The Iraq Thing......

Posted on Tuesday, March 25 at 09:47 by RPW

If (as so many are inclined to think), it's all about oil, then it is a senseless squandering of money, lives and resources.  At $100,000 a minute, it would have been far less costly to the economy and the people of the United States to simply BUY the stuff.

So why IS the U.S. in Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/washington/25policy.html?ex=1364097600&en=157f39a525a37e93&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:01 am
    It's not just about the USA having access to the oil. It's about controlling the access of other countries to oil (especially as oil supplies are getting tighter with the apparent approach of peak oil). Note that in spite of initial denials, the US is building permanent military bases in Iraq in which to station American forces (land and air) and from which they will be able, theoretically anyway, to project US power into the region. The ultimate goal is that when peak oil hits with full force, they want to be able to control which other countries have access to Middle Eastern oil and on what terms. And Rummy, the Big Dick and the rest of the PNACers thought they could easily pull it off because, don't you know, they are the world's only superpower.

    Following is snipped from a Mother Jones article from 2003

    The Thirty-Year Itch

    News: Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.

    By Robert Dreyfuss

    March/April 2003 Issue

    If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

    In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

    Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.

    But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that.

    "Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... 73_01.html

  2. by RPW
    Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:04 am
    Except that, China is beginning to flex...........

  3. by RPW
    Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:00 pm
    Everybody make a buck on the War on Terror!

    Supplier under scrutiny on aging arms for Afghans

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/27/asia/27ammo.php



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news