get cheaper oil it is a good thing. these poor Iraqi perple were tortured and murdered under a madman. We liberate them and oil supplies are also secure. It is too bad the UN didn't help out but when do they? The UN is a joke.

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

» RE: I see no problem Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: I see no problem Posted by: feller
Liberated the Iraqis?
Posted by: YANIRA06_66 on May 23, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are the Iraqis going to acknowledge their liberation? I believe never. After all, not one Iraqi living in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion requested to be liberated. So yes, the invasion was about oil and making Israel a regional power.

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

» RE: Liberated the Iraqis? Posted by: Rod from Canada
You guys never left Vietnam
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 23, 2006 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Napalm in Iraq

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

reid Vinette
Posted by: Counter Intelligence on May 25, 2006 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May 24, 2006

US-IRAQ-IRAN War - Russia and Iran Oil Burse

As a US citizen and most likely to suffer from a drop in the American dollar, I cannot urge Russia and Iran to start selling oil in Euros and Rubles as soon as possible.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that the US Government is so completely out of control in the world today. The current US Administration is so belligerent and disrespectful to other countries of the world that I feel a complete collapse of its economic system would be the jolt needed to begin the changes necessary to fix this country's broken democracy.

For months, I believed there was an energy crises, which was causing the current US Administration to behave so irrationally. First they destroy the World Trade Center Towers and attack the Pentagon to blame foreign terrorists to justify an attack, invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Iran is in the cross hairs. To be sure the world is now at Peak Oil and oil reserves are now in decline. But there is no energy crises.

Many hard working entrepreneurial Americans have invented amazing devices to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas for combustion in an internal combustion engine. Their excitement to save their country from an energy crises has resulted in either their deaths or being paid to bury their devices. It's a crime beyond contempt.

Why?

Because the oil companies control the White house and US government policy. US government policy, the US military, and the public US treasury are at the disposal of the US oil companies to secure more oil rich areas of the world, which they can exploit for their personal gain.

The US government does not work for its people. Is not responsible to the American people. Does not care about the American people nor other people of the world.
The US Government only cares about ensuring that its benefactors the US oil companies continue to have a product to sell to earn billions of dollars, irregardless of the damage this product does to the environment.
(co2 gas and greenhouse warming)

This is the price of a capitalistic system, which is now severely broken. When a government does not have the best interests of its people and the world at heart it is time for that government to end its reign of destructive power.

There is no war on foreign terror in the United States, there never was, there is only a war on domestic terror. This war is currently being fought by the American people against their own federal government, to have it removed so a more responsible government body can be put into place.

A new US government body, which will embrace the welfare of the people and those of the world. A government that will immediately embrace the new water fuel technology and stop warring in the Middle East.

Democracy in the United States is only an illusion. There is no democracy at the top, only players manipulated by the oil companies to do their bidding.
The sooner the financial collapse of the United States occurs the better it will be for everyone concerned. The current US Administration is as much a danger to its own people as it is to the rest of the world, especially Iran.

I wish good luck to Russia and Iran on their new oil burses. I urge all countries of the world to trade in Euros and Rubles abandoning the American dollar.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the current state of affairs in the United States government be it republican or democratic. Congress is likewise corrupted by oil money.

Why?

It's the way this capitalistic system works. And now it's broken beyond repair.

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