Blood and Oil: Iraq is a Quagmire Because the Oil Industry WANTS It That Way

[McCamy Taylor]

Bush II has gotten away with lying (about WMDs), stealing (from the citizens of California for Enron among others) and murder (of our troops and Iraqi civilians) by pleading incompetence. Like Ronald Regan, he came into office with Plausible Deniability as his running mate. Dumbya is supposed to be so... dumb that he does not know any better. This week, we saw him proclaim that he has no use for benchmarks in Iraq---and at the same time he practically turned blue in the face because the Iraqi people had not kept the only benchmark he cared about, the one that would sign away their oil rights to US oil companies.

Inconsistent? A sign that he is a total fool? No, I think everything that Bush and his administration has done has been very consistent. I believe that their "mishandling" of the War was deliberate, and that the quagmire was designed--possibly with the help of Henry Kissinger who is also rumored to be an adviser of Exxon Co.---to give the US military an excuse to protect US oil interests in Iraq for many years to come.

Looking back at the War in Iraq, it is clear that a bunch of very level headed, focused people have been planning this colonial venture for a long time, for one purpose, to get Iraq's oil. When Neo-Cons like Paul Wolfowitz worked for Scoop Jackson, they were already making plans for Iraq's oil. During the 1990's, they did everything they could to encourage Clinton to invade Iraq. When Oklahoma City was bombed, conservatives used it as an excuse to call for retaliation against Iraq. We have learned that W. entered office determined to take out Saddam. James Baker III insisted in April, 2001 report that the US would have to liberate Iraq's oil from the control of Saddam if the US wanted energy independence. When the WTCs fell, Rummie wanted to use it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Nothing matters to the Bush Administration more than oil. Every policy decision is designed to keep the price of crude high, even if it harms the rest of the economy. That is what you get when you allow a party to select its pres and VP from the same state and industry. So, Bush and Co. were willing to do anything, even lie in order to justify an invasion of Iraq so that they could get their hands on some sweet crude.

However, they did not want a quick in and out military action. The point was not to topple Saddam. It was to create a country in crisis, so that the US could justify a long term military occupation. Therefore, they ignored the generals' recommendations of the number of troops which would be needed to secure and stabilize the country. They ignored warnings that civil war was likely to break out. They actually armed Shia militia, a move designed to worsen civil war. They secretly funded Al Qaeda and then moved US troops out of Anbar province, so that Al Qaeda would find a safe haven in the country. They made sure that the Iraqi people would hate the US occupiers by committing atrocities in places like Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. This would make it all but impossible for US troops to actually serve as peace keepers--never mind that it also made US soldiers the targets of road side bombs and kidnappings.

While the generals begged the administration for economic aid for Iraqi civilians to help restore utilities and health care services, Bush II funneled money---where? Did the missing money go to pay off Iraqi politicians bribes so that they would agree to oil contracts that would sell Iraq's oil reserves to US oil companies?

The scary thing is that Bush has actually admitted to the American people that his real motive for invading Iraq is oil. He calls it oil security for America, but oil company profit security would be more accurate. This, even though Exxon just posted another record profit. And this is the only excuse he has given for the invasion that is consistent with the facts and which makes sense. However, the mainstream media does not discuss this issue. It covers the battle between the White House and Congress over the War as if it is an ideological battle.

I think it is time for Congress to bare its fangs. We have been promised hearings into the lies that got us into the war and hearings into the mismanagement that turned a simple sweeping of Saddam out of power into a quagmire. I believe that Congress should investigate the role of the US oil industry in the planning and implementation of this war. Things to be done:

1. Haul Henry Kissinger before a Congressional hearing and find out what advice he was giving Bush and Cheney and what kind of relationship he has with Exxon and with the Saudi Royal family and how his involvement in the war planning and implementation may have benefited his business clients.

2. Haul oil company executives before Congress to find out if they were consulted before or during the War. In particular, did the Bush administration make promises about US military occupation of Iraq that oil company executives used in making decisions about whether or not to sign contracts to drill for oil in that country?

3. Haul the Neo Cons before Congress. Some of the ones involved in early discussions have died under mysterious circumstances, so they had better hurry up.

4. Find out what documents from Sen. Scoop Jackson's library were removed and made top secret by the Bush Administration a couple of years ago at the same time that the DSM were becoming public knowledge. I will bet that the documents had something to do with the Neo-Cons and Iraq.

Colonialism is the nastiest modern evil. That is what Bush II's invasion of Iraq boils down to---just another colonial venture, but this one even sicker than the ones from the last century, because Bush can no longer justify occupying a smaller weaker country in order to claim the spoils the way that the United States once could. Now, he has to have a reason for occupation. So, he has created the justification. He has taken a country that was suffering and increased their suffering ten fold---and will do his best to see that the people of Iraq suffer for decades to come, just as long as their oil fields keep flowing.

[eleny]

1. Like Randi Rhodes always says "In chaos they can steal"

[eringer]

2. What Will the Iraqi People Do if We Leave?

Dump as much oil on the market as possible. Gas price drops to less than a $1.00 a gallon. Republican Party disbands. End of story.

[whosinpower]

3. No they won't

They would want to get as much per barrel as possible....flooding the market does them no favors--let's not forget they have a whole nation to rebuild.

[heidler1]

7. It will take many years to develop Iraqi oil. All of the bickering over who gets the best deal

is just beginning. If say the Sunnies get screwed over they will blow the infrastructure up over and over. Same for the Kurds. We seem to be protecting the Shia, but they appear so inept, at every thing, that nothing is working. I believe this is why the Brits turned Iraq over to the Sunnies back when. Very likely we bet our money on the wrong horse.

I believe Bush wanted to secure oil for the US, but the details of his plan are totally flawed. I also believe the US voter would have balked earlier if they'd known it was a trade of US blood for Iraqi oil, so did Bush.

[meldroc]

11. He wanted to secure oil to keep it off the market.

You don't think Bush wanted to actually put those zillions of barrels of oil in the market, do you? That would drive the prices down - bad for that profit margin. Instead, he deliberately stirs up the death, destruction and mayhem, both so Iraqi oil stays off the market, and to inflame the entire Middle East to create uncertainty and drive up the price of oil even more.

That explains why we're paying $60 a barrel right now. Throw Bush, Cheney and the other psychopaths out of the White House, bring our troops home from Iraq, stop saber-rattling with Iran in the Persian Gulf, and enforce price-gouging laws on the oil companies, and before long we'll be paying $15/barrel.

[Burried News]

12. Saddam was a madman because he was pumping oil like crazy.

He was screwing up the OPEC Cartel. That's why he had to go. And if we didn't dismantle the Baath Party and the Army they would have found another Saddam.
We didn't go to war to get oil for the average American; we went to war to control the oil 'market'.

[heidler1]

16. You may be right, but if that is the plan, then Bush is not only an idiot he is also a traitor.

Deliberately keeping oil off the market to run up prices would make some of his buddies happy, but having all of that oil stored under Iraq looks very risky to me. No one knows what will happen in the next ten years, especially there. In any case it is better troops wise and cost wise to let the oil companies cut a cash deal for the oil. If the US had all of the Iraqi oil on tankers headed home it would not be worth what the war has cost.

[Prophet 451]

20. Not a traitor

At least, not in the technical sense. In the common meaning, sure but that's hardly news.

[nealmhughes]

31. Britain gave Iraq to the descendents of the Sharif of Mecca, the head of the Hashemite Sunni family

for "compensation" to the Sharif's family for losing Mecca and Medina to the Saudis during the kingdom's unification battles. The Sharif supported the Allies against the Ottoman Empire during the First WW I.

They also got Jordan, hence its official name: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

But the Brits, like the Hapsburgs knew a thing or two about "divide and conquer," hence, the minority was set up to rule a Kurdish/Christian/Shia majority, all in the name of demi-divine descent from Hussein, supposedly giving a degree of legitimacy to the imported Arabians.

Churchill realized long ago that coal refueling stations required major outlay of colonial outposts and that petrofying the RN was needed in his eyes, the Russians had already begun it in the Trans-Siberian RR and Imperial Navy earlier. Much easier to pump the oil into holds and then offload them -- even offshore than it was to tie up to docks and expend very valuable time recoaling. Plus, hard to get a bunch of coal to Blighty or India when they needed it, but the oil could be taken to the ships.

[Prophet 451]

19. Never happen

For one reason: OPEC. The Saudis are sitting on enough oil that if that were to happen, they can open the spigots and drown us in oil. Doing that would crash the global price of oil. Good for you and me but very bad for any nation that makes money on their oil resources. The Saudis can afford to do this for a year (maybe more with the recent inflation in oil price). Last country to try that was Venezuala. Ever wonder why Chavez is a supporter of OPEC? That's why, he saw what happened last time.

[meldroc]

4. Yep. They'll do absolutely anything to line their own pockets. n/t

[alstephenson]

5. You are so right on!!!

I see things the same way - but would never be able to articulate things as well as you have!

[kimmerspixelated]

6. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yep, it's always been about the oil. If Mr.and Mrs. Goober Rethuglican could really see the truth and join the rest of enlightened America, the power of the people might have a chance to really expose these criminals. I hate what the Bushies have done to America.

[iamahaingttta]

23. Unfortunately, they're not all Goober Rethuglicans...

I know a couple of working class Repubs who know and understand exactly what is going on, and are perfectly fine with it all. It's based on racism. "Those ragheads are sitting on our oil, and we should kill them all to get it." That mindset. One guy laments daily that he is too old to join the army, and not healthy enough to get a job with Blackwater.

Don't be fooled into thinking that they're all just dumb...

[donkeyotay]

8. And now they say it was wrong to go but we have to stay and stay and stay

And we're not even talking about Afghanistan, another quagmire in the making, another oil deal.

I agree McCamy, the bush junta has been very consistent. People should recall candidate bush and his Education Presidency. Compare and contrast with their consistent actual policy. What would george be doing without his trifecta, 9-11? It's hard to imagine. And it's shocking how crimes like the California energy crisis, which would have loomed large in our normal, pre-bush world are now forgotten and insignificant.

[Usrename]

9. Perfect precision in your analysis.

Just to reinforce the concept: don't forget about the car bombings of the unprotected UN Headquarters, followed shortly by the International Red Cross Headquarters, in the early days of the occupation.

This act of not defending international NGOs in the beginning forced out many international efforts to assist the reconstruction there, ensuring that US (and British) companies would control every aspect of commercial activity in Iraq for many years ahead. Whoever issued the order that those two high-value military targets remain unprotected should also be brought up on charges. That order has resulted in uncountable losses in Iraq and was, in itself, an act of Treason.

[Zodiak]

10. I believe your addendum to the OP analysis is just as precise

good job!

Not many are taking a step back and looking at the whole forest.

[Burried News]

13. The replacement of Jay Garner with Kissinger's Paul Bremer

was because Garner was formulating an approach that would have worked. He had Kurd support and he would have kept most of the Baath Party and the Iraqi Army in tact.
This was sabotage on the political level.

[whistle]

14. Yes, this has all been a grand plan by design following PNAC

...to the letter for the benefit of neoconservatives but driven by a top secret additional plane produced by the thug VP Dick Cheney and the oil and power companies which sought to bottle up oil supplies coming out of Iraq until these forced shortages drove prices sufficiently up to break down the environmentalist resistance to off-shore drilling off the eastern, western and Florida coasts as well as in other sensitive areas. That portion of the plan we see being executed now. Bush and Cheney need to be impeached now!

[tabasco]

15. There will be no justice until the Bush/Cheney oil mafia are behind bars.

Their murderous profiteering deserves nothing less.

[Votergater]

17. But remember that you don't have to actually own the oil...

...if you have forces that can control and limit its flow and movement out of the oil fields and out of the ports. If what is yours is in my house and I have the key, then it isn't really yours anymore.

[Prophet 451]

18. Disagree on one point

I don't think the intention was ever to sell of Iraq's oil. The intention was always to plunge the nation into such chaos that that oil couldn't be pumped. Basic economics says that restricting supply in the face of continuing demand forces up the price. Cheney is still tied to Halliburton, I'm not sure if Bush still has shares in oil companies but his dad certainly does. By plunging Iraq into chaos, Iraq's oil is removed from the market and we've all seen what that's done to the price of gas. Dividing up and selling off teh Iraq oilfields is worth billions, no question but ensuring that those fields can't be worked is potentially worth trillions as oil prices go through the roof and the oil companies don't just buy the stuff and sell it on, they get a hefty slice of that increased price.

Do an Iraq invasion properly (i.e. in and out in a few months) and teh oil price wouldn't change much but do it this way and the price skyrockets. Invade Iran and it goes up even more.

[Junkdrawer]

21. I've said it...Doonebury's said it...

Pretend that you have absolutely no morals whatsoever and that your goal is to capture and exploit the world’s largest underexploited oil reserves - Iraq. You don’t want to start the pumping while your Saudi business partners still can meet demand, so let’s say your time frame to start pumping is 5 to 10 years out. Your problems are:

1.) The population of the country is 65%+ Shia, many with links to Iran and many more decidedly Anti-American.
2.) Immediate installation of a Pro-American puppet regime would be opposed, not only by Iraqis, but also by most of the world, especially Iran, Russia and China.
3.) Oil fields and pipelines are easy sabotage targets for any well-manned insurgency.

So invading with a sufficient force to bring post-invasion stability brings a Shiite regime with a pro-Iranian tilt. Joy, just what you don’t want. So what do you do? Try this little three phase plan:

Phase I:
Invade with a force sufficient to overcome Saddam’s weakened defenses, but insufficient to create stability. Leave plenty of weapon caches lying about because you want an insurgency. Why? Because an insurgency provides cover for:
1.) The expulsion of the U.N.
2.) The expulsion of unfriendly media
3.) The building of permanent military bases
The insurgency also creates the core of a brutal, professional colonial army – something you’ll need for Phase III.

Phase II:
Instigate a civil war and then retreat to the bases you built in Phase I. You can, at this point, talk about an “orderly withdrawal” because you really just need a small core of provocateurs to keep the civil war raging. This is when the real killings occur – the pacification if you will. The idea is to reduce the population of anyone who will oppose your later occupation. The magnitude of the killings during this phase will be so severe that there will actually be cries for your return, both at home and within the international community. See Bosnia.

Phase III:
Remember those military bases and the brutal, professional colonial army you built during Phase I? Now is when you use them to bring about your actual goal: a puppet government propped up by a brutal military presence. You can refer anyone who complains at this point to the atrocities of Phase II and suggest that your forced stability is the lesser of two evils. Oh, by the way, you can pump the oil now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947



http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070502

[iamahaingttta]

22. Yep, sounds about right!

History will not be kind to the United States after all of this is out in the open.

[Vidar]

24. Highly recommended.

[camero]

25. Price manipulation also

Take a million barrels per day off the market, watch the price skyrocket, and collect the money. It also explains why production is not even near pre-war levels.

On the mark post.

[Ilsa]

26. I need help here with some history on

Sen. Scoop Jackson. I was in high school when he was a contender for the Dem nomination. I don't understand the relationship with the Bushies.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. All the NeoCons were associated with Scoop Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

"In addition to Richard Perle, neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith were former Democratic aides to Jackson who, disillusioned with the Carter administration, supported Ronald Reagan and joined his administration in 1981, later becoming prominent foreign policy makers in the 21st-century Bush administration. Neoconservative Ben Wattenberg was a prominent political aide to Jackson's 1972 and 1976 presidential campaigns. Wolfowitz has called himself a "Scoop Jackson Republican" on multiple occasions. <36><37> Many journalists and scholars across the political spectrum have noted links between Senator Jackson and modern neoconservatism."

Wiki then has about 10 more links on the subject. Wiki also had this link about the day in 2005 when the CIA and other govt official swept into Jackson's library and removed 10 documents that the Bush administration did not want anyone to see even though they were at least 20 years old. They may have had something to do with the above.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/02/15/100loc_jackson001.cfm

"Five federal government officials, including three from the CIA, have removed several documents from the archival papers of the late Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson housed at the University of Washington.

"Last week the federal document security team spent three days in the special collections division of the UW Suzzallo-Allen library. The officials, which also included people from the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, combed through 1,200 boxes of material using a five-binder index to find the targeted papers.

"Carla Rickerson, head of special collections, said the team removed up to 10 documents."

[Ilsa]

30. Thank you very much! I hadn't heard of the linkage. I have vague

memories of Scoop, but I wasn't interested in politics at that time.

Thank you very much for taking the time to give me those links and writing and pasting some text. I had googled, but not found anything specific to the neocons.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. From Greg Pallast, "Secret US Plan For Iraq's Oil"

http://www.gregpalast.com/secret-us-plans-for-iraqs-oil/

Interesting theories about a rift within the Bush administration between NeoCons who wanted to use the invasion of Iraq and control of its oil to break Opec and Oil Industry Bosses who just wanted to make money off the war. Pallast hypothesizes that the Oil Industry Bosses are the ones who won.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. One more point. Policy of sending PST troops back---> atrocities.

Rather than being merely stupid, this could be a deliberate recipe for disaster. If higher ups in the administration want to make the Iraqi people distrust the US peacekeepers, if they want to make sure that there will be no peace and that US soldiers will be too busy defending themselves from attack to get anything done, then all they have to do is send a bunch of depressed, shell shocked Iraq War veterans back to the front lines and wait for them to assault, rape and murder Iraqi civilians. Set up a few My Lai Massacres, and relations between the US troops and the Iraqis will be so strained that no progress will be made at all.

Every mentally unfit soldier who is sent back to combat puts the lives of Iraqi civilians and the lives of his or her own comrades in danger and sets back the US effort. The higher ups at the Pentagon can not possibly be unaware of this. When they send these guys back, they know what they are doing. They are tossing hand grenades into Iraq.