In the late spring of 2001, Vice President Cheney held a series of top secret meetings with the representatives of Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell and BP America for what was later called the Energy Task-force. Their job, ostensibly, was to map out America’s Energy future. Since late 2001 several public interest groups, including the very conservative Judicial Watch, sued to have the proceedings of those meetings opened to public scrutiny. In March 2002, the Commerce Department turned over a few documents from the Task-force meetings to Judicial Watch, among which was the map of Iraq’s Oil Fields, dated March 2001 (above) and a list of the existing “Foreign Suitors” for Iraq Oil. Since that time, Cheney’s office has fought fiercely (and so far, successfully), right up to the Supreme Court, to keep the proceeding secret and to keep any of the private industry officials from disclosing any information about the meetings. Since we all now know the Bush administration’s energy policy, there can be only one explanation for the extraordinary efforts Cheney has taken to keep this secret–he was discussing the potential for a takeover of Iraq’s oil with the companies that might manage the resource, even before 9/11 gave him the excuse to do it.
A little context would be helpful. In early 2001, the Saudi’s were growing impatient that the large American Military presence in their land was causing tension from Muslim clerics who joined Bin Laden’s 1996 call for the “infidel to leave the Holy places of Islam”. In late 2001, the Saudi’s prevented the U.S. from using our Saudi Air Base for attacks on Afghanistan. As the New York Times reported, our departure from Saudi Arabia was abrupt.
The Prince Sultan base, which at the height of the war this spring housed 10,000 American troops and 200 planes, has now been supplanted as the Middle East’s main American military air operations center by Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
This last phase of the American departure from the base occurred with almost no fanfare, attracting only minor mention in the Saudi press. ”It was as if they were never here,” a senior Saudi official said. ”They left very quietly.”
Most of the senior policy makers in the Bush administration had as early as January 26, 1998 (while they were still out of power) made explicit their Iraq regime change policy in an extraordinary open letter to President Clinton.
In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
So for Cheney in the spring of 2001, the desired outcome of U.S. control of Iraq was not in doubt. What was of concern as you can see from the “Oil Suitor List” (here and here) was that both China and Russia had signed “production sharing contracts” with the Iraq Oil Ministry to develop most of the major fields. The reason this becomes important now is that with yesterday’s agreement in the Iraqi Parliament over Amnesty and Revenue Sharing, the American Embassy is now pushing hard for an Iraq Oil Law which would open up huge new concessions to the Oil Companies that were part of Cheney’s Task force. This rush for a new law confuses the Iraqis.
And as Tariq Shafiq, one of the three-member team charged with drafting the petroleum law for the Iraq Ministry of Oil suggested at the hearing, because Iraq itself doesn’t need to develop those untapped reserves for another decade, pressure to immediately implement any provision that would open them up for exploration and development “fuels the argument” that the Americans and British “are there for the oil.”
There has been a very informed discussion on these pages recently, about the role of U.S. Hard Power in a world increasingly dominated by economic and cultural Soft Power moves by our commercial rivals around the globe. If we are to have an honest discussion about imperialism, mercantilism and the role of our government in an everchanging landscape, wouldn’t shining a little sunlight on the discussions of the Cheney Energy Task-force be a place to start?
82 responses so far ↓
doug newhouse // February 14, 2008 at 11:26 am
Right on Jon– This is what Iraq has always been about and the American people need to know what our plans are for Iraqi oil–again if we are going to stay at the request of the Iraqi people then we need to be paid and the oil field are the obvious solution—your piece also points out another overlooked fact–we are beholden to Saudi oil and if that country is unstable as shown on 9/11 don’t we need another source of oil to run our country and isn’t Iraq that source? Iam sure that this is what Bush and his team had in mind when we invaded and now we are faced with having to either follow through with this plan or leave (which is what I think we should do)—but as others have pointed out it really boils down to our energy plans as a country and I see only conservation , nuclear and altenative fuel as the answer—-doug
Zhirem // February 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Doug - Absolutely correct about Iraq being about oil. Furthermore, I believe that World War I was primarily about oil, and it was the first invasion of Iraq proper by the 20th century powers.
A few short years before WWI, Britain changed their naval fleet from coal to oil. Other European powers were following suit. One specifically: Germany. Shortly after that German switch, businessmen in Germany wanted to extend the railway (Orient Express) that went to Constantinople, all the way down to Baghdad. This may not have been *THE* reason for WWI, but I believe it was certainly a primary reason.
I don’t have the specifics or statistics to back this premise up, however I wish to posit the following: when light sweet crude is trading north of $70 / barrel, the Alberta oil sands of Canada is a viable economic prospect. There is a *considerable* amount there. The Saudis only supply the US with (I believe) less than 20% of our total oil consumption as a nation. It would seem to be feasible (and when viewed through the lens of foreign policy) *MUCH* simpler to increase production out of Canada, and write them off entirely. As far as oil from Iraq, they have been off their peak production ever since we invaded. I do believe that Iraq provides the US with far less than Saudi Arabia does, by magnitudes.
That said, rather than ‘fight over the ever-shrinking reserves of ancient sunlight’, we should move quickly, decisively and collectively past petroleum. This will not be a small undertaking. It could very well be akin to the wholesale alteration of large swaths of the cultural makeup of this country. We know we have to do it. We know we need to do it. We know for the good of all of planet Earth we *should* do it. So, I say, let’s get back in a leadership position as a nation, and get ourselves there, then sell and export the technology and techniques we will have perfected by that time. America can be a net exporter again, and not just of food, but of green technology and products.
Well, a man can dream anyway, right?
- Zhirem
Roads // February 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm
That’s a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
It’s certainly true that in oil supplies are increasingly strategic, and that both oil-producing nations and the majors are struggling (failing) to increase production, so that acquisition of reserves becomes compelling as a strategy.
Here’s a relevant perspective on Peak Oil.
doug newhouse // February 14, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Zhirem —I love your post —but while Canadian tar sands may be a longer term answer I don’t believe that it is a quick ramp up—and I wonder–if you were George Bush and came to the conclusion that Saudi was no longer a reliable supplier-wouldn’t you look for a back up plan?—and what better plan then Iraq?– and this is still true–obviously we need to rid our dependence on unstable oil suppliers but what would we do today if Saudi oil was cut off tommorow?– wouldn’t it be nice to controll the number two reserves in the world?—and should we give them up now that we have them?–if we have them– it is a tricky timming issue with no good answers–but on balance I believe that we should leave Iraq asap–but we better have a plan B if Saudi oil goes down—doug
thegiantsnail // February 14, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I actually didn’t believe that the war was about oil until I heard Greenspan reluctantly say it in his autobiography. Of all the political changes I have undergone in the last year or so, I have to say that this was probably the most overdue. I collected all of the negative facts and stored them in the back of my mind, and as soon as I heard him utter those words, the floodgate broke loose.
Jon Taplin // February 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Doug- I think we have made a fatal miscalculation. The notion that its worth spending $2 trillion on the military to “control the oil”, while having to buy oil from Iraq at the same price Iran and China pay. Where is the math in that? It’s just an illusion–that we could control the oil.
LP // February 14, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Interesting, I saw former CIA analyst Ray McGovern speak at Fordham U last night and he basically said everything you’ve listed out here.
abyssalleviathin // February 14, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Thanks for the interesting post, Mr. Taplin
hughvic // February 14, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Hi Jon. I have only a moment so I’ll have to be somewhat elliptical, which is probably advised in any event. If the U.S. is to achieve energy “independence”—obviously our code phrase for divorcing OPEC—sooner rather than later and then later still, then we will need to take pride of place over oil sources outside the Gulf. There need not be anything very nefarious or underhanded about this (other than, say, the usual bribery and such), but it will have to happen, and to happen it will have to be done under the noses of competing consumers such as China and adversarial producers such as Russia and Venezuela. Which is to say, we have to get the jump on them. We’re doing so, believe me. Hence the secrecy. When the next President is briefed, no matter who she may be, I have no doubt that she will see immediately the necessity for discretion in the national security interest.
I hate to be cryptic and melodramatic, but that’s all I can say.
Jon Taplin // February 14, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Hugh-I think this is falacious reasoning. Japan has no Army stationed in the gulf and yet has access to as much oil as it needs to run its economy. Oil is a totally fungible commodity and the limits are the limits of peak oil and nothing else.
Morgan Warstler // February 14, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Jon,
$2T wasn’t wasted to control the oil. The job was to leave the house of Saud, and still ensure energy wasn’t weaponized (see Ukraine in last years coldest weekend). Greenspan’s “oil” thing wasn’t news (we ALL KNEW IT) - he’s a smart guy, “straits of hormuz” was his argument.
Stuff like killing agro-subsidies and making local farming tax free will help. All the alt.fuels sure - make investments in them tax dedcutible.
BUT, reducing consumption or finding a realistic green solution is a marginal-to-hopeless daydream.
SO I think, certainly, ending sales tax on Flex Fuel Vehicles is an idea who’s time has come.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTg5NjkyMmJhNjJiNjIxMWIwNDkzNWZmOWZlMjgzZTg
zestypete // February 15, 2008 at 3:00 am
Nice (and thorough) post Jon. I’m glad to see my earlier tongue in cheek comment about Canada’s oil has been raised again. With that in mind, I wonder how many behind the scenes oil meetings there have already been between the US and Canada on this very subject? If we’re mentioning it here, what are the chances that the White House hadn’t already had the same thought years ago and made moves to secure its place in line?
On the other hand, it’s not necessarily about finding another source of accessible affordable oil, is it? It’s about controlling that access over its rivals - just look at how involved Western countries were in the creation of the BTC pipeline from the Caspian. The prospect of Russia or Iran having any control over the pipeline was enough to prompt significant diplomatic protests and delays. In the end, the majority shareholder is the pipeline operator, the UK’s BP (30.1%), and the pipeline gives Turkey (a democratic, secular and very Western-minded Muslim state) even greater political standing, as well as helping to maintain Georgia’s economic and political independence from Russia.
doug newhouse // February 15, 2008 at 3:32 am
Jon–there is a difference between having controll–ie a secure supplier–and the price you have to pay which is a market price–if Saudi was shut down completely then having supply is all important—if supply is not an issue you are right—controll is really an insurance policy– but I believe –as do you –that oil is funhable and will be available at a price hence we should leave in any event asap—doug
hughvic // February 15, 2008 at 6:15 am
Of course you’re right, Jon. On the other hand, oil and rubber were once the short hairs by which another country had Japan, and war resulted.
It’s petromail, Jon, not market restriction, that’s at issue. Witness for example how the Saudis settled the 1973 war without even militating. Witness the massive recession that resulted. It’s not their oil we need; it’s their control of oil and what that means. Gold is not the monetary standard; oil is. “Energy independence” is a neoconservative euphemism for greater geopolitical stability and control, American-style. I for one am all for it.
We’ll get that control when we get control of one or more oil beds comparable to or greater than that lying in and around the Persian Gulf. There are such sources, and for now we have the inside track. The reason is that our detested oil companies and their Texas contractors have the financial werewithal, the upstream technology and the willingness to risk that are required to find and extract the stuff in other nations. Hence Cheney’s “secret” meetings.
Howd’ya like that, Jon? I just pushed about a thousand hot buttons in like two sentences! Neoconservative…secret…oil companies…geopolitical control…Texas…
Jon Taplin // February 15, 2008 at 6:49 am
Morgan-I’m not convinced that Flex Fuel- mostly ethanol helps either the environment or the economy. Its totally distorting food prices and people are cutting down rain forest to plant sugar cane and corn.
Doug- I don’t even think Chavez or Ahmadinejad are crazy enough to cut off supply. They both have economies that are tanking despite all the oil revenue. They would have revolutions if the oil money stopped.
Hugh-I don’t hear the President of Exxon complaining about not having enough exploratory capacity. They just reported the highest profits of any company in history. While we develop Nuclear for our power generation and the 100 MPG plug in hybrid, we can still buy enough oil during a transition.
hughvic // February 15, 2008 at 8:40 am
Oh Jon, yeah, absolutely. And good on ya. I totally dig green technology, and am so optimistic I make Al Gore look like Eeyore. I’m no petrophile, but I do so love my national security, and right now that’s all about economic security, and right now economic security is largely about oil. (All the more reason for alternatives longrun.)
It’s not the prosperity of the oil companies that’s at issue—they’re rich, and for now that’s a good thing—it’s the prosperity of the country. That’s simply because our enemies are very real, very much enemies, and very, very dangerous.
The point about the exploratory capacity of American oil companies is that it is preeminent, not least because the companies are so flush, so that the Executive does well by us to get that expensive capacity working in the interest of the U.S. Look at what lies off the Horn. China wants it. With it goes control of half the Continent. Know what’s standing in their way? American oil producers and their contractors in Texas. Time to make common cause in the Vice President’s office? Damn straight.
doug newhouse // February 15, 2008 at 11:13 am
Jon–I don’t believe that the extreme Islamists (spelling?) care about the money and if they were to get control of the Saudi oil fields you can kiss our oil supply good bye hence the need for a second supply–Iraq—doug
Morgan Warstler // February 15, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Jon,
I totally agree with you. Corn is best eaten.
BUT, the true barrier to oil competition is the engines. If Flex fuel vehicles are made sales tax free, in 3 years time, there are 50M+ vehicles in the US that don’t REQUIRE oil.
FFV is a “why not” solution, certainly not a total solution, but a solution.
BTW, I’d make plug-ins in tax free as well.
Ian Masters // February 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Dear Jon,
The best laid plans…I’m sure you have it right but this was a heist
that went very wrong and the US taxpayer is now spending trillions
subsidizing oil by paying for the Iraq war. It is not only NOT paying
off, it is likely that the misguided plans to secure Iraqi oil will
end up making Middle East oil hostage to the fear premium at best and
vulnerable to a complete cut-off if the war in Iraq spills into a
regional conflagration.
True Exxon/Mobil and the Saudis all benefit from Iraqi oil staying in
the ground (which has been the case since 1990) because the $100 a
barrel price makes African and Venezuelan oil, which is costly to
extract, more profitable. Since we have lost Basra, we no longer
control what comes out of Iraq but it’s a trickle compared to Iraq’s
known and potential reserves and that explains the long-term bases
scenario, another pipe dream.
It is possible Iraq could end up like Colombia and Nigeria with
endless internal civil wars while the oil flows through pipelines
protected by foreign mercenaries, but Iraq is probably too far gone
for that. In short whatever Cheney and the neocons dreamed up, it’s a
nightmare. However you have to remind yourself that the only people
who are profiting from this mess today are Halliburton and the boys in
Irving and Midland Texas. Proof that the Iraq war is being fought in
the corporate interest, not the national interest.
Cheers,
Ian
Jon Taplin // February 16, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ian’s point is really important. The Occupation of Iraq has actually decreased the output from the Basra fields, raising the price of world oil.
Beware of unexpected consequences.
hughvic // February 16, 2008 at 9:48 am
Mr. Masters, with the utmost respect and for what it’s worth, I cannot agree with you and Jon. Our interest in new oil sources lies elsewhere. Since the invasion began the Iraqis never have lost control of their oil, though the price at the pump in the USA has skyrocketed. And the Administration’s stated reason for leading the invasion remains the best one: a corrupt U.N.’s intransigence in the face of Iraq’s daily and increasingly deadly violations of the 1991 peace treaty. (I may be biased in this judgment, as I’ve known all my life one of the U.S. Naval airmen fired upon repeatedly by Iraqi missile installations for his enforcement of the treaty’s no-fly zone protecting the Kurds. British warplanes also were fired upon regularly prior to the invasion.)
Any loss of control over Basra is a function of British, not American, occupation there. Were that control so vital to the U.S. interest as you suggest, I expect that U.S. forces would secure the place before breakfast.
We need control over the oil off the Horn; we need to deny China and Russia that control; we need near complete independence from oil, domestic and imported, as soon as possible.
Can’t you gentlemen please agree to keep all these thoughts, in balance, in your very formidable minds?
Selah~
Michael // February 21, 2008 at 8:23 am
“Hughvic” is spot on.
If Mr. Taplin wished to comment on something related to the entertainment industry perhaps I would pay more attention as I regard his credentials residing in that area of geoeconomics to be well established. Restating news items about the 2001 Cheney meeting really does not offer anything new as proof to “it was all about oil”.
I dont drive a car, but i still use oil // February 21, 2008 at 8:32 am
FlexFuel vehicles don’t need to be filled with petroleum based fuel, but they certainly do need oil.
What will fertilise the crops grown to produce the ethanol?
Ammonia based substances.
How is that ammonia going to be produced?
By this process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#The_process
“This is done at 150 - 250 atmospheres (atm) and between 300 and 550 °C”
“0.75% of the world’s annual energy supply is consumed in the Haber process (3.35% of world natural gas production is used for ammonia production,[8][9][1] and natural gas represents 22% of world energy production”
This uses huge amounts of energy, and I’ll bet you a lot of petrodollars that energy comes from burning fossil fuels.
Use inefficient means of transport as little as you possibly can, and stop considering subsidising your farmers to grow this massively inefficient car fuel.
Pay enough for your food so that farmers don’t need subsidies, you will then pay less taxes.
Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq’s oil in spring 2001 | Democracy for Vancouver // February 21, 2008 at 9:17 am
[...] Link [...]
Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq’s oil in spring 2001 « We See Tibet Through the Binoculars of the People // February 21, 2008 at 9:18 am
[...] Link [...]
A Directory Of Wonderful Things » Blog Archive » Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq’s oil in spring 2001 // February 21, 2008 at 9:31 am
[...] Link [...]
Your fascist overlords, waging war for oil, no, I’m serious, I’ve got proof. // February 21, 2008 at 9:42 am
[...] — “Its All About Oil”-Alan Greenspan [jtaplin.wordpress.com] [...]
Jeff // February 21, 2008 at 9:49 am
This sounds like the same contradictory story about Bush — he’s an evil mastermind who’s totally inept.
We had a secret plan to grab Iraqi oil, but $2 trillion and 5 years later, we still don’t have it? Why are we wasting time asking the Iraqi Parliament for permission to buy their oil with more than 100K soldiers there?
Let’s put things in historical perspective. In 1998, that oil would have only gone to places like China who were willing to secretly fund a tyrant who thumbed his nose at the UN. And as it turns out, the very nations which opposed action against Iraq were the ones profiting illegally from Oil-for-Food — which helped Hussein starve his people while building himself palaces. And Cheney et al. were hardly alone in calling for regime change in Iraq. It was 10 years ago this month that President Clinton threatened military action against Hussein. Was he in on the secret plan, too?
And please don’t conflate removing Hussein with controlling Iraq. Are those one and the same? If so, why is there an Iraqi Parliament ? Why are we training and encouraging Iraqis to run their own country?
Of course it’s in our strategic interests to have access to Iraqi oil. And that interest may very well have been behind the motivation to remove Hussein. But it wasn’t the only motivation. Removing a tyrant who was intent on developing WMDs and sponsored terrorism and replacing him with a nascent democracy which might be inclined to look favorably on the US in its oil sales is hardly as evil as you make it out to be.
Cufford // February 21, 2008 at 10:41 am
This actually goes much deeper than just Iraq’s oil, which is just icing on the cake for various reasons. It’s about what’s yet to be exploited in the greater Caspian Sea basin, a land-locked region that contains enormous hydrocarbon resources.
The problem these people have been facing is how to get those products out to market once they start pumping; it has to go via pipeline, across someone else’s ground to a major seaport, in either the Persian gulf or the Mediterranean.
Just look at a map of the region and the answer should be obvious. None of those land owners are about to allow U.S. interests to build a pipeline across their country. So this is really as much about future exploitation of as yet untapped hydrocarbon resources as anything. The only answer it to conquer the countries that own that land, and when you understand this basic point, then the need to invade and take control of these countries is imperative. After Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and Syria are much talked about faux enemies because they clearly won’t allow such pipelines across their land either without a huge cut of the profits. Not going to happen.
Iraq’s oil is valuable, for sure, but there’s a much bigger picture here than most realize. I suggest taking a look at the website for: The U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber Of Commerce, ostensibly created to foster and promote the business relationships to exploit these vast, and extremely lucrative resources. Look at the “member” list and you’ll see some very familiar names.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon Iran are targets because of future pipeline needs more than anything else. It’s about the future…about enormous wealth.
Iraq’s oil, restructured capitalist economy, and war profiteering are more collateral, yet not to be understated, bonus points in this decades-long plan to harvest what the Caspian Basin harbors; a vast pool of the most lucrative commodity on the planet.
Yes, it’s about oil. Much more than is under Iraq. That’s just icing on the cake.
One of the Naomi Klein Faithful « The Noise of the Street Enters the House // February 21, 2008 at 10:44 am
[...] of the Naomi Klein Faithful 21Feb08 Read about this via BoingBoing today. It surprises me that people are still surprised at the fact that Western [...]
unneeded // February 21, 2008 at 11:25 am
Bad, bad men. These guys are worse than Osama.
Johnsenclan » Blog Archive » links 2/21/08 // February 21, 2008 at 11:33 am
[...] Department records of meetings between Dick Cheney and oil executives show they were planning on getting Iraq oil one way or [...]
TheBlogTrack.com | // February 21, 2008 at 11:48 am
[...] “Its All About Oil,” said Alan Greenspan - jtaplin [...]
Just wonderful things » Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq’s oil in spring 2001 // February 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[...] Link [...]
Andrew’s Blog » Is This The Answer? // February 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm
[...] links are mine, the quote comes from this blog by a professor at the Annenberg School of Journalism. In the late spring of 2001, Vice President [...]
Zachariah // February 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Bastards. I keep hearing Bush push his making-the-world-a-democracy and spouting how much he respects the personal freedom of Americans. But in reality, Bushes America is more a dictatorship and anyone who speaks out against him or his cronies is shut down pretty quick.
If America was truly free and truly “by the people for the people” - then these crooks in the Whitehouse would have been charged with war crimes, purgery, murder, etc etc. but they aren’t. The American people, press and justice system are so suppressed and controlled that this just can’t happen in the current climate.
I’m not an American but GW’s policies are affecting me and the rest of the world and it pisses me off.
PetePits // February 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Jeff says: “This sounds like the same contradictory story about Bush — he’s an evil mastermind who’s totally inept.” Well, the inept part is right on, but the evil masterminds are Cheney and all the other neocons advising him.
Regarding Iraq and the Energy Planning Meetings, why do you suppose there has been such a cloak of secrecy and so much deception regarding these two related issues? Because the American people would not stand for their actions if the truth were known!
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that energy is a major factor, by far the biggest factor, in the shaping of policy of this administration. Energy considerations dominate their foreign policy, their environmental policy, their farm policy plus their entire national security agenda and the wars that result.
We are now in so deep that a new administration may not be able to extract us from the “tar baby” that we have grasped.
SpoonFighter - Random Crap From A Random Guy» Blog Archive » Hard Evidence of Ulterior Motives for Invading Iraq // February 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm
[...] reported by BoingBoing and Jon Talpin, Judicial Watch has obtained from the Commerce department documents from meetings between VP Cheney [...]
font9a // February 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I can hardly believe the words I am writing. I’m certainly no proponent of oil. However, consider the following argument:
China’s economy is estimated to be about 10T in real terms, compared to America’s at 13.6T. In order for China to continue to grow it’s economy at a ferocious rate, let’s say 6.5%, it *needs* to continue spending money, exporting goods, and importing oil. Currency has no value unless it’s in motion. So, pretend America reduces — nay, eliminates — dependence on Middle Eastern oil. That drives down the cost of oil in the global markets due to decreased demand. That allows China to buy more oil for the same expenditure providing it with fuel and freer cash. Meanwhile, America has to spend more to develop alternatives, explore / risk new reserves in Canada, Alaska, Antarctica. The cost balance between America’s energy needs and China’s energy needs becomes greater and greater; China continues to enjoy the cheaper commodity and grow it’s economy as America’s economy struggles to expand and has to pay more per mWh to meet our energy demands. In short, our energy demands aren’t going down, they’re going up. Doing the “right” thing by becoming greener and less reliant on Middle Eastern oil just hands China (and Russia, and everybody else) a giant coupon by which they get to trade in for cheaper oil and lower coefficient of friction on their economy.
Iraq » Its all about oil quote… // February 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm
[...] NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias wrote an interesting post today on ItÂs all about oil quote…Here’s a quick excerptWatch, among which was [a] map of Iraqs Oil Fields, dated March 2001 and a list of the existing Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oil. ] [...]
Shaddack // February 21, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Biofuels, good idea. Biofuels from corn or cane, bad idea. There is much higher efficiency available from algae, which at the same time can be used for bioremediation of waste water. There are already promising pilot projects of this nature. Suitable genetic modifications of the algae then can allow direct production of desired substances - ethanol, butanol, butanetriol, esters of fatty acids, various feedstocks for chemical synthesis - further reducing processing complexity.
Such solution, together with other approaches (reactors conventional and thorium-cycle, later perhaps fusion, photovoltaics, water photolysis, geothermal where available, etc.), can be implemented in all areas of the world.
This, as a significant side effect, will reduce the tactical efficiency of control of crude oil production and transport (even Chinese and Russians deserve a decent standard of living). This planet is too small for control fantasies of paranoid rulers of obsoleted nation-states.
Mark Millan // February 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Cheney has a very long history of supporting and defending the power of the Executive branch – he did so even while in Congress, an ostensibly competing branch of government. Under President Carter, Congressman Cheney defended vigorously the Carter Administration’s powers under the Constitution and authority to keep the content of meetings under lock and seal. The only reason Cheney had to resort to allegedly “extraordinary” measures is because efforts for to obtain information from these confidential meetings were, themselves, extraordinary (not to mention groundless). Put simply, had a Democrat administration resisted such calls, Cheney would have argued in favor of that Democrat administration.
Nearly everybody came around to support regime change in Iraq by 1998. This was the official policy of the United State government under President Clinton.
It remains unclear that Cheney desires or desired the outcome of US control over Iraq. If he wished such control, at least in the long term, surely he has failed to realize this wish: we do not control Iraq.
Seems the push for development of as much of the Iraqi reserves as possible might be the product of a desire to kick off as much sustainable economic progress in Iraq as possible. Prosperous, free societies that are busy tending to matters of commerce tend not to be bellicose, tend not to be problematic, and tend not to preoccupied with internal strife.
DrunkPuppy » Blog Archive » Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq’s oil in spring 2001 // February 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm
[...] Link [...]
Mark Millan // February 21, 2008 at 6:22 pm
PS (Zachariah), I hear plenty of sustained dissent from Bush Administration policies from elected officials, career bureaucrats (and I say that with no negative connotation), and ordinary Americans. I am an ordinary American who pays more attention to the events of the day than most, and I have seen no effort to shut down any person or organization for simply disagreeing with administration policy.
Respectfully submitted.
Its Not Our Oil, Its Theirs // February 21, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Hmmm?
Plans to divide Iraq oil made BEFORE 9/11. Plans drawn to invade afghanistan and iraq made BEFORE 9/11. NSA wiretapping started BEFORE 9/11, not after. Patriot Act legislation written BEFORE 9/11.
But anyone that questions the government supplied conspiracy theory on 9/11 is a tin-foil hat wearing idiot.
If we had spent the $2 trillion on alt.energy, we could thumb our noses at everyone. But instead, we are in debt up to our asses, the dollar is falling with far to go, we are about to invade Iran FOR THE CONTROL OF OIL and for no other reason, we have responsibility for the deaths of between 1 and 2 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I find it ludicrous that the tone of so many comments (not the blog itself) is “it is our oil for the taking, sovereignty be-damned.”
We have committed war crimes and allowed our constitution to be destroyed in 7 short years, while oil prices are up 900% and the majors are rolling in dough. And if you don’t see the link between the oil prices, the war, and the destruction of our constitution, you are dense.
God help us when we reap what we have sown.
hughvic // February 21, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Zachariah,
I am American. I’ve worked as a journalist and a manipulator of journalists; as a groomer of politicians and an undoer of them; as an author of laws and a teacher of jurisprudence. I’ve been quite imperfect at all these jobs. And yet I never have experienced, nor even seen, the suppression and control of the American People that you see. Please tell me, where might I find it?
ConsDemo // February 21, 2008 at 7:35 pm
If you’re suggesting the invasion of Iraq was designed to secure Iraqi oil fields for US companies, I think it is a very intellectually lazy accusation. It is true that our larger military presence in the Middle East partially driven by oil concerns but American oil companies did not need a US invasion to get access to Iraq’s oil, Saddam would have happily granted it, which is why these companies (including Halliburton) were lobbying to ease up on sanctions in the late 1990s. What is irritating about such accusations is they ignore the real issues and thus accomplish nothing. There was a very legitimate concern about having Saddam in power IF ONE FAVORS SIGNIFICANT AMERICAN PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. He could certainly disrupt the oil supply and threaten Israel, Kuwait and other other so-called allies, plus he could arm terrorist groups. I don’t disagree with those he was a threat to certain American interests, I just don’t think those interests were important.
The solution is for the US to get out of the region. Tell our so-called allies, “good luck” and not take sides in Middle Eastern regional conflicts. It isn’t the desires of the American oil industry that keep us there, it is the view that a disruption in the oil supply would devastate the US economy and the belief that we must blindly support Israel. If we want to avoid entrapment in ME conflicts we need to change those views.
Morgan Warstler // February 21, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Well you can’t actually see it!
You have to feeeeeeel it. Anytime you are confused about why things aren’t going your way, close you eyes and FEEL repressed.
See? Now it must be real and true.
Kylie S. // February 21, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You will find the suppression of the American people in the so called ‘democratic elections’ being held right now. Does it not concern you that a president can come to power without winning the popular vote? Or that the opinions of the American people matter little when it comes to new policies and governments? The fairly conservative views expressed by the Democrats and Republicans are not representative of the majority of the population. For instance a survey done not too long ago found that over 85% of people in the United States want some form of national health care and yet when has any leader made Health Care a priority in his/her election campaign or presidential policy? What about running for president? Unless you have millions upon millions of dollars it is impossible to run for president. Rich people run and benefit the othr rich people meanwhile the poor or even middle classes are left to fend for themselves. I am so shocked and saddened by the horrible conditions many Americans live in, the deplorable circumstances of people living in such a wealthy nation. Is this not suppression and control?
And to go back to a comment made a while back…please stop talking about the Alberta Oil Sands like they are an American resource. Extracting Oil from Alberta has so many far reaching environmental implications that are not worth the oil. I am sorry but I am Canadian and the U.S. has no business whatsoever deciding what is done with OUR natural resources. Even as I say that though under NAFTA we are REQUIRED to give the U.S. a % of our oil output, i believe it is 45%, did you know that?
Please everybody don’t lose perspective, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Venezuela are sovereign nations. The U.S. has no business telling the people of those countries what resources to give and at what price. How would you feel if your nation, one you love and would fight for, suddenly was being controlled and pushed around by another country? Don’t forget what the War of Independence was all about: Freedom, democracy, sovereignty.
The U.S. is due for another revolution, and believe me I would be the first one to help.
P.S. I am not American bashing, I love the people of the U.S. and the beautiful scenery, I just HATE the policies of the leaders and the general unconsciousness/ political apathy I generally observe.
Thanks
hughvic // February 21, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I’m trying to feel it. I burnt a sage smudge, and hopped about in a circle chanting HAL-i-bur-ton, HAL-i-bur-ton, HAL-i-bur-ton, HAL-i-bur-ton—like so, but to little avail.
Perhaps Zachariah was referring to the rough go of it had by freethinkers in the more prestigious American universities. Speech codes and all that. The Holy Office of the Doctrine of Political Correctness. The sort of suppression that can compress a soul to conform to the most detailed of molds, and extrude a Lee Bollinger or a Michelle Obama, a Seeker in search of a grievance.
If that is the suppression and control to which Zachariah refers, then I already have seen it. Again and again. And you’re right, Morgan: it is an affective truth; truth as a function of the affect of the last person emoting.
I feel Zechariah’s pain.
David // February 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm
And just think, if instead of using $1 trillion dollars taking the oil from Iraq, the USA had spent that developing alternate energy means. What a waste and a sorry lesson for history, who will remember the current Bush administration in a very poor light.
Shawn // February 21, 2008 at 9:03 pm
As some of you have stated, it’s about CONTROL of the oil. It is is an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. By physically taking Iraq, we’ve begun the process of instilling a dummy government and placing western oil companies first in line for the second largest oil fields on earth. All of this was done as a strike against OPEC. While we do not purchase most of our oil from them, they control the price of oil on the world market. By securing a large supply of oil, we’ve begun the process of reducing the Saudi’s economic might. They’ve used their control of the world’s oil prices as an effective tool for manipulating the world economically and politically for several generations now. By physically taking one country in the middle east, the U.S. has made steps toward securing its economic empire.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this was the right tact. It is a bandaid on a bullet wound. While this may strengthen (or simply hold) us over the next 20 - 30 years, the money required to secure Iraq’s oil fields would have been better spent financing the development of legitimate alternative fuel sources. It’s not a daydream, it’s a necessity. 2-3 trillion dollars could go a long way toward research on new fuel sources, and a successful technology could ensure U.S. economic dominance for several generations to come.
Dennis The Lionhearted // February 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm
In the early 80’s, when conservation measures and non-OPEC production had Saudi production rates down to 2 MMBPD, the Saudis flooded the markets with cheap oil for a couple years to drive out the marginal production and kill conservation measures. What’s to keep them from doing that again? What their supply/demand balance now?
Jon Taplin // February 21, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Dennis- If the Saudis could get oil down to $80 a barrel and prevent a U.S. recession by pumping a lot more, they would. Their fields are old. Read about Peak oil here http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/peak-oil-evidence/
Morgan Warstler // February 21, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Here’s to instilling a dummy government!
“Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.
First, a provincial powers law that turned Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenues — about 85 percent of which are from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/democrats_unwavering_in_the_fa.html
——
And how much oil is there?
“According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iraq possesses 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, third largest in the world (after Saudi Arabia and Iran). About two-thirds of its known oil reserves are located in Shia southern Iraq, and the final third in Kurdish northern Iraq. However, in energy terms, only about 10% of the country has actually been explored and there is good reason to believe that modern methods — which have not been applied since the beginning of the Iraq-Iran War in 1980 — might well uncover magnitudes more oil. Estimates of the possible new finds offered by officials of various interested governments range from 45 billion to 214 billion additional barrels, depending on the source; but some non-governmental experts see the final treasure exceeding 400 billion barrels. If the latter figure is correct, then Iraq would likely become the world’s largest source of oil.”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174779/michael_schwartz_the_prize_of_iraqi_oil
400 Billion Barrels you say??
Let me get out my pencil…
Let’s say that cost averages over 30 years of extraction at a price averaged at $250 a barrel in current dollars. A very conservative number for the next 30 years assuming we move aggressively to alt.fuels, nuclear, and FFV right away.
Is that $100 Trillion Dollars?
Keep it simple, stupid — PeterGasston.co.uk // February 22, 2008 at 12:05 am
[...] know how I’ve been saying for about five years that the invasion of Iraq was really just all about oil? In the late spring of 2001, Vice President Cheney held a series of top secret meetings with the [...]
DEXTER // February 22, 2008 at 1:17 am
HERES THE MAIN FACT THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OF OIL.WE CAN SIT AROUND AND DEBATE THIS OUR THAT BUT THE MAIN FACT IS THERE ISNT ENOUGH OIL TO GO AROUND.LEARN TO HUNT YOUR OWN FOOD LEARN TO GROW YOUR OWN FOOD.GET OUT OF THE CITIES IF YOU CAN AND GET READY TO WATCH EVERYTHING YOU KNOW AND LOVE.DISSAPPEAR.
leveymg // February 22, 2008 at 4:43 am
A Lingering Question - Why would everyone, including the courts, maintain that secrecy about the meetings was still essential, even after we invaded Iraq?
Answer: Iran & Saudi Arabia were also on the table.
A row of Dominoes. First, knock over Iraq, demonstrate American Shock & Awe on the degraded weakling first. Next, forment “regime change” in Iran - they never really liked self-rule, anyway. Then, finally, the Grand Prize - The Kingdom of Oil - easy, they thought, just cleave the Royal family along existing rival factions, slap the terrorist label on the stronger side, and move in to take the spoils.
Easy as One, Two, Three. So, they thought.
Mark Millan // February 22, 2008 at 7:00 am
Kylie, the 2000 election was done by the book. We have an Electoral College, after all. They system worked. I’ve never thought the government should follow the changing whims of the people in realtime – taken to its logical conclusion, this has potentially disastrous results. All major Democrat candidates for president have some form of social healthcare in their platforms.
I really don’t see much suppression and control. I have some sympathy for the less fortunate, but I do not wish a government solution to the supposed problem. Poverty cannot be reduced to 0, and while I do not wish to minimize anybody’s plight, it’s not as though 20% of Americans live in squalor.
Of course we should not expect to control the resources of other states. We certainly can make our case via commercial channels, which I think is fair, reasonable, and nearly universal.
And for what it’s worth, good call on the oil sands.
Cheers! And thanks to Mr. Taplin for sparking a good conversation!
Peak Oil Evidence « Jon Taplin’s Blog // February 22, 2008 at 8:22 am
[...] days after I posted an article about the Cheney Oil Taskforce and Iraq, the discussion board continues to thrive. Some of it has revolved around the concept of [...]
hughvic // February 22, 2008 at 10:45 am
Kylie S., the U.S. is well aware of Canada’s sovereignty, and continues to pursue ever closer ties to Canada for a host of reasons. Your RCMP saved Los Angeles on Y2K, for example—a debt yet unpaid. There are so many shared interests between the two nations that the list to me seems endless. Moreover, the U.S. could never fox Canada on resource development; in fact, when U.S. corporations and investors—and those of the sovereign Native American nations—pursue resource development, they invariably partner with Canada, where the expertise lies. The corporate roster of Denver testifies to this fact.
Also, you and Mr. Jefferson are quite right about the U.S. being overdue for another revolution. It’s rather ironic to hear that, however, from a citizen of a nation that managed to secure the same rights, and roughly the same material fruits, without a revolution, without invasion, and without a sundering civil war. I think we could do with something like the Mexican revolution, though—provided of course that I could choose which of the three Mexican revolutionary objectives to pursue: one person, one vote; universal education; land reform. O to be master of the universe!
Or Dick Cheney.
It’s fun to see in this string the phenomenon of The Rohrscheney Blot: How to Psychoanalyze Conspiracists for Fun and Profit. All you need is this book and a secret meeting or two!
Also, the notion of the loosest canon on the world scene, Hussein’s Iraq, engaged in daily acts of war against superpowers, being brought to heel by an impressive trade-show display of alternative energy technologies…well, it gets better and better the more you think about it. Rather like one of Mark Twain’s shaggy dog stories.
Say, my Canadian friend, when are you folks going to provide the world with another Marshall McLuhan who can explain for us the power and portent of this multimedium, the Internet?
Mark Millan // February 22, 2008 at 11:31 am
“It’s Not Our Oil,” we have numerous plans to invade numerous countries, in the hope that we never have to. Part of the job of the DoD is planning for as many contingencies as possible. Wiretapping has gone on for years and years, under R and D administrations. I see neither the basis nor the need to try to connect this to a plot to steal Iraq’s oil. The Patriot Act was written before 9/11? I did not know that. Did anybody else?
The Constitution is destroyed? I am curious to hear an explanation. I am certain that I can step outside my house and criticize the Bush Administration official of my choice, and do so quite freely. Wiretapping? There is no legitimate expectation of privacy in a phone call, as the courts have maintained for years. Habeas corpus? No reason to think it applies to non-US citizens who are trying to destroy the US. Same with the right to a speedy and public trial.
Cufford // February 22, 2008 at 11:52 am
Regarding OPEC. Saddam was a member, but a defiant one and wouldn’t follow the rules. He was using his oil might to piss off American oil industry giants and Saudis alike by turning his spickets on and off at will, resulting in huge price fluctuations and instability in the oil markets. He’d flood the market with oil when he, as an OPEC member was supposed to be reducing output, causing prices to fall. Oil was his weapon against Western sanctions that were having devastating effects on his people. Lastly, he was threatening to move from trading his oil in U.S. Petrodollars to the Euro, a move we’re now seeing in other places driving the value of the dollar down like a falling rock. Saddam had to be taken out. Of course, since taking control of Iraq’s oil, the spickets have intentionally been turned off, driving the prices through the roof, and the Bush family and other big oil families are laughing all the way to the bank. They are quite intentionally NOT pumping Iraq’s oil at any significant rate for this reason. They took the thug out that was costing them so much in oil profits, and now have been experiencing the highest oil industry profits in U.S. history. As for the U.S. relationship with the Saudis, it’s as cozy as ever since they’re all making tons more money now than before we removed Saddam from the picture.
Jon Taplin // February 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Cufford- Your point is well taken, but let’s be sure we know who really benefits from $100 oil. Primarily five National oil companies in Russia, Venezuela and the Gulf. However, you have spurred me to a new post on your thoughts later this afternoon.
Note From Baghdad « Jon Taplin’s Blog // February 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[...] it has never gotten nasty like a lot of blogs I read. The dialogues just keep getting deeper like this one about Oil and Iraq and we have writers from all politcal spectrums, respectfully expressing strongly held opinions, [...]
Scott Elliott.com | links for 2008-02-23 // February 22, 2008 at 5:02 pm
[...] “Its All About Oil” -Alan Greenspan [...]
hughvic // February 22, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Right on, Cufford. Our hapless marriage to American Big Oil is as ambivalent and mutually self-serving as is our marriage to the Saudis. Or our marriage to Stalin. Definately an affair for mature audiences.
ShortWoman» Blog Archive » Again? // February 22, 2008 at 8:33 pm
[...] insurance companies from further screwing us; Zoinks, we’re still dribbling details about Cheney’s secret energy task force; in the real world contraceptives still prevent abortion; shunting medical costs onto consumers is [...]
glensho // February 23, 2008 at 6:28 am
It is interesting that well informed posters are unaware of the history of the Patriot Act, the Project for the New American Century, and the history of the Neo-Conservatives, relative to the attack on Iraq, and all else this group has determined to control. Their plans were made public a long time ago, and had American citizens been more alert and involved in research concerning presidential candidates, they quite likely would have never considered voting for Bush and his people.
A perusal of bills passed and acts made law will reveal much of what has come to pass in the increasing amount of power in the office of president, and the erosion of citizens’ rights.
How many have actually read the Patriot Act, which eliminates the 4th Amendment? How many have read the John Warner Bill, giving the president the total power of martial law and the militarization of space, etc. The changes in the U.S. are there to read and recognize for what they are: a new era of U.S. governing, and citizens could easily be the victims.
hughvic // February 23, 2008 at 9:23 am
When I read the Patriot Act, I did so as someone who has studied Constitutional Law widely and deeply, and taught it and written about it. Nothing in the Act nullifies, nor could nullify, the 4th Amendment. That is absurd, conspiracist nonsense.
Moreover, I doubt that glensho could name three neoConservatives in the Bush Administration.
Cufford // February 23, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Jon - and your point is well taken as well, though in all due respect, I’m not exactly sure what this point was.
After all, these other oil industry entities you mention, while certainly also benefiting from any upward swing in prices/profits, aren’t as far as any evidence I can see, directly involved in the process of attacking, occupying and, well, lets’ not mince words here, stealing these resources through the use of their military might to effect this result. To the contrary, I would submit that these are mere collateral beneficiaries of the imperialistic, coordinated aggressiveness of Western capitalistic efforts.
Much like — and I think this is an appropriate analogy — many species in nature benefit collaterally from the aggression of another species, feeding off the kill from another aggressor, while not having been a part of that attack aggression itself.
I don’t see these other countries as being more or less directly involved in the planning and execution of this invasion of other sovereign nations, based largely on the quest for more wealth and power in the world, though they obviously also benefit from it in the way you note.
I think that the bigger picture here tends to get pushed aside here in these discussions, when focusing on smaller pieces of the big picture.
Take, for example, the mention of PNAC and other ostensibly ideological forces in all of this. I would submit that in all of these there still remains the fundamental, and indeed inseparable, element of the human quest for wealth and power, and which is manifested in Western capitalism itself. I would argue that none of these so-called neocon ideologies can be separated from the quest for wealth that is inherent in all of these. The Richard Perles and William Kristols love pushing idiologies which insure their own wealth in the process.
Clearly, most of us can agree, I believe, that if the Middle East had no exploitable, lucrative resources, we’d have no interest there. As they say, if their natural resource was lettuce instead of oil (or more accurately hydrocarbons; i.e, oil and natural gas and their byproducts), would we be there.
If your answer to his rhetorical question is “no”, then you can’t logically discount the significance of this fundamental element; that our (Western) interest in the Middle East isn’t, in the largest way, not driven by capitalist interests.
As I attempted to express in my first post to this wonderful Blog topic (thank you, by the way), this is about much more than just Iraq’s oil, it’s about an enormous exploitable economic resource that western capitalism simply can’t resist, and goes well beyond seizing of Iraq’s own oil fields (which in itself, offers immense profit potential simply by not pumping it all for now, let alone owning it down the road).
There’s so many collateral profit channels associated with this all. From the notorious military-industrial complex (billions of U.S. tax dollars flowing wildly into the accounts of U.S. war making corporations alone), all of the ancillary crony capitalism (more billions of tax dollars channeled to Halliburton, Blackwater, et al, and other “privatization” entities — privatization being a euphemism for favored and connected corporations and their owners stuffing their economic appetites at the trough of public tax money, largely unregulated (no bid contracts) — and the fact that the powers behind all of this have been able to take the country of Iraq, and completely rewrite the economic rules from the ground up, all to benefit Western capitalist entities. It’s a frigg’n gold mine over there in so many ways…benefiting so many connected capitalist interest…it’s mind boggling. Iraq’s oil is truly but a small but significant part of it all.
Again…the big picture centers on a decades-long plan to tap the vast hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Basin, and in order to do that, essentially requiring the taking of all countries in the region due do pipleline/marketing needs. Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan (all have to be in the bag, or might as well be). All these countries who essentially border on that hydrocarbon-rich area and which have land over which pipelines will have to be stretched.
Afghanistan was merely first on the list, Iraq second, and Iran and Syria are clearly next, with the same lying “if we don’t there’ll be a mushroom cloud” propaganda. This is a decades-long plan here, and it is about making money, primarily from hydrocarbons (currently the most lucrative commodity on Earth — until water becomes that someday in the future). But along with that conveniently comes all sorts of profiting, from military-industrial, crony capitalism (no bid contracts for your friends/supporters’ companies) to completely restructuring economies like Iraq’s, bleeding them dry for Western profits at the expense of the human element. Heck, it’s happening right here in the U.S. alone (NAFTA, etc.). It’s going on all around the globe, and has been for years.
Bottom line, this is about rapacious capitalism as much as anything else.
I have no problem with capitalism in theory, if it’s well regulated and ethical. But unfortunately, it never stays that way. It’s the so-called “golden rule”. Those who own the gold, make the rules. And those rules are naturally designed to get them more gold. It’s class warfare, and it’s been the source of the rise and fall of every empire in history, and it’s merely happening again.
Rather than say that Iraq is “all about the oil”. It would be more accurate to say that it’s “all about the money to be made”.
That’s what the Middle East is to Western interests. It’s about an incredible amount of wealth to be made, and with no regard for what stands in the way of making it, including the human element.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Fascism and Democracy « Jon Taplin’s Blog // February 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
[...] threads of dialogue that have been going on are beginning to converge. One is around Oil and Iraq (here, here and here). The other is around the concept of liberal fascism. They converge, because for me [...]
Cufford // February 23, 2008 at 8:28 pm
As a PS to my previous posts, I feel that I have failed to provide attribution for my contention that this is all largely about the Caspian Basin resources.
I did mention the “The U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber Of Commerce” (http://www.usacc.org/) in passing, but I would suggest people take a look at the website and in particular that “member list” I mentioned.
There you’ll see familiar Western corporate interests including: Halliburton, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobile, and BP (British Petroleum). Also, not to be missed: Baker Botts, LLP, firm of James Baker, former Secretary of State, senior council for The Carlye Group, as well as council to the Saudis in defensive of American 911 family victims suing the Saudis for their role, etc.
The U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber Of Commerce is all about the exploitation of the enormous money making potential of the greater Caspian region, and Western capitalist interests, including those listed as members above, are all over it. Not surprisingly, these same interest exert enormous influence in U.S. foreign policy. As the article which apparently spawned this blog thread notes, Cheney’s Energy Task Force was largely made up of these same entities, planning the U.S Energy Policy purely for selfish profit potential.
The business relationships building in the Caspian Basin aren’t something most people know about, but is top priority for Western capital interests.
Dick Cheney famous stated to an audience of oil industry industrialists in 1998:
“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian… Securing the world’s remaining energy reserves are the central concern of U.S. geopolitical strategy, and controlling access to Central Asian hydrocarbons is one of main factors influencing recent U.S. policy in the Middle East, the invasion in the late 1970s of Afghanistan by both Russia and the U.S., and the “war on terrorism”.
In other words…it’s all about the money folks.
Furthermore, from another industry publication:
“It has been estimated that the basin of the land-locked Caspian Sea has 170- 463 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, the largest single natural gas resource in the world. The U.S. Department of Energy gives a probability of 50% that the Caspian basin contains reserves of 243 billion barrels of oil, on a par with the 260 billion barrels of proven reserves claimed by the Arabian peninsula. The Kashagan oil field, off the Kasakh coast, was discovered in 2000 and is believed to be among the world’s 5 largest oil fields. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan also have vast gas reserves but exports are limited by pipeline infrastructure.”
There is tons of documentation on the Caspian region and it’s significance to Western capitalist interests, and it’s logical relationship to our military policy in the region, as well as the extent to which these interests, including U.S. government officials have publicly stated their organizational plans, business and political relationships for the region.
Connecting the dots with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, et al isn’t rocket science.
We are in the Middle East to make money. Well, not you and I, but the powers that are behind what our country does abroad in the name of the so-called “War on Terrorism”.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not, practically nobody other than those in the industry have heard about the Caspian Basin and it’s enormous hydrocarbon resources.
Frankly, I’m sure that the powers that be are happy to have us all think that Iraq is all about stealing it’s oil fields, because that distracts everyone from what’s really at play here. The much bigger picture indeed. The complete dominance of Middle East hydrocarbon resources, of which Iraq is a very small part indeed.
They’re in this for the long haul. Talk of troop withdrawal and democracy in Iraq is nothing more than short term propaganda to keep the masses happy and distracted between elections.
But we’ve really only just begun this invasion and eventual takeover of all the relevant countries of the region who aren’t willing partners in this scheme.
As we should all realize all too well, Iran is most certainly going to be the next Iraq. There’s no question about it. Just the next step along the way in this decades-long plan to control and profit from this entire region.
Any country who isn’t on board with Western interests, will fall victim to this imperialist march for wealth and power from Middle East resources.
The facts are out there folks, and the conclusions aren’t difficult to reach. It’s just common sense.
Or, perhaps, something along the lines of Ockham’s Razor, which I understand goes something like: all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
Well, the quest for wealth and power just happens to fit neatly into everything that’s happening over there. Some might say it’s just coincidental that all the players are making enormous amounts of money and that it’s really about ideology. I don’t think so. I think it’s as simple as going after the wealth that’s there to be made, and that’s what this is truly all about.
Rapacious capitalism…greed without a conscience.
Jon Taplin // February 23, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Cufford-This is really good stuff. I’ve combined some of our discussion here with some other line of thought on a new thread.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/fascism-and-democracy/
hughvic // February 23, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Take care, Cufford, please. You too, Jon. You might consider broadening your strokes.
Jon, ask Starr about Doheny sometime.
Soon.
Mark Millan // February 23, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Cufford, interesting quote from Cheney. Most interesting is that it features him making references to the US invasion of Afghanistan and the terrorism war a full three years before either had come to pass.
?
cambo // February 24, 2008 at 1:44 am
Mayer Arar
Bill Maher
to name two whose views were suppressed. To posit that this administration isn’t steamrolling the Constitution is laughable right-wing apologia.
hughvic // February 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Which Constitutional liberties of Mayer Ayer’s were abridged, given that he’s a Canadian citizen?
Again, which of Bill Mayer’s civil liberties?
Saying that “this administration” is “steamrolling the Constitution” is laughable left-wing propaganda.
Been missing any of your civil rights lately?
I'm Mad Popular (On The Internets). | Prose Before Hos // February 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
[...] 9/11, an Oil Mans Wet Dream: In the late spring of 2001, Vice President Cheney held a series of top secret meetings with the [...]
The Tumbler » Blog Archive » The U.S. needs “regime change” ASAP // February 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm
[...] LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK [...]
james c // March 7, 2008 at 2:49 am
I wonder why anyone would take Greenspan’s comments at face value. Of course the Bush administration wanted to appropriate Iraqi oil, but as has been pointed out, the value of this is much smaller than the cost of the war.
Greenspan is merely diverting attention from the neocons who were the architects of the war.
Iraqi Oil « Jon Taplin’s Blog // April 9, 2008 at 7:05 am
[...] 9, 2008 · No Comments There has been a good deal of discussion on these pages about Iraqi Oil. Finally a notion from the Congressional Democrats that we all could agree on. [...]
Leave a Comment