The failed mission to capture Iraqi oil

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI22Ak01.html

It has long been an article of faith among America's senior policymakers - Democrats and Republicans alike - that military force is an effective tool for ensuring control over foreign sources of oil. Franklin D Roosevelt was the first president to embrace this view, in February 1945, when he promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United States would establish a military protectorate over his country in return for privileged access to Saudi oil - a promise that continues to govern US policy today. Every president since Roosevelt has endorsed this basic proposition, and has contributed in one way or another to the buildup of American military power in the greater Persian Gulf region.

American presidents have never hesitated to use this power when deemed necessary to protect US oil interests in the Gulf. When, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, President Bush Senior sent hundreds of thousands of US troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990, he did so with absolute confidence that the application of American military power would eventually result in the safe delivery of ever-increasing quantities of Middle Eastern oil to the US. This presumption was clearly a critical factor in the younger Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can have the very opposite effect: It can diminish - rather than enhance - America's access to foreign oil.

An occupation floating on a sea of oil

Oil was certainly not the only concern that prompted the American invasion of Iraq, but it weighed in heavily with many senior administration officials. This was especially true of Vice President Dick Cheney who, in an August 2002 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, highlighted the need to retain control over Persian Gulf oil supplies when listing various reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein.

[acmavm]

1. Oil was certainly not the only concern...

Oh yes it was.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Oh come on, it was all about protecting us from that bad Saddam.

:sarcasm:

[Sal Minella]

5. Yeah. I'm sure Saddam had been listening in on my phone calls.

[OneBlueSky]

3. "Despite the debacle of Iraq, most senior policymakers . . .

appear to retain their blind faith in the efficacy of military force as a tool for securing access to foreign sources of petroleum. This, as Iraq makes painfully clear, is delusional. Yet they persist in risking the lives of young Americans and others in their continued adherence to a failed and immoral strategy. Any attempt to reconstruct American foreign policy on a more rational and ethical basis must, therefore, begin with the repudiation of the use of force in procuring foreign oil and the adoption of a forward-looking energy strategy based on increased conservation and the rapid development of alternative fuels.

at least someone is making sense . . . recommended . . .

[leftchick]

4. Let's take a look at dick's Iraq map!

In his closed energy meetings, didn't dick have the map of Iraq all carved up for his oil buddies attending? I can only imagine their disappointment.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Oh you crazy conspiracy theorist. Stop talking like an adult...

and get back to the acceptable tooth-fairy reasons for the invasion...er..liberation.

[Jacobin]

7. Yes. I remember it as if it were yesterday

Bush* came on TV and gave impassioned speeches in 2002 and 2003 about liberating Iraq to make it into a democracy.

Congress knew how much Iraq wanted a democracy because they are clairvoyant and voted to invade them to make them into a democracy.

That's the reason we invaded. I remember it very clearly. All my other thoughts have been erased. :-)

[leeroysphitz]

8. Pause and ponder...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1317250

[Jim Warren]

9. Long Term, control

Short Term, drive prices skyward by removing that oil from the market.

An aquaintance of mine is from the Mid East and sees things far more clear than your average American. In a conversation we had over a year ago about the real bu$hco agenda in that region, he asked the simple question: What has happened to the price of oil and gas since the invasion?

His take is, yes, it's about oil, but not as the average braindead freeper thinks that the preznit is there securing fuel for Murika, rather a payback vehicle to the oil cartels for instant obscene profit.

[leftofthedial]

10. It was never their plan to use Iraq's oil anytime soon.

Their plan was to take Iraq's oil OFF the market and to ensure that it was not tied to the Euro instead of the dollar.

The rewulting tightening of oil supplies ahve given record profits to the oil industry. Now, they can milk maximum profit out of the world's remaining oil reserves.

[Junkdrawer]

11. By the time Saudi Arabia is pumped dry, they hope to have Iraq/Iran...

in the hands of similar puppets/business partners. And if it takes leveling a few US cities to motivate us to see things their way, well, you can't make an omlette....

[leftofthedial]

12. they don't give a shit about America or Americans

so no loss