Oil Wars and the American Military

[bemildred]

---

Indeed, Iraq has developed into a two-front war: the battles for control over Iraq's cities and the constant struggle to protect its far-flung petroleum infrastructure against sabotage and attack. The first contest has been widely reported in the American press; the second has received far less attention. Yet the fate of Iraq's oil infrastructure could prove no less significant than that of its embattled cities. A failure to prevail in this contest would eliminate the economic basis upon which a stable Iraqi government could someday emerge. "In the grand scheme of things," a senior officer told the New York Times, "there may be no other place where our armed forces are deployed that has a greater strategic importance." In recognition of this, significant numbers of U.S. soldiers have been assigned to oil-security functions.

---

The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of this trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American oil companies and government officials have sought to gain access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin -- especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is landlocked and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the West is by pipelines crossing the Caucasus region -- the area encompassing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.

American firms are now building a major pipeline through this volatile area. Stretching a perilous 1,000 miles from Baku in Azerbaijan through Tbilisi in Georgia to Ceyhan in Turkey, it is eventually slated to carry one million barrels of oil a day to the West; but will face the constant threat of sabotage by Islamic militants and ethnic separatists along its entire length. The United States has already assumed significant responsibility for its protection, providing millions of dollars in arms and equipment to the Georgian military and deploying military specialists in Tbilisi to train and advise the Georgian troops assigned to protect this vital conduit. This American presence is only likely to expand in 2005 or 2006 when the pipeline begins to transport oil and fighting in the area intensifies.

---

Whatever deeply-rooted historical antagonisms exist in these countries, oil production itself usually acts as a further destabilizing influence. Sudden infusions of petroleum wealth in otherwise poor and underdeveloped countries tend to deepen divides between rich and poor that often fall along ethnic or religious lines, leading to persistent conflict over the distribution of petroleum revenues. To prevent such turbulence, ruling elites like the royal family in Saudi Arabia or the new oil potentates of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan restrict or prohibit public expressions of dissent and rely on the repressive machinery of state security forces to crush opposition movements. With legal, peaceful expressions of dissent foreclosed in this manner, opposition forces soon see no options but to engage in armed rebellion or terrorism.

Progressive News

[Wright Patman]

1. I have read elsewhere

that the Baku-to-Ceyhan pipeline is already a white elephant. It is not economically feasible even if it were militarily defensible and invulnerable to attack. Russia has alread trumped the Western integrated oil companies in this game.

This may be another reason * wants to bomb Iran so much. He wants to disrupt the route of the economically feasible pipeline through there.

[bemildred]

2. Opinions will vary, and lies will be proliferated.

Building a 1000 mile pipeline through a mountainous war-zone
does not seem like the brightest idea, and the US boondoggle
in Iraq will not likely encourage anybody to place their bets
with us. Nevertheless, I see no sign we have thrown in the
towel just yet.

[teryang]

3. I don't think that there is any question

That it is the policy objective of our energy/defense industry government to wrest control of the Caspian basin from not only the Russians but any sovereign indigenous authority. Thus the area must be balkanized by American covert support of various guerillas and so called "freedom fighters" who are often little more than terrorists. The meaningless little balkanized entities are readily subjected to American corporate and military control.

With regard to Iraq and Iran, denying access to resources to others is as significant as turning them to our own dominion and control. "Repatriating" so called anglo-american proprietary interests in Iraq and Iran nationalized in the past is a major policy objective.

Another consistent objective of American policy is keeping oil from coming to market (while securing control of the source as well as the lines of communication) thereby increasing the value of current resources brought to market from other sources. This produces a huge corporate windfall and increases the present value of the spoils of the great game when brought to market at a future date. While such is not necessarily in the national interest or even cost effective, it is profitable for the interests that form the corporate alliances supporting the so called "American way of life."

[bemildred]

4. Well, the prevalence of the Samson approach does get overlooked.

Better to preside over the rubble then concede control to someone else.
And it is common in military thought. If you can deny the enemy
what you cannot hold your self, that is still a tactical success, and
a commander would be remiss not to consider it. But the military
world view is fairly dumb in it's own right.