Secret Pentagon papers reveal pre-war plans to get Big Oil into Iraq

[yurbud]

Courtesy of Greg Muttitt and his new book Fuel on the Fire.

One thing that is striking here is that whether to use Iraq's oil "to advance important US foreign policy objectives" is more of an after-thought than front and center.

That undermines the more grown up lie about why we invaded Iraq.

The childish one is of course looking for WMD's, fighting terrorism, and spreading democracy.

The more respectable lie was that we did it to secure access to that oil to run our economy. If that was really the case, we would simply coerce our oil companies to make contracts on terms favorable to Iraq so they would have no reason to ever cut us off.

By invading, and trying to force contracts favorable to our oil companies, we made it MORE not less likely that at some point they will cut our supply or jack up the price to weaken us and prevent future attacks.

DOCUMENT 17: a briefing to the Deputies Committee on November 6, 2002. The main topic of the meeting is how to spend the proceeds from Iraqi oil. See especially page 10, where weighing up whether to repair war-damaged Iraqi oil infrastructure, one of the cons is that it “could deter private sector involvement”... the EIPG planned to consider later that month “whether to use control of Iraqi oil to advance important U.S. foreign policy objectives”. DOD reports that it holds no record of such discussions. They are likely to involve not direct U.S. energy interests, but whether to tear up eg Russian and Chinese contracts in order to harm those countries.
(The briefing was stored by the DOD as landscape printed on portrait paper – hence the edges are cut off in the official archive too!).

DOCUMENT 18: a briefing to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on January 11, 2003, incorporating comments and decisions from earlier Deputies meetings. Here the option of leaving war damage unrepaired so as to make room for Big Oil has been rejected, in favor of appointing Halliburton subsidiary KBR to carry out repairs (page 5).

***

Strikingly, "pubic diplomacy" (page 4) means the message that would be given to the public, including saying that "we will act... so as not to prejudice Iraq's future decisions" - even though the opposite is proposed as substantive policy. In other words, the briefing recommends that the Bush administration mislead the public on how it would approach Iraqi oil.


LINKS TO ACTUAL DOCUMENTS AND MORE SUMMARY

[yurbud]

1. .

[Brother Buzz]

2. Chicken or the egg?

Can you say Cheney Energy Task Force? How about The Office of Special Plans (OSP)?

[yurbud]

3. it's the chicken, the egg, and the whole farm.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Underwritten by The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

[yurbud]

6. not in the sense of paying for it, but that would be nice.

[Brother Buzz]

7. The PNAC policy in all things:

PRIVATIZE the profits and SOCIALIZE the costs.

Underwritten by PNAC, "risky free". Simple, no?

[linux80386]

5. +1.

[polly7]

8. And, if I remember correctly, Hunt Oil Co. was the first in ...

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/politics/oil-policy/hunt-oil-knew-krg-oil-deal-in-disputed-territory-6108/

Hunt Oil knew KRG oil deal in disputed territory

"Dallas-based Hunt Oil Co., whose owner was an adviser to President George. W. Bush and a top fundraiser, knowingly signed a production sharing contract (PSC) with Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) for a swath of land that lies outside the KRG's territory and remains a flashpoint of ethnic disputes, according to a U.S. State Department cable.

The cable, dated Sept. 12, 2007 and made public by Wikileaks, also detailed official warnings from the U.S. government that the contract, regardless of lease location, is legally risky due to unresolved land and oil disputes between Baghdad and the KRG – and that such a contract could further amplify conflicts between the central and regional governments.

"Considerable legal ambiguity surrounds the PSC with Hunt Oil, as the districts in northern Ninewa to be explored by the company are classified as 'disputed territories' under the Iraqi constitution," the cable stated. "A senior Hunt Oil manager told (a U.S. official) that northern Ninewa province has significant potential for oil production, and that this factor trumps the legal ambiguities and risks associated with the company's PSC with the KRG."......

Western Oil Firms Big Winners In Iraq

By Sherwood Ross

19 January, 2012

http://www.countercurrents.org/ross190112.htm

It also turns out Hunt Oil Co., of Dallas, Tex., clinched a separate
deal in Sept., 2007, with Iraq Kurdistan Regional Government. Hunt
might not have won if its chief officer, Ray Hunt, was not President
George W. Bush’s friend and a major fund-raiser. Some folks think,
according to a front page New York Times report July 3, 2008, the deal
“runs counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central
government.” Apparently, Bush didn’t think so. Baghdad reportedly is
furious over it.

Hunt got this free pass to explore Kurdistan’s oil riches in Sept.,
2007, when it inked an exploration pact likely to give the firm a
share of the boodle of any future gushers. “Hunt would be the first
U.S. company to sign such a deal,” a State Department official told
the New York Times. And according to reporter Jay Price of McClatchy
News Service, the Iraqi oil minister, speaking for Baghdad, “called
the Hunt deal illegal.”

A State Department cable dated Sept. 12, 2007, and made public by
Wikileaks, “detailed official warnings from the U.S. government that
the contract, regardless of lease location, is legally risky due to
unresolved land and oil disputes between Baghdad and the KRG---and
that such a contract could further amplify conflicts between the
central and regional governments,” wrote Ben Lando of the
authoritative “Iraq Oil Report” Aug. 25, 2011. Hunt seemingly would
not have to press Bush hard for the insider’s deal.



http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/hunt_oil_company/index.html