Why Chaos is Good for the Oil Biz

[Michael_Bush]

I have often wondered why the chaos in the ME was so clearly the policy of the Bush administration. I think invading Iraq was wrong for a variety of reason, but replacing Saddam with a Democracy was a "nice" idea (dictators ARE bad) and not an entirely impossible task (although clearly a hard one).

Politics is often the result of a handful of manipulators hijacking a movement for their own ends. I believe the oil interests at the highest level co-opted the neocon movement for their own ends.

The neocons wanted to "fix" the ME and ensure Israel of a secure future, some wanted to see Israel blown up to bring on the end of the world, but the preceding steps were similar.

So, we set up Iraq to be invaded. The army tells them they need more troops and more planning but are ignored. Once we invade we do everything we can to blow things in just about any way imaginable.

They ignored State's rather comprehensive plan, they ignored Powell and Shinseki (sic), and other voices of reason, but why?

Chaos requires reconstruction money for Halliburton and others so they can repair it. Insecurity requires increased levels of defense spending, more for the trough. Price of oil gets elevated, oil companies profits soar. At home they fight conservation efforts and yet undergo the biggest conservation effort ever...keeping Iraq's oil off the market for at least a decade or two. THAT to me is a scenario that makes sense. Who knows, they may even try to double down and take Iran although I am sure the generals are BEGGING them not to be that stupid.

Pretty ugly, isn't it?

[Avalux]

1. I've been saying this for a Loooooong time -

it's the neocons - PNAC's plan - they don't want stability and democracy in the ME. They want a chaotic mess - peace is not part of the agenda - perpetual war and chaos are.

[Michael_Bush]

2. Not what I am saying

Sorry I wasn't clear.

I am saying (this is something I read here but I think it is true) the neocons and PNAC idiots really believe that the only problem we had in Vietnam was "us damn liberals" screwing it up. They were low level people under Nixon and are NOW able to implement policy. They learned nothing and BELIEVE they are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. Remake the ME into democracies and make it a "better" place that owed loyalty to America.

I think that cynical big corp business interests co-opted them, gave them power and then pushed just enough buttons for the plan to fail and create this horrible mess that THEY (corp interests) are the only ones benefiting from.

[Avalux]

3. So you really believe the PNAC idiots had good intentions?

Sorry - I did misunderstand you and I don't agree at all. The neocons are a bunch of extremists (former liberals) who want control and love war and have absolutely no humanitarian objectives.

Theirs is not a good plan gone bad because the corporations lured them to the dark side.

[Michael_Bush]

4. good intentions is a matter of perspective

I don't think what they intended was good but they certainly did. I do not believe they set out to create choas in the ME.

[Frederik]

5. I don't think they believe their own crap

The neo-cons' favourite philosopher is Leo Strauss, who emphasized the distinction between the few who rule and the many who are ruled by them. The only ones who should be allowed to know the truth, in his philosophy, are the ruleres. The ruled need to be fed myths about the motivations of the rulers and the ways of the world in order to legitimize their rule. Strauss was an atheist, but in favour of religion as an instrument used to fool and lead the people. Sounds familiar? The truth that no higher power exists should be kept away from the people, and God should be invoked to justify the actions of the rulers.

Strauss also emphasized that the most fundamental distinction in politics was that between friend and enemy.

Leo Strauss was a student of the Nazi lawyer Carl Schmidt, who developed the theory of a dual set of laws: one law for friends, and one law for enemies...

As for oil interests, Greg Palast had a BBC Newsnight documentary which highlighted the tension between the neo-cons and the oil companies. The neo-cons had wanted to privatize Iraq's oil production after the invasion, but the oil companies wanted a state-run oil company which could regulate production volume. The neo-cons wanted Iraq out of OPEC, but the oil cartel wanted them to stay a member (OPEC = high oil prices). At the end of the day, the oil cartel won.

As for Iraq:

"In 1982, Israeli journalist Oded Yinon wrote (and thanks to xymphora for the quote):

The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.... Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.... So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
(http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/mission-accomplished-really.html)

[ThomWV]

6. The really big winners aren't the big oil companys

Its the small independent operations in Texas and even more so in Oklahoma. The cost of production for these guys tops out at about $17/BBl. There is some very serious money being made out there and millions of it flow straight back into the Republican Party.

Also, when you see the price of mideastern oil ask yourself the question, who gets that money? How is that $50 or whatever it is at the moment split up? The answer might suprise the hell out of you, or it may not. I'll give you a clue, the bulk of the money goes to people who have never worn anything but a ballcap on their head.

[Colorado Blue]

7. Ah - Haliburton! War for profit!

I loved the part where they let the rebuilding contracts BEFORE the war. Thinking ahead!

No doubt - you bring up some excellent points. Yucky, huh. I thought, they simply screwed up, with the chaos. But now I'm beginning to think, you're right, they PLANNED on the chaos.

How wierd would it have been if the Iraqis had actually settled down and made a nice stable democratic government? That might have actually threatened the whole "divide and conquer" strategy - the "Great Game" - although of course it would have been best for the Iraqis.

The "Great Game" and the oil industry's interests LONG preceded those of PNAC.

Some reading: Engdahl's "A Century of War - Anglo-American Oil Politics".

The divide and conquer theme that was a staple of the British Empire in Asia - famously called "The Great Game," has simply transferred itself to the requirement for oil, and of course for the enrichment of those industries related to and dependent upon it. Add the "military-industrial complex" and voila!

Also, it points out the sheer power of these industries, that they can essentially prevent investment in alternative energy strategies. You can see it all over American cities. Very few have good public transportation - but they have 8 lane highways going EVERYWHERE - and sprawl in all directions, when I think we should be conserving our farmlands and forests.

But what do I know. I like air and water too.

Not that "war for profit" is a new idea. It's hard to see Vietnam as having any real motivation OTHER than enriching certain corporations. It just didn't make any sense, really. Some people think Kennedy was shot because he didn't want to escalate the war. Some people say we actually started the Yom Kippur war, in order to drive up oil prices (Engdahl). Israel is and has been just another pawn.

Also, read "House of Bush, House of Saud." An eye opener. I had no idea how bad this really is and has been.

We've been screwing around in the Middle East bigtime since the days of the Carter Administration, arming both sides of certain conflicts (Iran/Iraq) and using Saudi money and influence to fund some really surreal shenanigans: Iran-Contra, which subverted the will of Congress to provide arms to anti-government forces in Nicaragua, for one. Meanwhile, we had the Israelis covertly arm the IRANIANS. Is this bizarre or what?

We armed the terrorists known as al Qaeda, of course centered around a Saudi, Bin Ladin, during the Afghan conflict. Some people say we started that also, in an attempt to destablize the Soviet Union (it worked - and killed maybe 1,000,000 people). Apparently we sold the mujeheddin so much stuff they turned around and sold it to other folks, so where the hell it all went, heaven knows. It was good stuff too, sophisticated.

Some of the nastiest players still around: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove - were loyal to Bush I. Casey, from the CIA, was also involved (natch). And Bush I had been CIA Director.

They knew Saddam had terrible chemical and biological weapons because they GAVE THEM TO HIM. It's really frightening. Bush was loyal to Saddam, even under pressure from other government departments, up to the point where he invaded Kuwait. Nobody cares much about Kuwait PER SE but SAUDI ARABIA is right next door. That would have given Saddam control of 40% of the world's oil resources.

The geostrategic considerations have not changed since the 19th century. But the "Game" seems to have gotten so much nastier with our modern weapons. These "Games" can now kill millions of people.

With increased global demand for oil, I don't see how it's going to IMPROVE.

[welshTerrier2]

8. very good, Grasshopper ... here are a few more pieces of the puzzle ...

say it with me now: "bush is engineering the instability in Iraq" ... let's go around one more time: "bush is engineering the instability in Iraq" ... this is a huge windfall for his corporate friends ... don't believe it? go check the P&L's for all the oil biggies ... guess what? record profits ... all time records ... and to what do oil industry analysts point as the primary basis for these huge profits? yup ... the rising price of a barrel of oil ... and to what do oil industry analysts point as the primary basis for rising oil prices? yup ... instability in the Middle East ...

but there's more to bush's evil than meets the eye ... for some background in how this nasty game is played, read John Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ...

the plan in Iraq was to put 3 key players in place so that the US could totally control Iraq and its oil markets ... it was NOT just about oil ... it's about power in the region AND control of the oil ... who were the 3 players supposed to be? Chalabi - the US puppet is now in control of Iraq's Oil Ministry ... at the World Bank - Wolfowitz ... and the big screw-up was that Alawi, another US puppet (you might say he would Alawi the US to do this and Alawi the US to do that), was supposed to have won the election ... oops ... something went wrong there ... Jafaari was NOT the right player to become Prime Minister ...

so how does this little game of international blackmail work? Iraq is being bankrupted by American policy ... there is wide-spread starvation; there are no jobs; there are virtually no functioning utilities; there is no fresh drinking water leading to death from dysentery ... we are slaughtering Iraq and Iraqis bringing the country and its government to its knees ... if Iraq could make billions from its oil and the US allowed it, Iraq could begin to recover ... as you pointed out, they won't see a penny anytime soon !!!

so, the "insurgency" continues and Iraq grows more and more desperate ... eventually, Jafaari will be forced to turn to the World Bank for an influx of capital from massive borrowing ... will they get it? yup ... all they have to do is guarantee the loans against future oil revenues ... so Wolfowitz will approve the loans ... but the US will not let the oil be pumped ... we'll hear something like "it's too dangerous will all the insurgents" ... and Iraq will default on the loans but will be bailed out if they agree to let the US do whatever they want with the oil wells ... we'll hear "we're just protecting our investment" ... and Iraq will agree to the military bases ... it will agree to whatever level of US troops bush wants to keep there ... it will agree to let the US pump and keep the oil to help repay the loans ... it will agree to be a US colony so that the US can exploit the crap out of yet another defenseless country ...

and the Democrats in the Senate keep voting to keep our troops there to help the Iraqis achieve democracy and stability ... the problem is, bush is an imperialist and those who support his policies are either naive (believing bush's objectives are as stated) or are complicit in his evil deeds ... i'm really not sure which is the case ...