quote:

Originally posted by occrider I can honestly say, without a doubt, that my examination of this particular conflict has lead me to conclude that it simply cannot be a war over oil as a primary cause. It's simply too unsubstantiated by any relevant facts which by all other indicators support a different theory and cause.

I completely agree (see my earlier posts to this effect).

I find it strange Rupert's post speaks entirely within the context of the Middle East as a grand-geo-strategic situation, and then flinches and somewhat avoids drawing grand-geo-strategic conclusions (I nonetheless appreciate his logistical perspective, and have only minor quibbles with his narration).

I think many political commentators today have fallen into the "classical" mode of warfare analysis, which dictates that where an army goes it does only because there is booty to be plundered. This is simplistic, and misunderstands the complexities of grand strategy and some of the most important reasons to possess a regular, standing army. Military expendature viewed only through the lens of conquest is positively Roman Republican, and we live in a time of the late Caesarian Empire. Armies are a political beast, now. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

If you don't mind my saying, thinking it's oil nicely underestimates the intelligence of the parties involved as well. Oil isn't all that rare. It isn't all that hard to get a hold of either -- there are major deposits in North America being held pristine. It's there if we really need it, but we just don't -- yet.

If one really did want oil, there are many ways to get it that don't involve destroying a country's infrastructure (optionally removing its dictator and dispersing its armies), managing the resultant insurgency, and then being forced to rebuild and secure said infrastructure as a condition of getting the oil via furnishing an indefinitely needed occupation force, all the while trying to maintain public-international face while simultaneously governing the occupied country according to a culturally alien and irrelevant paradigm, which one then has to politically reeducate the people in. Kinda messy.

-Noble

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!

Last edited by TheNobleEu on Jul-29-2005 at 03:52

quote:

Ok Rupert, I've read your post completely. Only once, but I'm going to put forth my premature argument now. You lay out a very good geopolitical background that may support your case, however, you're still missing a very major component.

quote:

You raise the issue of Israel as being a very significant component of US foreign policy that requires US support despite the fact that it goes against the entire oil argument because what's important is national relations as opposed to general public sentiment (however this alone disputes your argument of the significance of the composition of the 9/11 Saudi Arabian hijackers and general Saudi sentiment, because apparentely that IS important). Furthermore, primary Saudi hostility of the US came not from US antagonism towards Saddam, but the fact that US troops were based in Saudi Arabia.

quote:

The major component you're missing however, is the driving force behind action. My argument is that 9/11 resulted in an irrational perceived threat of terrorism that provoked a war that was seemingly beneficial in the face of a genuine or imagined wmd. This same action hwoever, would be woefully cost ineffective in any other regard including as a means of securing oil reserves which logically eliminates such an argument. I know you've written history papers. They generally consist of specific theses with supporting arguments. So what event made such a proposition economically worthwhile? Or are you insisiting that it was always worthwile despite the fact that at the end of the first gulf war bush decided to NOT invade Iraq? Or was it so worthwile despite the fact that Bush II made no effort to ratchet up the case against Iraq only until a year after 9/11?

quote:

I've written extensive case studies on 19th and 20th century European warfare. I've studied many long term effects and short term fuses that result in wars. I can honestly say, without a doubt, that my examination of this particular conflict has lead me to conclude that it simply cannot be a war over oil as a primary cause. It's simply too unsubstantiated by any relevant facts which by all other indicators support a different theory and cause.

At the time that this post was originally circulated (Mid May?) I was unable to respond to the comments in relation to my original posting on the middle-east due to having to start a full time job while finishing off assignments for university which I was also attending full-time. So by the time that the semester had finished I thought the thread was no longer active so I let it rest. But since it has been reactivated and I have a little time I can provide some responses. No rudeness was intended by my initial failure to reply.

I guess what I have been trying to say is that there is a whole range of reasons why the Iraq War happened but the crucial reason was because there was oil in Iraq. Which isn’t to say that President Bush and his advisers sat down and said ‘Iraq has oil, we have an army let’s go get it’ In their discussions they would have emphasised in no particular order WMD, terrorism, removing the troops from Saudi Arabia, democracy etc.’

The US government could not sell a war against an essentially powerless country for oil. Likely the US administration did believe Iraq had WMD and given the post 9/11 environment did not want to take any chances with a regime they intended to get rid of anyway. So they needed something to sell the war on and WMD was it. Wolfowitz admitted as much at one stage.

Goebbels once said ‘a lie told often enough becomes truth’ so no doubt the administration convinced itself that Iraq had WMD because that was a belief that was necessary to legitimize what they wanted to do anyway.

The US administration convinced themselves, their allies and the population that the WMD issue was real by discounting evidence to the contrary. They wanted a message from their intelligence service that said Iraq had WMD because that is what they believed to be true and they ignored evidence presented that said it wasn’t.

Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance when people refuse to change their belief systems when confronted by evidence that proves their belief systems are wrong or flawed. As often as not people will die before altering their behaviour or beliefs rather than adjust to new facts or information.

It is one of the great myths of neoclassical economics that humans act in an inherently rational way intent on personal gain (although as often as not we do). People frequently hold beliefs that are implausible and humans readily accept rather simplistic views of the world because the human mind is not a calculator that can meaningfully decipher a complicated world without the need for shorthand explanation. So the Bush administration probably believes all of its rhetoric about democracy, freedom, war on terror etc because that is a narrative that the mind can accept as giving meaning to ones actions. A person is unlikely to genuinely hold a belief that their actions are deliberately harmful to others and is being pursued for less than altruistic reasons.

So the Bush II administration had 9/11 fall into its lap and as Bob Woodward recounted the first thing they tried to do was try and see if they could tie Iraq to it. Maybe they thought Iraq was partially responsible or they could see that taking action against Iraq would lead to the realisation of a strategic objective if they did. Who knows?

But what is for certain is that all of this happens against the backdrop of other events which either consciously or unconsciously factored into US government calculations. The rise of China, the breakdown of the transatlantic alliance and Peak Oil.

The US administration has always seen the Persian Gulf as a area of vital national interest. The sanctions regime against Iraq was meant as a means of regime change but one that failed. The sanctions meant that their was no new investment in oil in Iraq. No doubt the oil majors would have liked to go into Iraq but ideologically this wasn’t possible as this would violate the sanctions. The regime had frequently lied about its WMD program so their really was no way of ending the sanctions regime without ending the regime.

So up untile the regime is removed the purpose of the war is “war on terror” WMD, freedom but on the day after the regime is gone its all about oil.

An Iraq friendly with the US would give it permanent military bases and these bases would give the USA the ability to restrict the supply of oil to rivals such as Europe and China down the track were there to be some geopolitical showdown.

Already the US neoconservative movement see China as the big issue and would like nothing more than to contain it despite the fact that many US policies actually work to assist in China’s growth. For example one favoured neoconservative journalist call Kaplan wrote an article called ‘How we would fight China?’ Some of Kaplan’s journalism is good but this article in the Atlantic magazine was just laughable. Essentially Kaplan calls for a new containment policy to prevent the growth of China by working with allies in East-Asia. It is quite easy to see how controlling the supply of oil to an oil dependant China could form part of a containment strategy.

Well whether or not this did form part of the US calculation, the Chinese have certainly not been blind to the ramifications of the Iraq war. They have forged close ties with Iran and Venezuela and have been building good bridges with the Saudis. The Chinese government see the US has been alienating key oil producers and has sought to secure its supply of oil while at the same time diminishing the standing of the USA. China’s strategy has worked on both counts. The Chinese government realises much like the USA that energy is the most important issue for national security.

And this explains the bid by the Chinese corporation CNOOC for the US corporation Unocal. Unocal’s important energy assets are in Asia and are not destined for US markets anyway but the US has been jumping up and down about this particular sale. The Chinese government probably see the offer for Unocal as a test of the US free trade credentials. If Unocal isn’t bought by CNOOC despite making the highest bid then it shows that the USA doesn’t truly believe in free trade.

So getting back to Iraq, one of the key things that the Bush II administration committed to on entering the Whitehouse was to create a comprehensive energy policy. And energy has been a key theme of the administration ever since. US speeches are full of the rhetoric about removing US dependancy on mid-east oil (although its perfectly OK if the Europeans and China are dependant). So the US has sought to extend oil extraction in Alaska, provide further oil exploration subsidies (as noted by Trancer X) etc

quote:

I find it strange Rupert's post speaks entirely within the context of the Middle East as a grand-geo-strategic situation, and then flinches and somewhat avoids drawing grand-geo-strategic conclusions (I nonetheless appreciate his logistical perspective, and have only minor quibbles with his narration).

quote:

I think many political commentators today have fallen into the "classical" mode of warfare analysis, which dictates that where an army goes it does only because there is booty to be plundered. This is simplistic, and misunderstands the complexities of grand strategy and some of the most important reasons to possess a regular, standing army. Military expendature viewed only through the lens of conquest is positively Roman Republican, and we live in a time of the late Caesarian Empire. Armies are a political beast, now. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

quote:

f you don't mind my saying, thinking it's oil nicely underestimates the intelligence of the parties involved as well. Oil isn't all that rare. It isn't all that hard to get a hold of either -- there are major deposits in North America being held pristine. It's there if we really need it, but we just don't -- yet.

quote:

If one really did want oil, there are many ways to get it that don't involve destroying a country's infrastructure (optionally removing its dictator and dispersing its armies), managing the resultant insurgency, and then being forced to rebuild and secure said infrastructure as a condition of getting the oil via furnishing an indefinitely needed occupation force, all the while trying to maintain public-international face while simultaneously governing the occupied country according to a culturally alien and irrelevant paradigm, which one then has to politically reeducate the people in. Kinda messy.

I would put it a different way. To say that oil wasn’t and isn’t a key issue in the decision making process is to ‘underestimate the intelligence of the parties involved.’

The USA had tried to get rid of Saddam without war eg supporting coup attempts during the Clinton administration, the sanctions regime etc) but had failed. The only way to remove the regime was through force, all other methods had tried and failed.

I am sure the USA would like to manage the insurgency and it is not in the USA’s interest to destroy the infrastracture of Iraq. The USA government sold the message ( and no doubt believed) that it was going to be an easy war and the insurgency were just dead enders from the old regime and would be finished when Saddam was captured (another example of Cognitive dissonance no doubt). The USA neoconservatives believed if they could have a quick war and then set up a western style regime everything would be peachy creamy and would teach all the up and comers a lesson in US power. Unfortunately the ambitions of the USA did not match its ability for there were many groups who have no desire to see Iraq turned into a pro-USA state ie Iran, Iraq, Al-Queda, the Sunni minority of Iraq etc. The insurgents desire to fight is greater than the US desire to impose its will on Iraq or the US soldiers willingness to die for a cause they don’t understand. So it will go down as yet another US defeat. But that was obviously not the plan, ideally Iraq would have been a shining neoliberal paradise with a dramatically improved oil production program.

Unfortunately, oil is not that widely accessible. Easily extractable oil is contained in only a few areas and can be divided into OPEC countries and non-OPEC countries. With the dwindling of oil reserves in non-opec countries this has increasingly put OPEC into the drivers seat. This is one of the reasons for the drive to increase the level of biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol) production in the EU and USA. All the major economies (including China) are making a BIG push in this direction and given the expense of biofuel production compared to oil extraction they obviously are looking ahead to the future. A future when the supply of oil is called into question.

I have numerous reports in PDF format which discuss the issue of Peak Oil, Energy Security, alternative energy sources etc at my work which I can provide at request. The short and sum of them all is that at some stage in the not too distant future, the world will reach the point where half the oil has been drawn from the ground. No amount of improved technology or increase in the price of oil can change the fact there is only so much oil in the ground (are you listening Economist magazine?).

A report prepared by consultants on behalf of the US Department of Energy reviewed all the alternatives to crude oil (Canadian tar sands, hydrogen, coal gasification etc) are without very serious shortfalls. Unconventional crude oil alternatives such as the tar sands, heavy crude found in Canada and Venezuela are quite sizable but they actually require energy to convert into transport fuel. And there just isn’t enough arable land to convert into the production of biodiesel or ethanol feedstock without causing mass starvation.

The easily extracted oil gets extracted first which means as reserves diminish the cost of extraction goes up and this is set against a backdrop of increasing demand for oil. The margin between production and consumption of crude oil is very narrow right now and would only take a minor incident to send the price sky rocketing. Eventually it will eventually get to a point where the extraction gets to be more than the potential replacement from new discoveries (of which there have been few). The US administration knows all of these facts and new of them before the invasion of Iraq It is naieve to think that Bush and his associates or the oil majors don’t have an appreciation of the potential of peak oil, Texas is a demonstration about how peak oil actually works. However they are unlikely to go broadcasting this due to the unsettling effect that this would have on the economy, so it makes sense to try and secure future supplies of energy while working on alternatives to crude oil. And that is exactly what they have been doing.

In the future historians will no doubt see the Iraq war as one of the first conflicts over access to energy supplies which will occur in the coming decades.

Blood and money:

Halliburton 3 year performance

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Blood and money: Halliburton 3 year performance

That is just piss poor. Talk about creating an argument to fit the agenda. Check out the 5 year chart and look at the performance of HAL from when Dubya took office. Stock was around $55 then, now at $58. Hardly a good conspiracy if you ask me.

HAL 5 year chart


You'd be much better off trying to create a "housing and money" argument. Look at the 5 year chart of Lennar, Pulte, KB Home, Toll Brothers, etc. They are much better conspiracy charts. It's all about the HOMEBUILDERS!!!

NO MORE BLOOD FOR HOUSING!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That is just piss poor. Talk about creating an argument to fit the agenda. Check out the 5 year chart and look at the performance of HAL from when Dubya took office. Stock was around $55 then, now at $58. Hardly a good conspiracy if you ask me. HAL 5 year chart You'd be much better off trying to create a "housing and money" argument. Look at the 5 year chart of Lennar, Pulte, KB Home, Toll Brothers, etc. They are much better conspiracy charts. It's all about the HOMEBUILDERS!!! NO MORE BLOOD FOR HOUSING!!!

lol, ^5.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert No rudeness was intended by my initial failure to reply.

No prob.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Likely the US administration did believe Iraq had WMD and given the post 9/11 environment did not want to take any chances with a regime they intended to get rid of anyway. So they needed something to sell the war on and WMD was it. Wolfowitz admitted as much at one stage.

Fair enough.

The way this paragraph was introduced... it looked like denial of smokingly cooked books.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert So the Bush administration probably believes all of its rhetoric about democracy, freedom, war on terror etc because that is a narrative that the mind can accept as giving meaning to ones actions.

You're more forgiving (less suspicious?) than most.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert So the Bush II administration had 9/11 fall into its lap and as Bob Woodward recounted the first thing they tried to do was try and see if they could tie Iraq to it. Maybe they thought Iraq was partially responsible or they could see that taking action against Iraq would lead to the realisation of a strategic objective if they did. Who knows?

Perhaps. Hence:

Reporter: So will you confirm that a military strike on Iran is a possibility in the near future?
Bush: All options are on the table.

Not verbatim, but you get the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Essentially Kaplan calls for a new containment policy to prevent the growth of China by working with allies in East-Asia. It is quite easy to see how controlling the supply of oil to an oil dependant China could form part of a containment strategy.

I think it's a little too early to be talking in terms of "oil containment" of China.

China is on an incredible rise. It's experiencing '50s style economic emergence, and a middle class (with the market demands of a Westernized middle class) is rapidly developing. That said, she's a far way off from hoggin' all the oil on the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The USA had tried to get rid of Saddam without war eg supporting coup attempts during the Clinton administration, the sanctions regime etc) but had failed. The only way to remove the regime was through force, all other methods had tried and failed.

The US has plenty of experience with sponsoring/training/assisting/supplying indigenous political/terrorist/militarist groups to overthrow their own governments.

"The only way" wasn't force as your describe it, e.g., full-scale invasion. It was simply their chosen method.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The USA government sold the message ( and no doubt believed) that it was going to be an easy war and the insurgency were just dead enders from the old regime and would be finished when Saddam was captured (another example of Cognitive dissonance no doubt). The USA neoconservatives believed if they could have a quick war and then set up a western style regime everything would be peachy creamy and would teach all the up and comers a lesson in US power.

What a perfect oxymoron, don't you agree?

The media and general public talks about Iraq, the US, and the Gulf invasions in terms of "imperialism," and the above is a perfect example that the US simply doesn't have the experience or the first clue in how to conduct it.

Blind leading the blind:



"After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
-George W. Bush on Saddam Hussein

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Unfortunately, oil is not that widely accessible. Easily extractable oil is contained in only a few areas and can be divided into OPEC countries and non-OPEC countries. With the dwindling of oil reserves in non-opec countries this has increasingly put OPEC into the drivers seat.

Are you serious?

Canada just came in with a trade surplus 2.5x greater than that projected. You know why?

Selling oil to the USA.

Oil ain't scarce, it's right next door in abundance.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert This is one of the reasons for the drive to increase the level of biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol) production in the EU and USA. All the major economies (including China) are making a BIG push in this direction and given the expense of biofuel production compared to oil extraction they obviously are looking ahead to the future. A future when the supply of oil is called into question.

A wise move, regardless of the reserves. Did you see that the hybrid hydrogen-electricty prototype is operational in Japan? And then there's the corn/peanut oil business...

quote:

Originally posted by rupert No amount of improved technology or increase in the price of oil can change the fact there is only so much oil in the ground (are you listening Economist magazine?).

Yes, and the Economist isn't saying what you are saying at all (on a side note, I've been reading the Economist on the web, since most of the content in the print edition is available there now. I don't like the Economist lately, it's becoming sensationalistic).

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The easily extracted oil gets extracted first which means as reserves diminish the cost of extraction goes up and this is set against a backdrop of increasing demand for oil.

So to solve this the US put forward WMD as the veneer for an invasion to secure oil (which the US knew before it mobilized would cause the cost of a barrel of oil to rocket to a new record high?)

Sorry, doesn't wash.

I can't help but regard the "oil line" as media claptrap, the party-line and popularist explanation for the Iraq fiasco. Like most things popular, it's much too simplistic.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert It is naieve to think that Bush and his associates or the oil majors don’t have an appreciation of the potential of peak oil, Texas is a demonstration about how peak oil actually works. However they are unlikely to go broadcasting this due to the unsettling effect that this would have on the economy, so it makes sense to try and secure future supplies of energy while working on alternatives to crude oil. And that is exactly what they have been doing. In the future historians will no doubt see the Iraq war as one of the first conflicts over access to energy supplies which will occur in the coming decades.

I can't help but to think that you're putting the cart before the horse.

What you're actually looking at here is time-honoured technique of forced regime change (which the US has a long track record of inculcating/supporting), toward grand-geo-strategic and political ends.

Some of the "keep us safe at home by meeting the enemy on their soil, rather than allowing them to come and meet us on ours"-rhetoric really isn't. I agree with you that some of it is ad hoc 9-11 opportunism.

Discuss the current situation vis-a-vis Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia within the context of the war-by-proxy and power-politicking of the Middle and Near East during the Cold War, and you'll see why Iraq was the target and what role it plays within the geo-politicial (indeed, religious?) configuration of the region.

Cheers,
-N

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!

Last edited by TheNobleEu on Aug-16-2005 at 20:50

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu Some of the "keep us safe at home by meeting the enemy on their soil, rather than allowing them to come and meet us on ours"-rhetoric really isn't. I agree with you that some of it is ad hoc 9-11 opportunism. Cheers, -N

Yes, but unfortunately the pacifist, "If we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone" rhetoric doesn't work either.
Just look at the years of attacks from Osama Bin Laden's goons and ilk...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150

That is Sir Alexander Cadogan

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Shite! All those long posts!....well, kid yourself all you want, it IS about oil. Iraq has a lot, the world needs it, Saddam was NOT the guy to control it, and that's about as simple as it gets, eom.