Robert E. Lee and Gulf War II

[The Mad Monk]

I think it does serve our interests, because it renders the other troublesome regimes (including and especially Saudi) vulnerable.

[Demerzel]

hmm lots of sources to be re-found..

distortion of truth in film:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1773466.stm

Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times


January 18, 1993

THE OIL FACTOR IN SOMALIA
FOUR AMERICAN PETROLEUM GIANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH THE AFRICAN NATION BEFORE ITS CIVIL WAR BEGAN. THEY COULD REAP BIG REWARDS IF PEACE IS RESTORED
.

By MARK FINEMAN

DATELINE: MOGADISHU, Somalia


Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.

That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S.-led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation.

According to documents obtained by The Times, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration's decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there.

Officially, the Administration and the State Department insist that the U.S. military mission in Somalia is strictly humanitarian. Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake.

But corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified. And the State Department and U.S. military officials acknowledge that one of those oil companies has done more than simply sit back and hope for pece.

Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to mantain a functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.

http://www.cdi.org/adm/713/transcript.html is of interest too. Something of interest below..

According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the United States delivered to Somalia about $154 million worth of weapons and military equipment from 1981 through 1991.

Mr. ROBINSON: We adopted Siad Barre and the Carter admin-istration, from 1977 to 1989, supplied Siad Barre with $887 million in US foreign assistance, including $200 million in arms. And so, what had been a peaceful, pastoral society became an armed camp.

oh and finally from a review of the film

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw44/blackhawk-down.html
The movie has many bad points. The GIs are shown in detail-we learn about their lives, loves and dreams-they are shown to suffer, to bleed, with the audience being drawn into sharing their pain. While the Somalis are portrayed as "killing machines," their fierceness as irrational and vicious. When the Somali people are shot, they just drop: no follow-up with their families and comrades, no showing of their humanity. The U.S. troops call them "skinnies," a racist and dehumanizing term reflective of the outlook drilled into real troops beginning in boot camp.

Only after the U.S. left Somalia did U.S. commanders admit that as many as 10,000 Somalis had been killed that summer prior to the October 3rd raid. At least 2/3 of the dead were civilians, including children.

I should rephrase earlier, you did have a compelling and savoury reason to be there - the humanitarian effort - but an unsavoury one too - the oil contracts. Once the US lost 19 lives in one firefight, there was no longer enough reason to stay.

I don't want to belittle the lives lost in the defence of the humanitarian effort but in a way the US actually caused their own problem from what I've read and shown above.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm aware of Soviet support for other repressive regimes and murderers- but aren't we (meaning the West) meant to be the good guys? And does that mean supporting any of the above?

Only Superman can fight all the bad guys at once. If the US manage to use some of the more moderate "bad guys" against the worst ones that's ok for me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I should rephrase earlier, you did have a compelling and savoury reason to be there - the humanitarian effort -

That's not a very compelling reason to send troops into combat, IMO.

but an unsavoury one too - the oil contracts.

That makes about as much sense as saying the current war is for oil.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They want to pin EVERY US war for oil. I wouldn't be suprised if it was shown the Kosovo had oil in the rocks or something .

[Dinner]

Imran: Some of those reporters are getting lazy. They just keep repeating "It oil!", "It's oil!", even when the country doesn't have any oil. I'd be willing to bet the Italians ran all over Somalia looking for oil, or any thing else of value, so if there was a significant quantity of oil it likely would have already been found.

[korn469]

Oerdin and Imran,

I agree that Somalia wasn't about oil, because if it had of been, US forces would have occupied the oil fields instead of the population centers. Maybe we just couldn't find any oil fields to guard so we said **** it and settle on the food distribution centers instead.

After reading blackhawk down, it seems to me that US forces still leveraged superior technology to make the firefight in Mogidishu something of a "splendid little battle." 150 US soldiers battled around 10,000 militia/civilian clan members to a stand still, and the US lost less than 20 compared to maybe 500-1,000 dead Somalias. Yet even though we pulled out after the battle, still Somalia seems to prove my point in a way, lets say the same series of events had of transpired except that US technology had of been better and no US troops had of been killed or wounded, cerainly Clinton wouldn't have pulled out.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, but that's Clinton.

People who critique US policy 'over the last twelve years' tend to forget that its not the same government over that stretch of time, and priorities can and do change radically between administrations.

[korn469]

Monk,

I agree, Clinton's use of military force seemed haphazard at best, and simply politically expedient most of the time (the cruise missile strikes shortly after the Monica stories started appearing seemed motivated for all of the wrong reasons), and Bush does seem to stand for something. Although his ideas of the good guys (those who defend what western values would classify as good) vs. the bad guys (those who oppose the good guys) is overly simplistic even if he truly believes in it, though I wouldn't say he is completely wrong, just certainly not completely right. Besides having a different administration, 9/11 certainly made a difference, but even with an administration that has more guts, and an American population that has a higher tolerance for the price freedom carries, I still think there is a limit to the number of dead troops we'll tolerate. As technology decreases the amount of American troops that will die in a war, and also limits the amount of civilians we'll kill; war seems to be a more appealing option. I mean certainly if we could remove Saddam in a war in which we wouldn't lose any troops, nor kill any civilians, wouldn't drumming up support for this war be far easier? On the other hand, if they said 100,000 Americans troops would die along with 2 million Iraqi civilians, I don't think anyone would support this war, not even Bush himself. So as the number of dead go down, the amount of saber rattling (from the US at least) seems to go up.

Just as M.A.D. prevented war with the Soviets, this anti-M.A.D. war without (many) casulties period of history seems to certainly encourage the use of force. War isn't that terrible anymore, and if everything in Iraq goes well (including the nation building), then surely other tinpot dictators had better watch out, because that would just encourage further wars. Yet if the wars are bring about positive changes in the world, would it be a bad thing?

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They want to pin EVERY US war for oil. I wouldn't be suprised if it was shown the Kosovo had oil in the rocks or something .

Oh I should apologise and agree that 8 year old news is suddenly to be disregarded because of poor reporting now?

Not going to happen. Facts: 4 American companies were there contracting for oil, the US sold > $150m worth of weapons to the Somalis, the US forces' got shot with those weapons.

[The Mad Monk]

...so you're saying the United States shot itself for oil?

[Demerzel]

no. I never said that. I just iterated facts that do exist, if you choose to add 1 and 1 and get 3 then that's your prerogative. I said that the US sold weapons to the Somalis and then got shot with them - that's irony for you.

Oil in this case IS part of the issue, note I'm not saying it is the case with Iraq. How large a part of the issue I don't know but to deny it would be to deny the facts. I suspect in reality it had probably sod all real effective on the US policy making except for how much the companies themselves could manage to lobby for.

[Dis]

the funny thing is some caller on a liberal radio show said afghanistang was about oil

I think many liberals are just stupid. Granted conservatives aren't much better. They may not be stupid, but they just plain lie to you.

[Jac de Molay]

It may not be about oil, but who gets to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq's major infrastructure, and who gets to reap the windfall once the oil starts to flow again?

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
It may not be about oil, but who gets to foot the bill for the reconstruction of Iraq's major infrastructure, and who gets to reap the windfall once the oil starts to flow again?

I believe it has been said that the oil will be used for the people's benefit - but who is going to say what benefits the Iraqi people? The American military governors that's who.

I honestly don't care though at this time how they plan to split up the oil slush fund, I would like far more detailed plans of how they plan to fix Iraq up again other than the "We'll liberate them and they'll be fine" approach we've seen so far.

It didn't work for Afghanistan ( so far ) and what lessons have they learnt?