Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Media Tell Us About Iraq War-Oil Connection Five Years After the Fact

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted June 25, 2008.


If Iraq's main product had been video games, the media might have been quicker to ask tough questions about the war's effects on our kids' lives.
Advertisement

More than five years after the invasion of Iraq -- just in case you were still waiting -- the oil giants finally hit the front page...

Last Thursday, the New York Times led with this headline: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back." (Subhead: "Rare No-bid Contracts, A Foothold for Western Companies Seeking Future Rewards.") And who were these four giants? ExxonMobil, Shell, the French company Total and BP (formerly British Petroleum). What these firms got were mere "service contracts" -- as in servicing Iraq's oil fields -- not the sort of "production sharing agreements" that President Bush's representatives in Baghdad once dreamed of, and that would have left them in charge of those fields. Still, it was clearly a start. The Times reporter, Andrew E. Kramer, added this little detail: "[The contracts] include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today's prices: the [Iraqi oil] ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash." And here's the curious thing, exactly these four giants "lost their concessions in Iraq" back in 1972 when that country's oil was nationalized. Hmmm.

You'd think the Times might have slapped some kind of "we wuz wrong" label on the piece. I mean, remember when the mainstream media, the Times included, seconded the idea that Bush's invasion, whatever it was about -- weapons of mass destruction or terrorism or liberation or democracy or bad dictators or... well, no matter -- you could be sure of one thing: it wasn't about oil. "Oil" wasn't a word worth including in serious reporting on the invasion and its aftermath, not even after it turned out that American troops entering Baghdad guarded only the Oil and Interior Ministries, while the rest of the city was looted. Even then -- and ever after -- the idea that the Bush administration might have the slightest urge to control Iraqi oil (or the flow of Middle Eastern oil via a well-garrisoned Iraq) wasn't worth spending a few paragraphs of valuable newsprint on.

I always thought that, if Iraq's main product had been video games, sometime in the last five years the Times (and other major papers) would have had really tough, thoughtful pieces, asking really tough, thoughtful questions, about the effects of the invasion and ensuing chaos on our children's lives and the like. But oil, well... After all, with global demand for energy on the rise, why would anybody want to invade, conquer, occupy, and garrison a country that, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once observed, "floats on a sea of oil"?

And let's be fair. At the time of the impending invasion, reasonable people couldn't possibly have imagined that it had anything to do with oil, not while George W. Bush was politely ignoring the subject, except when referring obliquely to Iraq's "patrimony" of "natural resources." Forget that our President had had an 11-year career in the energy business (and had been Arbusto-ed); or that his Vice President had been the CEO of a giant energy services corporation, Halliburton -- retiring during the presidential campaign of 2000 with a $34 million severance package; or that, back in those distant years, he had not hesitated to talk about the necessity of getting a tad more oil into the international pipeline. (As he told an oil industry crowd back in 1999, "By some estimates there will be an average of two percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?" Where indeed? He then answered his own question: "While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.")


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, oil, iraq war

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture.

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

Advertisement
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:
No New News Here
Posted by: AndyF on Jun 25, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The use of war to secure oil for US use has been reported up to and through-out the Iraq war and has been an explicit component of US foreign policy since Carter. What has been lacking is any real effort on the part of politicians to have a real policy debate which would bring the issue front and center. Our news media focuses on conflict and human interest stories and if there isn't any political conflict over US policy the media doesn't cover it.

The Democratic party's unparalleled lack of backbone over the past eight years has guaranteed that the Bush administration gets away with anything, because the Democrats have never called the administration to account.

If you want to blame anyone for this policy debacle, blame our political class, especially the Democrats who have aided and abetted the Bush Administration every step of the way with their cynical politics, avoidance of controversy and unwillingness to do anything which might have any short-term negative consequences to either their re-election prospects or their planned retirement career as high dollar lobbyists.

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

Everything settled down nicely
Posted by: lesterliu on Jun 25, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yeah, yeah, just whine about it. just criticise the stupid government as they trashed another non 'democratic' country, so everyone of you can get rid of your guilty conscience and let the government be the scapegoat for every wrong turn in the century.

Afterall, non of you choose to cash in on this opportunity right? it was all prearranged by ur government. So everyone can drive a oil gushing SUV while cursing the government for not doing enough in Iraq. we have been blissfully ignorant of the reality? just blame the censorship. Just keep up with the blaming game, or you wont be part of the trendy liberal movement anymore!

a million civilian dead? oh thats arguable true. oh theres coffins coming off military planes, that must be a aweful scenes for many people, so we are justified to censor them.
Dead civilians on front page maybe too horrifying? lets get rid of them all together.

We are willfully filtering the informations that have the potential of harming our self wellbeing. this is another self-defence mechanism working unconsciously.Its all justified, why not?

this is our humanity all capable of.

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

Operation Iraqi Liberation
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jun 25, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oops!

At the last moment the Bush Administration had to change the name to Operation Iraqi Freedom, just to make sure that no one would think it had anything to do with OIL.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not this is actually true, but it sounds about right.

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

Zimbabwe
Posted by: desidid on Jun 25, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The perfect example of our war for oil policies. Yesterday it was widely reported that our nation will not do a preemptive strike against Mugabe because, his country doesn't have oil. The same corporate interest who instigated the war in Vietnam are behind this war. There are enough Americans, who must have been dropped on their heads at birth, who will swallow anything. They are our undoing. Yesterday I saw a friend at the grocery store, she is a bumped head baby, she was talking about the necessity for us to go into Iran. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's suicidal.

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

» RE: Zimbabwe Posted by: eager-to-learn
Video games are more fun than playing with oil.
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler on Jun 25, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If Iraq's main product had been video games, the media might have been quicker to ask tough questions about the war's effects on our kids' lives."

Nope. After all, they're both visually disoriented... Whoops! "Dis" that.

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

Now that the oil companies will have control of "our" oil in Iraq
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Jun 25, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!! Really.
McCain says we will have to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Our military will have to stay until the oil runs out. Only then can we come home. A better way would be for the oil companies to hire Blackwater out of their obscene profits. Keep Blackwater over there so they won't attack us here! Bring our military home from all over the world.

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

Lack of "reason" is in the media.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jun 25, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read..."At the time of the impending invasion, reasonable people couldn't possibly have imagined that it had anything to do with oil..."

Well I consider myself reasonable...and for the record I thought it was about the oil from day one.

Perhaps the problem is a lack of reasonable people in the media.

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

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream? from Jane's Intelligence Digest
Posted by: Forrest on Jun 25, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.janes.com/security/international_
security/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

16 April 2003

Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.

An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.

To resume supplies from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through whose territory it would be likely to run. Paritzky's ministry was reported to have said on 9 April that it would hold discussions with Jordanian authorities on resuming oil supplies from Mosul, with one source saying the Jordanians were "optimistic". Jordan, aware of the deep political sensitivities involved, immediately denied there were any such talks.

Paritzky said he was certain the USA would respond favourably to the idea of resurrecting the pipeline. Indeed, according to Western diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with Iraqi opposition groups.

It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.

All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill.

US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA.

Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment.

The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective.

477 of 983 words
End of non-subscriber extract

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

» So who didn't know this? Posted by: donl51
And, you're suprised by this
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 25, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone willing to think realized this was the reason for the invasion. That the MSM finally decided to write the story down in black & white about time, of course deep down they knew this. This is why the Iraqi government won't vote for the oil policy. It would strip the government of any legitimacy, throw the Iraqi people into turmoil (like they need more), and allow the crooks that currently run this country and their cronies to rake in profits the likes of which would be able to take the government out of debt.I say good, I hope the Iraqi government continues to stall into 2009 - I mean what are we going to do bomb them (even more). You know I think what people need to realize is this: let's say you are the bully on the block. You beat and harass your neighbors, you go into their homes un-welcomed, you overstay when they want you to leave, you're just a real a-whole at what point do you not understand when one of those neighbors decides that enough is enough and he's just not going to take it anymore and he beats you senseless. Now can you really get mad at him, the nerve?
Maybe it's something we should think about?

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

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jun 25, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom we knew this a long time ago.Wake up.

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

Time To Hit Back At Big Oil?
Posted by: gandhi on Jun 25, 2008 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about this as a practical form of civil disobedience:

Next time you fill your tank with gas, just drive away without paying.

I saw this rather strange little idea in a local paper's editorial the other day. I was kinda surprised, because the paper is normally right-wing. Were they just trying to stir up trouble? Why?

The more I think about it, however, the more I think that a widespread campaign like this - or even just a spontaneous outbreak of individual actions - could actually be quite effective. Of course the local fuel retailers would complain that THEY are the ones being targetted, not Big Oil. If the campaign became widespread, the local retailers would have to either shut down or push up prices, triggering even more consumer anger.

If you accept that it is oil speculators who are currently responsible for high oil prices, then would this sort of pressure not have a net negative effect on such speculation? Wouldn't speculators be scared off? Wouldn't Big Oil be pressured to cut prices? Wouldn't politicians be inclined to criticize those who break the law, but also be under pressure to express sympathy with public anger and search for ways to resolve it?

Just to be clear: I am not personally advocating this sort of civil disobedience (yet), just wondering what other AlterNet readers think of the idea.

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

» RE: Time To Hit Back At Big Oil? Posted by: BigElectricCat