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
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.

War on Iraq

Hard to Deny: Iraq Is All About the Oil

By Michael Schwartz, Tomdispatch.com. Posted May 8, 2007.


How the U.S. is working to secure Iraq's oil -- one of the most important sources of petrochemical energy on the planet -- and how the Iraqis are resisting.
Advertisement

The following is a story by Michael Schwartz with an introduction by Tom Engelhardt.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, oil was seldom mentioned. Yes, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz did describe the country as afloat "on a sea of oil" (which might fund any American war and reconstruction program there); and, yes, on rare occasions, the President did speak reverentially of preserving "the patrimony of the people of Iraq" -- by which he meant not cuneiform tablets or ancient statues in the National Museum in Baghdad, but the country's vast oil reserves, known and suspected. And yes, oil did make it prominently onto the signs of war protestors at home and abroad.

Everybody who was anybody in Washington and the media, not to speak of the punditocracy and think-tank-ocracy of our nation knew, however, that those bobbing signs among the millions of antiwar demonstrators that said "No Blood for Oil" were just so simplistic, if not utterly simpleminded. Oil news, as was only proper, was generally relegated to the business pages of our papers, or even more properly -- since it was at best but one modest factor among so very many in Bush administration calculations -- roundly ignored.

Admittedly, the first "reconstruction" contract the administration issued was to Halliburton to rescue that country's "patrimony," its oil fields, from potential self-destruction during the invasion, and the key instructions -- possibly just about the only instructions -- issued to U.S. troops after taking Baghdad were to guard the Oil Ministry. Then again, everyone knew this crew had their idiosyncrasies.

Ever since, oil has played a remarkably small part in the consideration of, coverage of, or retrospective assessments of the invasion, occupation, and war in Iraq (unless you lived on the Internet). To give but a single example, the index to Thomas E. Ricks' almost 500-page bestseller, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, has but a single relevant entry: "oil exports and postwar reconstruction, Wolfowitz on, 98."

Yet today, every leading politician of either party is strangely convinced that the key "benchmark" the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must pass to prove its mettle is the onerous oil law, now stalled in Parliament, that has been forced upon it by the Bush administration. In the piece below, Tomdispatch regular Michael Schwartz follows the oil slicks deep into the Gulf of Catastrophe in Iraq. He offers a sweeping view of the role oil, the prize of prizes in Iraq, has played in Bush administration considerations and what role the new oil law is likely to play in that country's future. -- Tom Engelhardt

***

The struggle over Iraqi oil has been going on for a long, long time. One could date it back to 1980 when President Jimmy Carter -- before his Habitat for Humanity days -- declared that Persian Gulf oil was "vital" to American national interests. So vital was it, he announced, that the U.S. would use "any means necessary, including military force" to sustain access to it. Soon afterwards, he announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, a new military command structure that would eventually develop into United States Central Command (Centcom) and give future presidents the ability to intervene relatively quickly and massively in the region.

Or we could date it all the way back to World War II, when British officials declared Middle Eastern oil "a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination," and U.S. officials seconded the thought, calling it "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

The date when the struggle for Iraqi oil began is less critical than our ability to trace the ever growing willingness to use "any means necessary" to control such a "vital prize" into the present. We know, for example, that, before and after he ascended to the Vice-Presidency, Dick Cheney has had his eye squarely on the prize. In 1999, for example, he told the Institute of Petroleum Engineers that, when it came to satisfying the exploding demand for oil, "the Middle East, with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

The mysterious Energy Task Force he headed on taking office in 2001 eschewed conservation or developing alternative sources as the main response to any impending energy crisis, preferring instead to make the Middle East "a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." As part of this focus, the Task Force recommended that the administration put its energy, so to speak, into convincing Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment" -- in other words, into a policy of reversing 25 years of state control over the petroleum industry in the region.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, oil

Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.His books include Radical Protest and Social Structure, and Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda (edited, with Clarence Lo).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! 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:
The book that oil companies don't want you to know about...
Posted by: Pojer on May 8, 2007 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a way to escape the oil. Don't believe the propaganda against ethanol... it's not the ultimate solution, but it does NOT take more energy to make than you get from it.

Read a review of "Alcohol Can be A Gas" here

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

Money money money...
Posted by: Temporary on May 8, 2007 12:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a rich mans world!

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

» RE: Money money money... Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Money money money... Posted by: bison2
Excellent article, but...
Posted by: veronica on May 8, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really, a great detailed article, but I think I reflect the sentiments of everyone who has been awake and paying attention during the last quarter century when I say, quite immaturely, "duh." This is definitely not news to all of us.

What is amazing is the complexity of the planning. What is disturbing is the link between the war and Cheney's back-room energy policy meetings. What is not surprising is that we haven't heard a peep about the resistance of Iraqi oil workers from the US media.

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

» RE: xcellent article, but... Posted by: willymack
It's the oil, stupid!
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 8, 2007 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil? Iraq is about the oil??? Someone hand me the smelling salts!

That it was about the oil was obvious to every thinking human being in the United States (all twelve of us) from the day the half-witted little piece of shit in the White House embarked on the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history by invading the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Ask yourself this question: do you think for one minute that Bush, Cheney and the bloviating neo-con gas bags would have invaded that country had its main export been galvanized bicycle clamps? Are you naive enough to think that it was all about "bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people"? Are you so out of touch with reality that you believe that an administration that stole two elections in its own country gives a flying fuck about "freedom and democracy" in Iraq or or anywhere else for that matter?

Talk about a no-brainer!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

» RE: It's the oil, stupid! Posted by: bookie
» RE: It's the oil, stupid! Posted by: Gypsi
Old news. Some of it good -– maybe.
Posted by: HughScott on May 8, 2007 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For me, like most AlterNet regulars I suspect, the gist of Michael Schwartz’ well-researched and highly informative article was old news. But one sentence did jump out at me: “No major oil companies are willing to invest in Iraq now, no matter how sweet the deal.”

I can’t help wondering, Could that be the good news in Schwartz' piece?

Suppose after our troops withdraw from Iraq -- and they will, sooner than later -- the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds settled their differences. What if they got smart and told U.S. petroleum companies to take a hike? Would that be so bad for us?

It might just be the economic jolt we need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. America could start right now by restoring a nationwide, 55 mph speed limit (what’s the rush?). Something worth considering, I believe. What do you think?

Hugh E. Scott, the editor of King-George.biz, the ONLY website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

» Yep, look at Venezuela, or even Mexico Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
All they have to do is keep blowing up the pipelines, and they will
Posted by: xbj on May 8, 2007 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO way that there are enough troops to police every mile of pipeline.

They will keep blowing up the lines indefinitely. It's just that right now they're distracted blowing up American troops.

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

Elephant in the Room
Posted by: Malamute on May 8, 2007 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are none of the politicians talking about the elephant in the room, why are they not telling the voters they work for, that the Cheney/Bush regime is not leaving Iraq without the oil? When are we going to take to the streets and demand an end to this madness?

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

» MASTADON in the Room Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Killer Whale in the Room Posted by: apeshow
Oil
Posted by: peter1469 on May 8, 2007 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the war is about oil. Oil is a strategic resource. It is more valid to fight over a strategic resource than to fight over ethical issues. Most wars in history were fought over strategic resources.

The key to is eliminate oil as a strategic resource. If we can develop viable alternative energy we could marginalize the Middle East. Then they would get the same attention from the West that Darfur does.

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

Great Article
Posted by: guybjones on May 8, 2007 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truly the most in-depth article I've read describing the labyrinthine morass of chicanery regarding Iraq's oil reserves. I found the description of the IMF's role particularly illuminating. Kudos to the professor for bringing this complex story to light.

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

» RE: Great Article Posted by: mwildfire
Where would we be without the GOP?
Posted by: rabblerowzer on May 8, 2007 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How Much Iraqi Crude Oil is Being Stolen? Mystery of the Missing Meters
by Pratap Chatterjee

“The line of ships at the Al Basra Oil Terminal (ABOT) stretches south to the horizon, patiently waiting in the searing heat of the Northern Arabian Gulf as four giant supertankers load up. Close by, two more tankers fill up at the smaller Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT). Guarding both terminals are dozens of heavily-armed U.S. Navy troops and Iraqi Marines who live on the platforms.

Heavily armed soldiers spend their days at the oil terminals scanning the horizon looking for suicide bombers and stray fishing dhows (boats). Meanwhile, right under their noses, smugglers are suspected to be diverting an estimated billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers because the oil metering system that is supposed monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT -- has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Officials blame the four-year delay in repairing the relatively simple system on "security problems." Others point to the failed efforts of the two U.S. companies hired to repair the southern oil fields, fix the two terminals, and the meters: Halliburton of Houston, Texas, and Parsons of Pasadena, California.

Rumors are rife among suspicious Iraqis about the failure to measure the oil flow. "Iraq is the victim of the biggest robbery of its oil production in modern history," blazed a March 2006 headline in Azzaman, Iraq's most widely read newspaper. A May 2006 study of oil production and export figures by Platt's Oilgram News, an industry magazine, showed that up to $3 billion a year is unaccounted for.”


Is it any wonder that Iraqis suspect their oil is being stolen?

With Halliburton running the operation, does any semi-sentient human being doubt they are robbing the Iraqis blind?

Our oil companies are stealing the oil, but have raised gas prices in America to over $3 a gallon. That’s some serious price gouging.

We can thank the Crooks and Liars, “The Grand Old Republican Party.”

.

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

the wars over
Posted by: solrev on May 8, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Halliburton has already declared the Bush plan a failure. They are already positioning themselves to have a shot at the oil fields. There will be a lot of cash to be made in Iraq no matter who ends up in control of the oil fields. Even Bush knows that they made a fatal mistake by underestimating the Iraqi people. Bush can only prolong the war until he is out. Then in the future claim, I could have won but the devil would not let me. Bush will just disappear because of the complicity of all the American people who believed that Middle Eastern oil was a strategic interest of the US. Thanks to global warming hydrocarbon fuels are in no ones strategic interest. Unfortunately that includes bio fuels. We are going to exchange one master for another.

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

» RE: the wars over Posted by: leafsong1
This is why I support Ron Paul
Posted by: BJT on May 8, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know AlterNetters are predisposed to hate Republicans, but this one stands completely apart from the others.

Ron Paul was against the war from the start and hasn't voted in favor of it since. How many Democrats running for president can claim this?

Ron Paul is the only candidate I've seen advocate a total and immediate pullout from Iraq. Yet the Left doesn't even seem to notice him. He's the only candidate I've seen advocate the non-interventionist foreign policy that the Left appears to be in favor of.

Ron Paul votes in favor of the Constitution every time. This, every American can get behind. Watch his debate responses on YouTube. Pass judgment when you understand the details of what he stands for. (Just because he voted not to subsidize something doesn't mean he wants to ban it -- it only means he knows it's not the government's job to fund it)

So I guess the question is, do you hate this unethical, illegal and unconstitutional war enough to vote for the one man who can stop it, even if he's a Republican?

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

Stupidity
Posted by: LANCE on May 8, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think George Bush is so stupid he would've invaded Iraq if Cheney had informed him there was a shortage of chicken in Amurkah and we had to get Colonel Abdul's Bagdad Fried Chicken or Amurkah couldn't survive.

Bush is nothing more than an International Pirate like his Daydee and his Nazi Grandwizard-Grand Daydee.

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

Why the neocon plan will fail
Posted by: Democritus on May 8, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Major oil companies don't want to invest in Iraq. This is not surprising. They like doing business with stable governments, which is why they like authoritarian regimes, such as that in Saudi Arabia. Iraqis know this, which is why the insurrection will continue as long as we continue to occupy Iraq. Once they are "pacified," they know that their oil will be stolen; so they're going to keep fighting. What the neocon planners of this takeover of Iraqi resources forgot was that all peoples want to be free to map out their own destinies. The British should have learned this after the American Revolution. Our government, along with the British, forgot it when they turned their envious eyes on the Iraqi oil fields.

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

» RE: Why the neocon plan will fail Posted by: Lincoln fan
How much would oil cost if there had been no invasion?
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flashback March 2003:

The likelihood of war is causing daily fluctuations in major economic indices such as the price of oil and stocks. Analysts are fairly unanimous in saying that war fears are impacting negatively on the world economy. Indeed, every time Washington issues a new ultimatum (or, indeed, every time Donald Rumsfeld opens his mouth) stocks fall and investor confidence plunges.

Right now American oil reserves are as low as they've ever been, and world prices are now hovering at almost $40 a barrel – and could soon top $50 a barrel. However, the latest predictions are that in an extended war oil could hit $80 a barrel , according to New Zealand treasury officials. The potential effects of such a hike are hard to imagine. Yet even if oil doesn't go through the roof in such a way, merely remaining at $40 will cause major harm to the US economy over the next 6 months.

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

Yet again I wonder . . .
Posted by: Knowmad on May 8, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I posted this earlier elsewhere by mistake.

Oil and Iraq: As I've mentioned at least twice lately, what is it with your Democratic party? They rarely mention Iraq's oil, and they're not doing nearly what they could be to get your young people out of there. Josh Holland says not to worry about their possible complicity, that it would be "really bad politics" by the Dems, but maybe that isn't delving deeply enough.

Money, power and corporatism rule in your society. If mindless corporate goals dictate that you have to stay in Iraq until a puppet government is fully installed and the mercenary army is in place - so you can establish and maintain control over the oil reserves - the Dems, regardless of their supposed moral stance, may have no say at best, and may even be on board to some extent. Thus they stall and avoid and make excuses - while more innocent Iraqis and American kids are maimed and killed every day.

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

» RE: Yet again I wonder . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yet again I wonder . . . Posted by: Knowmad
» Apples and oranges ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Apples and oranges ... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Apples and oranges ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Granny Smith and MacIntosh? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Granny Smith and MacIntosh? Posted by: Joshua Holland
What they fail to acknowledge:
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. had an embargo in place against Iraqi oil exports. Prior to the invasion they were enforcing restrictions on Iraqi oil production. The author wants us to believe that the objectives of a policy that was in place for over a decade were opposite of the interests of our elites, and that suddenly they woke up and decided to go to war for what they had been blockading.

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

I'd say it's all about power - and oil is just a part of that power...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on May 8, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wars are creating massive debts and tax burdens, diverting money away from much better use, creating hatred against this country - thus reducing the desire to trade with us, and increasing the chance for future attacks...

The wars also create a situation where we have even more lying by politicians - plus they restrict liberty every chance they get.

Because of "war" they claim the power to lie to us, spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, monitor our bank accounts, and more.

All because of "wars" that were a massive violation of the Constitution even before they started. (because it was an unconstitutional transfer of power from the Congress to the Executive)

Thus, those in Congress who passed this power to Bush - are just as guilty as he is in the crimes of this administration. Maybe that's why the politicians aren't talking about the real root cause.

Over 200 years ago, James Madison warned us of the threat of war:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.


Sound familiar? This is JUST what we see now, and war IS the disease that infects everything else in our society....

Yes, war is about the oil. But the oil is used for greater power. So, if we really "strike the root" we must look to restricting the power of these politicians to wage more wars in the future.

A good read on this issue:

"Leaders Don't Kill People..."
http://www.populistamerica.com/leaders_dont_kill_people

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

» Try this point of view. Posted by: Lincoln fan
M. Shahid Alam: February 19, 2003
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is United States straining to go to war against Iraq?

The most popular theory on the left is that this war is about oil. According to one version of this theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to corner Iraq’s oil for American oil corporations. I do not find this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices...

There is another oil theory. It argues that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq’s oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that has drastically curtailed Iraq’s oil output for the past twelve years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections regime...

There is also a third oil theory, one offered recently. It maintains that this war preempts the Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to this system by switching Iraq’s dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC follows Iraq’s lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This can only be stopped by dismantling OPEC, and this demands war against Iraq.

An OPEC challenge to the dollar seems naïve at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United States and the world economy which would make the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory – if it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel...

Why then is United States ready to wage this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests? Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable to shocks...

These anomalies quickly melt away if we are willing to entertain a seldom-aired hypothesis. This may not be America’s war at all, much less a war of the West against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel’s war against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive skepticism. Could the world’s only superpower be persuaded to fight Israel’s war? Could the tail wag the dog?

Consider first Israel’s motives. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten the United States; but they are a threat to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions over the region... A Jewish state could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings, Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak, divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians continuously since 1948.

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

» RE: M. Shahid Alam: February 19, 2003 Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Cheney's the One
Posted by: motamanx on May 8, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the details of Cheney's SECRET ENERGY POLICY ever come out? I doubt it. They could not be revealed because they contain plans to get the Iraqi oil BEFORE 9/11.

So the 9/11 catastrophe was mere pretext to getting the oil.

Cela.

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

to get all that oil, they needed a pretext
Posted by: kellysgarden on May 8, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or in other words "a new Pearl Harbor." That's why we can't get the truth about the unanswered questions about who planned it. All the mock military games going on that morning show that the military is the tool the neocons use - not only to get that oil - but to pull off an attack on the scale of 9/11.

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

The best article yet on the Iraq oil situation!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 8, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) It includes coverage of the role that the IMF, the World Bank, and USAID are playing in the attempt to control Iraqi oil:

“Just months after the Iraqis elected their first constitutional government, USAID sent a BearingPoint adviser to provide the Iraqi Oil Ministry ‘legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment’…. The Iraqi Parliament had not yet seen a draft of the oil law as of July [2006], but by that time… it had already been reviewed and commented on by U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, who also ‘arranged for Dr. Al-Shahristani to meet with nine major oil companies — including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips — for them to comment on the draft.’”

This is more verification of John Perkin's excellent book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Bearingpoint replaces MAIN as the 'private economic consulting firm', but otherwise the story is the same - a story that the NYT, the WP, and the WSJ won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

2) It includes a historical context to the region and explains how petroleum interests came to direct US foreign policy (no, it's not the Israelis who direct US foreign policy - it's the international oil corporations and their Wall Street controllers... as evidenced by Cheney's Energy Task Force):

The mysterious Energy Task Force he headed on taking office in 2001 eschewed conservation or developing alternative sources as the main response to any impending energy crisis, preferring instead to make the Middle East “a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.” As part of this focus, the Task Force recommended that the administration put its energy, so to speak, into convincing Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment” — in other words, into a policy of reversing 25 years of state control over the petroleum industry in the region.

A number of posters have pointed out that this is not news, that it's well understood - but it is news to the majority of the US population that relies on newspapers and television for their news! Not one single newspaper has run a story of comparable depth - and you won't see CNN (TimeWarner), FOX (Murdoch), ABC (Disney), CBS (Viacom), or NBC (General Electric) running an expose on the IMF in Iraq, either.

Why not? Because the same banks that profit from the situation in Iraq are the same ones that are the majority shareholders in all of the corporate media conglomerates. It's not just oil in Iraq, either - they won't report on nuclear in India, oil in Africa, pharmaceuticals all over the world...there is a long list of 'do not touch' topics that the corporate media is banned from discussing.

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

M. Shahid Alam continue:
Posted by: rwa on May 8, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Israel’s contradictions have deepened since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings... In April 2002, Israeli tanks reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews, sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing through starvation.

This slow ethnic cleansing is only a stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic: their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won’t live under an Israeli apartheid, the Likud, with growing popular support, is turning to Israel’s second option. If the apartheid plan were to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948 and 1967.

But Israel cannot do this alone. This ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that only United States can wage. Israel needs United States to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.

It should be clear that Israel has the motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power to wage its own wars...

What makes this eminently possible is the way democracy in U.S. works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political lobby in this country works for Israel, led by AIPAC. There is scarcely a member of the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by AIPAC.

Consider some of the achievements of the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars, the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion. That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.

The official aid is only a small part of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel’s military R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel’s enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.

This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq. At present, there are several forces in United States that are pushing for this war. Prominent among these forces are... the arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However, it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby.

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

» Spam much, PR guy? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Spam much, PR guy? Posted by: yellow
» No thanks!, thoughtcriminal Posted by: werewolf
Tony Brungard
Posted by: Tony Brungard on May 8, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is in response to the idea that Iraq is "all about oil." That is certainly a large factor in our invasion of that country, but one of the other salient reasons, and one which has been referred to obliquely in the past, is the involvement of Israel or at least the American Israeli-linked origingal backer of the invasion. The Project For the New American Century was probably the primary political-social body storming for the invasion, and William Kristol and his cohorts--of whom two-thirds of the primary thirty founders and heavy backers of PNAC were American Jews with strong ties to Israel--seemed to desire Israel's security and prominence to be quite foremost in the rabid drumbeats to invade Iraq. To ignore Israel's 300-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is at best disingenous.

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

» RE: Tony Brungard Posted by: freethink7
» RE: Tony Brungard Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Tony Brungard Posted by: Tony Brungard
Oil majors at home and abroad... election manipulation is the norm
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 8, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good discussion of the methods that Bush's cronies at Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhilips etc. as well as the investment managers at Goldman Sachs used to lower prices right before the election can be found at How Bush's Friends Manipulated Oil Prices for the 06 midterms

The oil market had soared to record highs (over $US78 a barrel) in mid-July. There was widespread consumer anger at ever-rising bowser prices and record oil company profits.

And yet, by the time US mid-term elections came around three months later, the oil price had fallen a massive 20 percent.

And now, with the US elections over, oil prices are on the rise again.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. The big question is, how did it happen, and why?

First, let's look closely at what happened. Here, courtesy of Blogging Stocks, are the average weekly U.S. average price for Super Unleaded for that period (based on data from the Energy Information Administration):
Aug 21, 2006: $3.08
Sep 18, 2006: $2.67
Oct 23, 2006: $2.39
Nov 06, 2006: $2.39
Nov 20, 2006: $2.42
Note the low point of $2.39, achieved in the week just prior to the US mid-term elections, and held to the very day before the election. This fine tuning by US oil retailers was no accident, either...

The conventional wisdom holds that the US government cannot significantly influence world oil prices, except through manipulation of the US strategic reserve. But in a globalized world, that sort of thinking is sorely out-dated:

During a meeting in the Oval Office, according to [Bob] Woodward, Bush personally thanked Bandar because the Saudis had flooded the world oil market and kept prices down in the run-up to the 2004 general election...


If you want to oppose Bush, quit supporting him - find some way to not use petroleum products, and encourage everyone you know to do likewise. Bush is Big Oil, and he's more like a member of the Saudi Royal Family and other oil billionaire clubs than an American citizen - that's where his true loyalties lie.

The Iraq war was a criminal plot against the world by a pack of organized white-collar criminals, who all belong in prison. The very tool who was critical in providing the 'intelligence' on Iraq, Chalabi, was then set up as the Iraqi oil minister - but that looked too dirty, so he was replaced by a more neutral puppet.

The US oil corporations have blood on their hands... and when you fill up at their gas stations, that blood is running right into your tank - young US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, all mixed together...fueling your daily drive. Think about it.

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

Democracy??? yeah right...
Posted by: nise52 on May 8, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it was all about bringing democracy to Iraq, then why haven't we freed Cuba from the control of Fidel Castro (in control for 50 years?).

We could have sat in Miami and done a "shock & awe" while sipping a cool drink....would also have saved a lot of oil since Cuba is so close...

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

Left Unmentioned in this Article: Israel
Posted by: freethink7 on May 8, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not respond to this post/comment: ‘You’re anti-Semite – you’re anti-Jewish’, because the fact is, I am not. However, I am anti criminal behavior, and Israel is engaging in criminal behavior. Their human rights violations against Iraq (and Palestine) are atrocious with examples of depravity and malevolence. Israel is at the heart of this matter (war in Iraq). Also, U.S. is committing human rights violations in Iraq and they should be condemned for engaging in criminal behavior and violations of human rights.

This article says that the Iraq war is all about the oil……not true, only part of the picture. Yes oil and enormous oil profits are involved. Also, unscrupulous military contractors are making a ton of money – war profiteering at the expense of innocent lives. Genocide and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Arab people is also occurring on a massive scale. And the guards committing torture at Abu Ghraib: From both Israel and U.S. Several people from Israel signed PNAC (along with the unethical-unscrupulous Bu$h Cheney Inc. cabal).

Unless and until the issue of Israel’s involvement in Iraq war is fully addressed and realized, this war has no chance in hell of ending. Israel seeks complete dominance and hegemony over Iraq. Iraq is a conflagration of violence, torture and death of nearly a million innocent people. This war will go on for ad infinitum if the issue of Israel’s involvement in Iraq is not fully addressed. Millions more innocent people will be tortured and die needlessly for years to come if we don’t get at the heart of this matter and stop this depravity and malevolence.

Please visit these websites:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/columnist.asp?ID=6

9/11, Iraq, PNAC, All Roads Lead to Israel
by Ryan Dawson
www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

http://www.iamthewitness.com

google: Israel’s involvement in Iraq war (it’s all over the Internet)

read: Amnesty International’s Report on Israel and U.S. human rights violations (also on the Internet)

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

SJ
Posted by: SJ on May 8, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Details so well laid out. There is so little mention even in the left media of how many innocent Iraqi and children have been killed and the millions of refugees. While they, someone has to still be pushing the program besides just poor George, continue to cause more deaths and further genocide on theses peoples for their oil. While they also still move on to get a better foot hold on moving into position towards Iran and Dafur. America will be bankrupt not to mention what they are doing with the World Trade Bank funds and other international funds. The so called free worlds working class peoples may find we are in a depression thanks to the elite powers that control our goverments, the people always pay. The main stream media elite owners are behind promoting this Imperialism. Somethings got to give, will this be the fire the next time. The democratic party and so called republican party are just one and the same, the few that they prop up are always pushed aside. Both so called political parties are for the war and just differant means to the same objective end. This is why Pelosi declared impeachment is off the table, they wil help the mission try to be successfully completed. The genocide for oil continues. Are we shouting loud enough , can you hear me now! Communication lines are in need of desparate repair. A new inventive resistance is needed, NOW. The surge is on for what, a blood bath of Iraqi blood and more soldiers, as the occupiers manage to pit even Iraqi against each other to do their killing for them by divide and conquer. One has to wonder if the trained iraqi police when they drive into an area know they are transporting a car bomb, that is suppose to be of their own free will. I just wonder??? Are they really killing each other over the division of the iraqi oil revenues designed by their elected government. Or are things transplanted that way to look as such , such as the first incedent like our 9/11, the blowing up of the mosque. No matter it is still, Blood for oil.

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

» RE: SJ Posted by: mommy64
» RE: SJ Posted by: yellow
» RE: SJ Posted by: mommy64
» RE: SJ Posted by: yellow
» RE: SJ Posted by: SJ
If you still believe in Democrats or Republicans you are delusional
Posted by: gdonald on May 8, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing new in this story. Yes, Iraq was always about oil and protecting the dollar. WMD's, had long been moved out of Iraq before the U S attack started. The question should be, why has no Democrat or Republican held this Administration Responsible? The answer is because neither party has the courage to go against the corporate dollar. There are a couple of Democrats and Republicans that buck the system but they are marginalized by their own parties.

The problem is the delusional people that still want to believe that change will come from either of these two main parties when for over a century, our history has proven that this two party system is responsible for several illegal wars, heavy handed taxation, spending us into major debt, centralized banking ( a violation of our Constitution), social programs that are bankrupting us as we speak, and a host of other dangerous legislations.

The corporations are laughing at us, the politicians scorn us, and our Presidents act like kings and all the while the b