"The centrality of Iraq to the [Cheney energy] task force meetings requires us to reconsider the calculus used by senior Bush Administration planners in judging the risks and benefits of invading and occupying Iraq, and its resulting definitions of success. The thinking they reveal suggests that neither democracy nor a reduction of violence in the country, however desirable in theory, is necessary to achieve core US objectives.
Instead, insuring a long-term US military presence in Iraq and a significant (if behind-the-scenes) role in managing and developing its petroleum sector together constitute a prize of immense economic and geostrategic value for the Administration and its corporate sponsors. In fact, at the very moment the first Energy Task Force meetings with industry officials were held, in February 2001, the National Security Council issued a directive for staff to cooperate with the task force in the "melding" of new "operational policies towards rogue states" with "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." No place on earth was more amenable to such melding than Iraq.
From this perspective, it is possible to argue that despite great human and financial costs, the United States--or rather the oil, arms and related industries, if not US citizens--may still 'win' a war for which planning could well have commenced as early as the first weeks of the Bush Administration."
If this analysis is crap, then I'm sure Cheney will clear everything up by releasing documents/data/information on his Energy Task Force meetings. Right?
7 comments:
Playing the oil card again are we? We didn’t need to invade Iraq to get its oil. If that's all we wanted all we had to do was lift the sanctions. We basically owned Kuwait after the first Gulf War and we gave them their oil back.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Oh, boy. Tom, what is it that the people composing "oil companies" could have gotten from invading Iraq that they couldn't have gotten by merely making the same deals that they make with all the other despots in the region?
I believe that there is a fundimental problem of islamic terrorism in that region, but no problem with US oil companies profitting from the oil in that region. It is a region that we cannot ignore, because it has oil, and the oil provides money for the terrorism. Not invading and not establishing a democracy has not improved the terrorism problem, but neither has it negitively impacted oil profits. Therefore the only incentive I can see for invading would be to address the terrorism problem.
I'm unsure about this famous oil meeting, and the concept of politicians having private meetings where attendees have assurances that they can speak freely without being quoted. The Americans who run big companies have big resources and big responsibilities. All of us (even the Maverick Farm crews) depends on those people to make good, profitable decisions. I do not inherently oppose government and business leaders having private, off-the-record meetings. Nor do I think that refusal to divulge meeting notes neccessarily indicates that something immoral or illegal transpired.
I think that it is possible that people may have floated proposals or stated opinions that they would not have had they known that they were speaking off the record. People in the future must know that if they go to a white house meeting where they have assurances that it's off the record that this will stand.
Victor Davis Hanson sums it up perfectly in his column today:
"We took no oil — the price in fact skyrocketed after we invaded Iraq. We did not do Israel’s bidding; in fact, it left Gaza after we went into Iraq and elections followed on the West Bank. We did not want perpetual hegemony — in fact, we got out of Saudi Arabia, used the minimum amount of troops possible, and will leave Iraq anytime its consensual government so decrees. And we did not expropriate Arab resources, but, in fact, poured billions of dollars into Iraq to jumpstart its new consensual government in the greatest foreign aid infusion of the age."
Tom: Do you ever read conservative / libertarian / free market commentaries about what it is that these people want? It is very simple:
- Low and decreasing unemployment.
- Maximum amount of education throughout the land.
- High and increasing wages.
- Free markets, where companies cannot cook books or collude.
- Transparent democracy and rule of law.
- No discrimination against people based on race or gender.
There is no talk of invading nations and appropriating resources. These people believe that if Iraq's natural resources are sold on the open market by non-colluding entities (including individuals), that more people in Iraq will make more money and be able to buy more iPods and Will Smith movies. Yes, each individual company tries to employ the least amount of people and pay them the least, but with all companies attempting to do this, something extraordinary happens in a free market: a maximum number of people recieve a maximum income. There is not even a hint in any writing that you can find that these people want the US military to appropriate foreign natural resources. All these people want is free markets, which provide the most efficient mechanisms for allocating resources... much more efficient than tanks and bomber jets.
Non-colluding entities, like Opec, for example? Will respond more later.
No, not like Opec. That is a cartel, which violates free trade. Have oil prices recently plummetted because of collusion, or the free market?
Agreed that real free marketeers would be less cozy with Opec/the house of Saud then the Bush-Cheney crew. more to come.
Post a Comment