Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

[Comrade Tribune]

And about this 'Saddam-bad-man-is-has-Womdies'-business:

1) I honestly don´t think he has.

But let´s assume I was wrong, and he had a few: What is he *going to do* with them?

2) I think we have established he is not going to attack the United States. He can´t, and he won´t.

3) Nor is he going to attack Europe.

4) He might *like* to attack Israel, but he won´t: Israel has more Womdies than he has, and always will.

5) All he could possibly do is *deter* Israel (from attacking him, or expelling the Palestinians).

6) This would be a good thing in itself, but quite apart from that:

7) The French have wisely decided that keeping Saddam from deterring Israel will cost them a lot of Francs, and you never get anything in return from Israel, so they are not amused.

8) Americans have unwisely decided that they want to help Israel with its dirty jobs, sacrificing money, good standing with their Allies, morality and all reputation they ever had, together with the blood of their soldiers, for precisely nothing in return.

They should be very thankful to Europeans who point that out to them. I recommend myself for a Medal of Freedom.

[Sten Sture]

Does anyone have a decent source for where Persian Gulf Oil exports go? Last time I saw such a thing not much of it went to the States United, but that was a long time ago, and Japan was a major buyer, so who knows what that looks like now.

Also, the US looks like the major buyer of Iraqi oil, but does anyone know how the UN food for oil program impacts that? Does the UN 'cut the check' out of New York and does that make it look like it all goes to the States? I bring that up because the ME is a very expensive place from which to ship oil to the US because of geography. Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, the West African coast, and the North Sea are much cheaper.


Of course the current Iraqi situation has Israel as a major factor. The US believes that Israel would preemptively strike Iraq if it had reason to believe that Iraq was close to being nuclear capable, just like they did in 1985ish. The US would get blamed for having its 'client' state do its dirty work, and the world would get another 1000 years of religous strife in the region.

Conversely, the US makes the Iraqi dictatorship fall in return for Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
Conversely, the US makes the Iraqi dictatorship fall in return for Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue...

Nice try, but no cookies.

US establish new Iraqi dictatorship replacing the old one so that Israel can finally expel the Palestinians without fear of repercussion. Patriotic US sheep are lied to, because they would ask about benefits of it all, if the truth were known...

[JohnT]

According to this site, Sten, 2001 PG oil exports were as follows:

US - 2.7 million barrels per day
OECD - 2.8 mbbl/day
Japan - 4.1 mbbl/day

I'd look up some more, but I got baby duty for the night.

[Sandman]

I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

Nah, they need to defend their living standard.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If the US was successful (the war's easy and no contest, it's those sticky details after Saddam's ass is kicked to hell that are the problem), then the US would substantially enhance it's geopolitical power over one of the most universally critical resources in the industrialized world.

I don't think that's the real reasoning, though, because oil is a market commodity, and short of hunting down and killing buyers and sellers (mostly our allies, more or less), you're not going to keep anyone from getting it.

IMO, the biggest reason is simply that Iraq is a combination of a patsy regime that can be knocked over in a conventional, stand-up fight, led by a caricature who's widely disliked, and who has given us a patina of an excuse to test new geopolitical doctrine - or at least a new face on the regurgitated doctrine of invading whoever offends you sufficiently, and installing a client state.

A lot of it is also just do-something itis and rationalization - at least with Saddam, there will be some tangible results on a map, rather than simply wasting the occasional ragtag fighter in Afghanistan, and dealing with that low-yield ****hole.

The problem with Afghanistan now, is that fixing the problems there requires a lot of time, money, personnel, and the best result you can achieve with it is not hearing about the place in the news. Not at all sexy to the administration chickenhawks, who all want visible action.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Nah, they need to defend their living standard.

Hey, CT, if we let you commies run things, then just about everyone (except, of course, party apparatchiki ) would have about that standard of living.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
IMO, the biggest reason is simply that Iraq is a combination of a patsy regime that can be knocked over in a conventional, stand-up fight, led by a caricature who's widely disliked, and who has given us a patina of an excuse to test new geopolitical doctrine - or at least a new face on the regurgitated doctrine of invading whoever offends you sufficiently, and installing a client state.

Some plausibility in this one, but I propose: It still can´t be the whole story.

For current US behaviour to make sense, it must be motivated by one of two things:

1) You are now really going for 'Purge Them, before They Purge You' Stalin Doctrine World Rule. (Talk about Commies. )

If that is so, then you should recognize that the logical answer to this is the Osama Doctrine: 'Get THEM First.' You are in the fast line proving that OBL has been right, after all.

OR:

2) This has got nothing to do with enlightened US interest at all; you are being hijacked by the Israel Lobby, and afraid to even admit it.

In the first case, your leadership is insane; in the second, just cowardly and/or stupid.

Make your choice.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't think that US oil consumption is relevant to this discussion. The US doesn't want the oil to use, it just plain wants it.

You caught us. Every American I know has dozens of barrels of oil on the "stash reserve" tucked away in basements, closets, and under kitchen sinks. We get our kicks by not using oil and just holding on to it. Silly me, I thought we were hiding this from you all in Europe. I guess the jig is up now...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Felch X
We get our kicks by not using oil and just holding on to it. Silly me, I thought we were hiding this from you all in Europe.

I guess what Sandman meant is: You don´t depend on Iraq for oil. Probably correct.

So you want to play Oil Monopoly. Probably also correct. Just not the whole story.

[GePap]

I whish this were for oil, then it would all be so simple.

This is war as an experiment of a new grand policy designed by the Civilians at the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Rummy). Which makes it a far more serious thing than just a war for oil.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
I whish this were for oil, then it would all be so simple.

This is war as an experiment of a new grand policy designed by the Civilians at the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage, Rummy). Which makes it a far more serious thing than just a war for oil.

"Civilians" can be such a dirty word sometimes.

I also think a big part of it is punishing Saddam (a la Noriega) for no longer being our boy. When you consider Rummy and Bush sr's (and others in the present administration) ties to Saddam back in the good ol' days, there's certainly a personal element, and I think there's also some issue of making an example of what happens if you bite the hand that feeds (so what if the hand gets caught double-dealing with your enemy, that's it's prerogative), so that any future thugs we cultivate will have an idea of what happens if they get too uppity.

[GePap]

MtG: you know, I don't think that the notion of it being personal ahs anyting more to do with this than oil... I really think these guys seriously believe they are out to save the world one invasion at a time: wars of ideology have a way of coming to bite one in tha ass more then wars based on concrete things like commodities or vendetta's. Vendettas have ends, ideas live for ever.

[MichaeltheGreat]

We do have Noriega though, as a precedent - a relatively needless invasion, certainly not a national security issue, advocated by many of the same people, to overthrow a dictator who was once "our boy" and who decided to do things "his way."

If you go back to BNL and the Reagan administration (and Bush Sr. at the beginning) and the way the US really worked and cultivated Saddam, these people invested a lot in the idea that Saddam was going to be a useful proxy for our power projection and containment goals in the mideast.

I don't doubt there's a lot of pure "save the world" ideological delusion involved - this administration has more Cromwellian zealots per capita than any US administration that I can think of. The interest in Iraq in particular is a bit obsessive, though - on the threat scale, Iraq really isn't that high - not even close to the DPRK, or ultimately, the fundamentalist half of the Iranian government, but it takes more than ideology to explain the almost single-minded obsession with Saddam that these people have.