Blood for (no) oil: No room for doubt

In Monday's Financial Times, Ian Rutledge puts some facts behind what many suspect to be the ultimate motivation behind the Iraq war.  While no doubt the stage was set by the general impulse toward world domi-, um, "leadership" as the Project for a New American Century calls it, the specifics were in evidence several months before 9/11.  

In a crucial report to President George W. Bush by the US Council on Foreign Relations in April 2001, the president was warned that: "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in a critical condition. A crisis could erupt at any time . . . The world is currently close to utilising all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

[The] council stated that it was absolutely imperative that "political factors do not block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf" and that "the Department of State, together with the National Security Council" should "develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in the important states of the Middle East".

[The council] acknowledged that "there is strong opposition to any such opening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations".

However, there was an alternative. <snip>  William Kristol, the Republican party ideologist, in testimony to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East on May 22 2002 [said] that as far as oil was concerned, "Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia".

So when, according to the former head of ExxonMobil's Gulf operations, "Iraqi exiles approached us saying, you can have our oil if we can get back in there", the Bush administration decided to use its overwhelming military might to create a pliant - and dependable - oil protectorate in the Middle East and achieve that essential "opening" of the Gulf oilfields.

<snip>

[But] the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it.

So what next?  On to Iran?  

•  Failure as Proof of Good Intent

  Ted Rall said it well.
  
  

  by NewDirection on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:19:16 PM PDT

  •  Good one! n/t

    by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:21:15 PM PDT

  •  Good characterization

    by Hgrove on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:58:05 PM PDT

•  I know it's the wrong question

  But where was Ian Rutledge and the Financial Times (and the Economist as well) in the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003?

  They lost credibility and subscriptions in my case because of this and because of their "patrician John Kerry" crap last year.

  by TarheelDem on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:36:03 PM PDT

  •  Good question.

    He doesn't say when the CFR report came to light, but the subcommittee testimony was certainly public record.  

    by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:45:13 PM PDT

•  $105 PER BARREL

  A couple weeks ago was it Morgan Stanley that said oil could spike to $105/barrel. Was this price based on our bombing Iran in June? What happens if the Gulf of Oman is blocked? What kind of air force does Iran have? What happens if the Suez canal is blocked? Does iran retaliate by shutting down the waterways? Can they? Does OPEC get involved and limit production according to our military activies? And if we donot act to stop the Nuclear program in Iran what happens to the Middle East if Israel acts? Does the Middle East become a poweder keg?  How long does the world tolerate a Bully super power? Bush is already viewed as an out of control cowboy by too many countries. I hope somebody in this administration has answers to these questions before they send up the planes or allow Israel to go forward.

  by Lawdog on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:43:35 PM PDT

  •  Let's hope somebody in Congress asks. n/t

    by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:46:28 PM PDT

    •  What would Congress's source be? State? n/t

      by Hgrove on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:00:51 PM PDT

      •  Presumably

        the administration would have to go to Congress for authorization of any attack on Iran, as they did with Iraq.

        by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:24:25 PM PDT

        •  I AM NOT SO SURE

           An aerial attack may be completed before congress and the people know about. This administration will argue that the Iraq resolution gave them very braod powers to fight terroris and the threat of terrorism. The threat alone can cover a multitude of sins.

          by Lawdog on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:35:52 PM PDT

  •  Assymetrical, supposedly...

    I'm not stating this as fact, but I think it's probably a definitive worst-case scenario.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

    And this RE Venezuela.

    http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=29045

    I don't know if it's true. But it's a sobering thought and I would reckon that any such missile sites would be prime targets, if not neutralized secretly already. I would never bet against the US military. I think they have met every goal they've ever set out to do, although it requires a sometimes unacceptable number of casualties on both sides to pursue those goals. (Goals which may be of debatable providence.)

    I can't imagine the reaction if we were to lose a capital ship not to a sneak attack ala USS Cole, but a missile! Probably even more shocking than Sept. 11. For sure, it would galvanize a lot more people, trending toward the pro-war side I imagine. Much of my own anti-war sentiment is routed in how much of a duck hunt our actions are, from the POV of the civilian leadership  and supporters... although not of course to those on the ground under fire, and dishing it out to real live human beings for that matter.

    by NewDirection on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 03:59:51 PM PDT

    •  Truly horrifying.

      The oil noose may be around our necks sooner than we think.

      by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:39:22 PM PDT

      •  Yeah.

        With BushCo the temptation is strong to say they have to be either Evil, or Stupid. However they are also tools of the men running the world who aren't complete idiots. Sure maybe cocaine and daytrading and even evangelic doomwishes have infected the men running the world enough that they are indeed as shortsighted as they seem.

        But is there an even worse scenario? One, considering our luck, that's likely to be possible, if not assured? Could they really be doing their admittedly "dark side" (quoth Cheney) deeds for what they perceive to be pressingly necessary reasons? I don't dispute they are throwing oil on the fire and that its a bad idea. But what if the fire is already going to be an inferno? Then we have two problems, a shared problem with BushCo.

        I rather think that's the case. I know they aren't stupid, and I don't believe in elemental evil. I think we really do have:

        1. A mounting oil crisis;
           
        2. Big threats to the solvency of the government, not just SS;
           
        3. Real potential terrorist problems (as much as 9/11 has been made into a chimera even to me, a New Yorker, by overuse);
           
        4. A sick and twisted culture and society with perverted elements that may well be beyond "needing help" and which we need help from.

        We differ hugely on how to deal with thiese things, and on where these problems reside. You know what they think, I think, by number:

        1. Consumption is the problem;
           
        2. Military spending is the problem;
           
        3. Military actions are the problem;
           
        4. Warmongering, torture-happy, free-thought-discouraging culture is the problem.

        by NewDirection on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:33:27 PM PDT

        •  yes, and....

          please expand on the evils of cocaine, DAYTRADING, and fundie doom. thanks.

          by kd texan on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:15:51 AM PDT

    •  New Direction

      You probably won't see this, since I've been out for several hours, but I think you should post a diary on these two articles.  Important stuff.

      by liz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:27:30 PM PDT

      •  Got It.

        The only problem is that the sources are a little suspect. If I can confirm it from sources we (not necessarily the establishment) can trust I will. Of course you are free to.

        I hesitate because the first place I saw it was Rense, a site that is right on about a lot of things but "eclectic" enough about others, in the LaRouchian manner, to give pause.

        Meanwhile, of much more ultimate import perhaps, you might have noted that Putin is talking about how the new Russian ICBMs will easily circumvent the missile shield Bush is building at huge expense, which tests and most (all?) scientist allege won't even work against current generation ICBMs. (Incidentally, missile interceptor tech, like the Patriots, have always historically been hyped as far more effective than they are.)

        So really the best defense is a lack of offense I think... Just don't bend over backwards to piss people off! That's what I say anyway, and I don't think there's anything weak about that position. You can always go further at need, when the need is real. "Rabid" and "strong" seem to be synonymous in the wingnut vocabulary.

        by NewDirection on Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 07:21:33 AM PDT

  •  Obligatory Price Charts...

    We're at fifty and change today, having hit $55.

    

    Here's an inflation-adjusted chart to be fair and balanced:
    

    So oil priced are about as bad as they have ever been if you look at the first chart. Which is useful if you want to criticize where the Republicans have brought us as of today. But, if you look at the second chart, it shows us how much worse it can still get. Although if you put stock in Peak Oil, that's really only the tip of the melting icecap.

    by NewDirection on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 04:15:05 PM PDT

    •  Most people don't realize...

      ...that inflation adjustment is not all that applicable for oil prices, because oil is not an end-of-the-supply-chain consumer product, but rather, the energy at the beginning of the chain.  Inflation adjustment is based on effects that happen throughout the chain (increased transport cost, increased labor costs for middlemen, etc) but these aren't nearly as applicable when the oil is the start of the whole process.

      This is why as the oil price has risen over the past year, the "inflation-adjusted" price that we're supposed to worry about has gone from $70, to $80, to $90.  The whole line of "oil prices are bad, but not that bad when inflation-adjusted" is just a ploy to keep people placated so they don't realize the situation we're in.
      

      by chargrove on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:04:06 PM PDT

      •  Yeah That's What I'm Saying, Too, Basically...

        That while it looks bad, it's actually worse than that. Although I was not considering your point about inflation's relationship to oil; very interesting.

        by NewDirection on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:12:44 PM PDT

        •  Yeah...

          Yeah I wasn't arguing against your point (we definitely agree it can and will get worse), just pointing out the inflation-adjustment issue since I was originally caught by that same thing myself (easy to do since it's "comforting", but unfortunately not all that applicable).

          by chargrove on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 05:22:55 PM PDT