The article I linked to points to a study by Deutsche Bank about the pre-war oil situation in Iraq. Now, Deutsche Bank may conjure up Rumsfeldian fantasies of of a spineless "Old Europe" institution unwilling to rise to challenges, etc., etc. But I can assure you that it is now essentially a U.S. investment bank in the business of making money for its mainly U.S., and quite well-heeled, clients. When I say Deutsche Bank, I urge you to read, "Wall Street."
Now, here is how our author characterizes the Deutsche Bank report:
"As Deutsche Bank explained in a 2002 report titled 'Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq,' with upward of $38 billion in projects already agreed to by the Iraqi government, the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead. In a post-Saddam Iraq, however, the US oil majors--specifically, according to the report, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco--could manage the country's resources."
Leading up to big events such as U.S. presidential elections, Wall Street analysts routinely issue reports that handicap the various possible outcomes for clients. Here, a Wall Street analyst, speaking not to the broader public but rather to well-heeled clients (including institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds), bluntly stated that the end of sanctions would have delivered a blow to U.S. oil interests. From this perspective, the way forward was invasion and occupation.
Now let's look at the infamous Cheney Energy Task Force, charged with cobbling together energy policy for the United States. Who did the great man speak with? He has staked a huge amount of political capital keeping this top secret. I don't want to lecture you boys on how democracy thrives on open government, and chokes and withers on officially sanctioned secrecy. But I do find this fellow a rather dubious crusader for democracy abroad, given his clear disdain for same on the home front.
At any rate, we now know that he met with execs from the U.S. oil majors, that they recently lied to Congress about their participation in the task force (although a friendly senator had the foresight to remove them from the burden of testifying under oath), and that at said meetings (here I quote from the Nation article again):
[T]he few documents that have been made public from the Energy Task Force (thanks to the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch) reveal not only that industry executives met with Cheney's staff but that a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from thirty countries--but not the United States--were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oilfields on earth.
So, well before September 11, here we have a bunch of oilmen--one of them the vice-president of the United States--rubbing their paws together at the prospect of oil riches in Iraq--and quite possibly squirming a bit at the prospect that China would, if the status quo remained, get control of a large portion of that precious black stuff.
Now one of you guys, or maybe it was one of your prized kept intellectuals over at Hoover, said something about how the price of crude has skyrocketed since the invasion, and that somehow means it wasn't about controlling oil.
First, how does record profits for U.S. oil companies argue against the idea that the invasion's chief motivation was control of oil? Second, no one who's intelligent argues that the war's motivation had to do with short-term swings in the price of oil, which are set by traders in London and New York. It was about contracts and control.
Saudi Arabia: Despotic regime whose citizens carried out the bulk of planning and execution of the Sept. 11 atrocities: Good. Why? Because its regime has been very, very good to U.S. oil companies.
Iraq: Despotic regime whose citizens took no part in Sept. 11 atrocities: Bad. Why? Because its regime broke with U.S. oil interests in 1991. And why attack the regime? Oh, it's not about oil not at all! It's all about Sept. 11. Don't believe me? I know a real smart guy over at the Hoover Institute who can explain it to you.
6 comments:
Tom: You make an incorrect and unjustified assumption that Six and I are merely parrotting Bush talking points; how dare you! And please specify which Hoover institute scholars are "philistines", and justify the claim. You previously labled Christopher Hitchens a "hack," but when challenged you simply never provided justification. Six and I have a favorite Hoover schoolar, Thomas Sowell. He has a PhD in economics from Chicago, and is a former communist and student of Karl Marx. Is it even concievable that he has become, "a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts, or who has no understanding of them."
Tom: The original article that you posted is available only to Nation subscribers, except for an intro, which disparages Bush's "unwillingness to draft policies that transcend the interests of Big Oil." Well, I don't want policies that hurt "Big Oil", necessarily. I want citizens of the US who have organized themselves into "corporations" to succeed, so long as their efforts do not interfere with the efforts of other citizens to pursue their own happiness, or currupt our democracy. In this regard, I join you in opposing federal cash payments to large corporations to grow (or not grow) certain cash crops.
What is your problem with "Big Oil"? Do you not want petrolium from the ground to be available for you, with a maximum amount of reliability at the lowest cost? That's what free markets achieve. The success of this enterprise translates into availability of petroleum fory you, and profits for corporations, both of which beneifit you, you greedy, selfish bastard.
"the major US companies would lose if Saddam made a deal with the UN, whereas the Europeans, Russians and Chinese would come out ahead."
??? These countries were already "winning" by violating the UN sanctions, and helping support Hussein by purchasing oil from him in violation of the UN santions, with the secret, currupt dealings of various UN officials, who got very rich with their payoffs. The US plan enabled everyone to win, including the Iraqi people, with the results in the Kurdish region showing what will happen if Iraqis stop fighting the liberating foriegn troops.
"how does record profits for U.S. oil companies argue against the idea that the invasion's chief motivation was control of oil?"
Why didn't you smart liberals predict that the Bush Iraq invasion was to get cheap oil? Michael More, etc. insisted that "cheap oil" was the goal. Since instead oil prices have increased, now you guys are claiming *that* was the reason! Which is it? Anyway, expensive oil translates into profits for oil companies -- a good thing, in my opinion -- but also hurts all other parts of the economy -- a bigger downside. The original liberal assumption is ultimately correct, that a properly functioning Iraq will result in move oil on the market, and thus lower oil prices.
By the way, the increased petro prices hurt Bush in the election, as anybody would have sensibly predicted. Bush incorrectly predicted that the invasion would have uncovered WMDs and would have gone smoothly enough to have resulted in more oil on the market. Both of these harmed him in the election.
"Saudi Arabia: Despotic regime whose citizens carried out the bulk of planning and execution of the Sept. 11 atrocities: Good. Why? Because its regime has been very, very good to U.S. oil companies."
You do not understand the rational for not invading SA, though I have explained it to you many times. I will try again:
1. SA's government was not in violation of UN sanctions.
2. SA's government has no history of invading neighbors.
3. SA's government does not openly support and provide funding for terrorists who act against a US ally, Isreal.
4. SA's government does not have a dominant military in the region.
Thus targetting SA as Arabia's first democracy had little chance of gaining any support, would have been more difficult to create a case for, and would have had less chance of influencing other retarded countries.
"Iraq: Despotic regime whose citizens took no part in Sept. 11 atrocities: Bad. Why? Because its regime broke with U.S. oil interests in 1991. And why attack the regime? Oh, it's not about oil not at all! It's all about Sept. 11. Don't believe me? I know a real smart guy over at the Hoover Institute who can explain it to you."
Tom: Have you gone off your rocker? Not only have you forgotten (or never read, or never understood) the reasons I've given for invading Iraq as a response to 911 (or as a preventative measure, had it been pondered prior to 911!), you are assiging reasons that I have never given (because a Hoover guy can explain it to you?). Here goes again.
1. Assumption: Islamo-fascism arises from lack of democracy in Arabia, ie, stagnant poverty, coupled with inability of populace to express their desires, other than to blame all of their frustrations on Isreal and the US.
2. Assumption: Arabia is the fundimental region that influences Muslims around the world.
3. Iraq is the historical regional leader of Arabia.
4. Iraq's government as of 911 was percieved as having the strongest military in Arabia.
5. Iraq's government provided a pretext for invasion, due to its decade-long regular violation of cease-fire santions imposed upon it as condition of preventing the US from invading it in response to that very government's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Possessing WMDs was one of these violations.
6. Iraq's government officially supported and financed terrorism against Isreal.
All of these factors made Iraq unique in the regaion. If you agree with Assumption 1, invading Iraq made sense, logically, regardless of any extra profits that could be made by US oil companies. As far as achieving the most good for the most people, oil profits for US oil companies coupled with democracy/prosperity for Iraqis surely trumps oil profits for European and Chinese oil companies coupled with continuation of Hussein's brutal rule and attending widespread Iraqi poverty.
Why do you only oppose US oil company profits, but not the profits that would have been made had the Europeans and Chinese had their way, with a continuation of the Hussein gangster government? Might I logically conclude that you peaceniks only wished for "peace" because you wanted profits for the European and Chinese oil companies? Might I logically conclude that those nations voted for "peace" (some peace!) because they wanted those Hussein oil profits?
Post a Comment