OpEd News: The Guerilla War for Iraq’s Oil (US is losing it)

[JohnyCanuck]

A war is raging in Iraq that will determine the outcome of the present occupation as well as the shape of future conflicts. It is the war for control of Iraqi oil.

Currently, America is losing the conflict in rather stunning fashion with little hope of reversing the situation in the near future. This week the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced that oil production “has reached a post-war low” and that the “exports of crude, which had run at an average of about 1.6 million barrels per day since the end of the 2003 war, dropped to 1.2 mbpd in November and 1.1 mbpd in December.” (Al Jazeera) All the indicators point to reduced production due to the escalating violence.

At times, the export of oil has been completely cut off in both the northern and southern regions making it impossible to capitalize off Iraq’s prodigious resources. The Iraqi resistance has grown increasingly skillful in sabotaging pipelines and facilities despite the massive security operations devoted to their protection.

<snip>

Currently, the resource war is concealed behind a propaganda smokescreen created by the establishment media. Their task is to characterize the conflict as a war on terror and to limit their coverage to the random incidents of violence by fanatical jihadis killing. It’s rare when the media reports on the real guerilla war that has subsumed Iraq and which will soon be reflected in a global economic downturn.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060102_the_guerilla_war_for.htm

Oh boy, if this analysis is correct, it looks like Rummy and his neocon pals have created the mother of all clusterfucks thanks to their hubris and world class incompetence.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Hey, at least they are world class at something.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. When will they get their gold medals?

Surely world class incompetence on this scale deserves some formal recognition.

Buying silence: Bush awards Medal of Freedom to key figures in Iraq debacle
By Barry Grey
16 December 2004

President Bush’s awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday to three of the chief architects and executors of the Iraq war is an affront to the concept of freedom of Orwellian proportions.

The White House ceremony that saw Bush bestow the gold medallions on retired general Tommy Franks, former CIA Director George Tenet and former US administrator in Iraq L. Paul Bremer for their roles in an illegal war and brutal occupation that have killed 100,000 Iraqis and 1,300 US soldiers could not come as a shock to those who follow this administration with a degree of critical thought and are genuinely devoted to the principle of freedom. Many people throughout the world will react, appropriately, with revulsion.

The Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian honor bestowed in the name of the American people. The dispensation of the award for overtly political purposes is by no means unprecedented. President Lyndon B. Johnson, for example, in the final 24 hours of his presidency in January 1969, gave out 20 medals, including to McGeorge Bundy and Walt W. Rostow, two leading Vietnam War advisers.

Johnson, however, used the award to defend his war policies on the eve of leaving office in response to mounting popular opposition and growing conflicts within the US ruling elite fueled by the worsening military situation in Southeast Asia. The timing of Bush’s awards, and the individuals honored, are clearly meant to show that the military quagmire in Iraq, the continuing opposition within the American population, and the increasingly bitter divisions within the state apparatus—including the military itself—will not deter his administration from continuing its militaristic policy—not only in Iraq, but against future targets of US aggression.

<snip>

The triumphant pose struck by Bush, the honorees and the assembled dignitaries in the East Room of the White House was belied by the actual records of the recipients. Bush heaped praise on three men who retired from their posts in semi-disgrace. Each, in his own way, had a direct role in what will be reckoned by future historians as major debacles for US imperialism.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/dec2004/mofr-d16.shtml

[leeroysphitz]

3. We are losing what could have been a secure energy source.

One that we have foolishly paid for with our dearest blood.

China on the other hand has recently secured an equivalent source through peaceful free market means in a deal with Iran...

Did the world just turn upside down? "Evil Communists" succeed via peaceful capitalism while a "freedom loving Democracy" fails
in an illegal invasion to take oil resources by force.

You know we are in DIRECT competition with China for future energy resources, a contest whose outcome could mean life or death for
the players and it looks like WE ARE LOSING. We NEED, desperately NEED, new, competent, honest leadership.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. It was more than just needing to have access to oil.

If you are Bush/Cheney and you agree with the peak oil theorists at Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) that world oil production is about to peak within the next 5 to 10 years, and if you believe that the PNACers and neocons are correct and the USA must do whatever it takes to permanently cement its position as top dog militarily and economically over all the rest of the world, then controlling the remaining sources of easily accessible, high quality oil becomes imperative.

It's not enough just to be able to bid for it on the open market along with the rest of the world. They feel they needed to control the oil and also control who gets access to the oil and on what terms. And don't forget it's not just economies that run on oil, military machines also run on prodigious quantities of oil. Abrams tanks and F18s don't work that well on solar energy and batteries.