we have all wondered why the u.s. invaded iraq. the control of oil is the number one reason given. but is it the physical control of oil or the financial control of it?
saddam never said he was going to stop selling oil to the u.s. or anyone else. in fact he wanted to modernize iraq’s oil facilities so that iraq could sell as much as possible.
which would have eventually caused a glut of oil and lowered its price.
my question: is oil selling at a high price somehow essential to the function of america’s economy?
could it be that america’s economy is in such dire shape that its economic and part of its politial leadership decided that a prolonged war in the oil region was the only way to raise the price of oil and prevent, at least temporarily, sever and immediate financial problems for america?
i have much more to say but i need and want your opinion on those questions first.
thanks, dave
Well, your question makes the assumption that our leaders are doing what they do because it will benefit the country in some way.
I don’t agree with that assertion.
My opinion is that they are doing what is best for themselves and their friends in big oil. High oil prices make it so that not only can the oil companies sell gas and other oil products at higher prices, but they will also get heavier government subsidies to help them through these tough times of expensive oil.
In addition, getting involved in a long war in the middle east provides a reason to pump near endless dollars into the military industrial complex, which is in the personal financial interest of many in the administration.
Basically, the war is an apparatus being used to pump money out of the American taxpayer and into the pockets of the oil industry and military contractors.
At least, that’s what I think.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t those that do believe that this is good foreign policy (see: PNAC), but money trumps ideology just about every time.
Absolutely agreed, ej. Erase that first assumption & the picture clarifies enormously.
All that was necessary, really, to put this grand plan into full effect was to install GWB in 2000; 2004 instituted his legitimacy (though marginally).
wilderness, the mystery of gwb’s installation is – WHY?
the clinton regime marked a period of incredible economic gain in america. al gore was not a socialist who was going to redistribute the immense corporate profits made. so why did the corporations fund gwb’s election bid?
why did they want to replace the regime that had brought two terms of prosperity?
excellent points ejmw. but there is the interesting fact that during the entire reagan/bush regime (or bush/reagan truth be told) there was an 8 year war between iraq and iran which raised oil prices above normal. then during bush sr’s sole term there was another war, the 1st gulf war which saddam was suckered into, which again raised prices above normal.
i don’t see those events as random coincidences.
and of course here we are now, another bush in office and elevated oil prices. but with an important difference: at the beginning of the bush II regime oil was selling for $10/barrel. a godsend for the american and other consumers, but an absolute disaster for oil producer russia which had been bankrupted by the ruble collapse of the mid-90s. if you remember there were many news items about russia’s inability to feed itself and pay its public sector employees. oil was its only source of substantial foreign exchange.
mexico was also bankrupted during that same 90s period. that started the as of yet uninterrupted wave of illegal immigration from mexico to the u.s.
again oil is mexico’s primary source of foreign exchange.
both countries are now flush with cash thanks to the current run-up in oil prices.
forget no. korea, imagine a completely desperate very nuclear armed russia with its resource rich eastern provinces attempting to secede (which indeed there was talk of during the late 90s). and for good measure a failed and collapsing mexico unable to provide any public services and drug cartels controlling the northern mexican states. those soldiers in iraq would now be stationed along america’s southern border.
finally, those immense profits being earned by the oil companies aren’t going directly and totally into the pockets of their management and board of directors.
they, the profits, are funding the pension schemes of various american municipalities, teachers, nurses, universities and other investors.
if you think pensions are under siege now, where would they be without the oil companies windfall profits?
again, your opinion please.
Jerome a Paris over at European Tribune has many stories on energy including, “Countdown to $100 oil.” This the the link to the latest in the “Countdown series – peak oil is, like, so over. Not!”
There are many charts and graphs.
My take on this is that oil corporations have monopolies (it’s called a vertical something or other) from the point of bringing the oil out of the ground to the final products. What they do not own is the oil in the ground, nor do they have their own military. And, that is what Bush and Cheney have provided.
The sweet, easily accessible crude oil is being used up very rapidly. Some fields may have even peaked already. If you only had one commodity that the rest of the world had an interest in, would you give it away as fast as possible? Or might you seek to shift the “petro dollar” from U.S. dollars to both U.S. dollars and euros, moving toward euros as the payment form of choice and begin looking at those world economies without much debt and lots of money, like China?
Without physical control, financial control is vulnerable, imo.
Anyway, do checkout Jerome’s diaries.
Given that as long ago as the late 70’s, Wolfowitz was writing papers calling for the establishment of US military bases in Iraq, my best guess has always been that those bases are the primary reason for the invasion.
Hell if I know, but I think Tampopo and ejmw have it figured out pretty close. I’ll be watching for what you have to say on this. Maybe it is as simple as God told him to. You know he says God talks to him.