John C. Mohawk, writing for Indian Country Today on The necessity for war is still in doubt:
Plans to attack Iraq have encountered international resistance. It’s not hard to understand why. Throughout history, organized armed aggression has almost always been launched for the purpose of plunder. One would ask, is there anything in Iraq our government might want? Since it’s the number two oil field in the world, it’s not hard to come up with an answer, especially since the administration has its share of oil men, and woman. Convincing allies that the proposed war is not about oil will not be easy.
John, how can you insinuate that this war has something to do with oil? It's just your imagination that out of all the dangerous and repressive regimes in the world for the U.S. to perform a regime change on (and Iraq is no worse than some of our "allies") that the second largest proven reserve in the world happens to be there. Just a really big-ass coincidence. We shouldn't take into account the Bush family's oil interests or Cheney's connections either. Our leaders would never wage war for selfish reasons. Would they?
Anyone got any extra Soma? I'm fresh out.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
Here we go again with yet another “It’s really all about oil” argument, made with the same disregard for facts as any other conspiracy theory, any other attempt to ascribe solely evil motives to everyone who disagrees with the speaker’s/writer’s views.
If you’re really interested in discussing this “issue,” look in the November archives for the following threads:
“The Best Worst Outcome”
“Hypotheticaly Speaking, We’re Getting the Oil”
Read the posts on these threads and see how well the “oil-as-motive” theory holds up.
I read those threads as they developed Dave. This isn’t my first posting here pal, so don’t talk to me like I’m a newbie. Okay? Stop pretending the “issue” (you put it in quotes for some reason) was resolved. It wasn’t resolved and anyone reading those threads knows that.
So refute the arguments.
What, is that an order?
My humblest apologies. Perhaps I’m getting too old for this sort of thing.
My uncalled-for tone arises from hearing the same tired “oil-as-motive” accusations, virtually word for word, since 1973, ranging from the vague (“The Mideast has oil; the Republicans are a party of oil men; so whatever they do in the Mideast must be about oil.”), to the ridiculous (“The US is supporting Israel as a proxy state to secure our oil interests in the Mideast.”)
The situation in the Mideast is extremely complex and dangerous, and I feel that a lot of the “oil” rhetoric is being used to hide from a harsh and complex reality that many on the left don’t want to address. Even the most simpleminded TV news shows have described events with more clarity than many on the left have shown.
I also feel, very strongly, that the more we misrepresent and/or misunderstand our adversaries’ motives, the less chance we have of appealing to them, reasoning with them, and persuading them that war with Iraq will serve no purpose.
Again, I apologize for my tone. Also, I thought you were a newbie because I did not see your name in the threads which I frequented. Perhaps I looked in the wrong places?
Well here are those links for folks:
http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000141.html#000141
http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000222.html#000222
It’s only towards the very end that Dave actually addressed the real arguments and as far as I can see his answer is not so much to deny that the middle east oil represents a huge security concern for the US and has done for 50 years, but that he doesn’t think it OUGHT TO BE be such a big concern.
Well, sure Dave, the US shouldn’t be throwing its wait around but it does of course and the reason is oil. Oil is a proxy for global dominance in that sense of course, because it is such a key resource.
let’s be clear Dave — are you claiming that Bush doesn’t think oil is a key enough resource for global domination to justify a new war in the middle east?
DavidByron: As you would know if you actually read my posts and stopped trying to deny understanding of what I said, you would know that I am not saying that oil is not a security concern; only that it is not enough of a concern to justify going to war, when the oil has been flowing freely for decades, and when our dependence on foreign oil has been steadily declining since 1973. You would also know that your canard about “global domination” has been sufficiently addressed. National security interests are not served by wasting resources trying to do impossible things.
Dave’s reasons for war:
“Iraq’s previous aggressive actions; concern that Iraq may possess and possibly use weapons of mass destruction; concern that Iraq may lend support to terrorist activities; desire to remove Saddam from power, both for stability in the region and for the sake of the Iraqi people; and failure of economic sanctions to force Saddam to disarm or reform his government.”
Dave do you have any evidence that Bush is concenred about any of these things?
Posted by DavidByron on November 22, 2002 07:14 PM
You didn’t answer my question. Once again – and just to make sure you understand this time when I say “global domination” I don’t mean simply making sure the US has enough oil for its domestic needs – which is the strawman argument you always seem drawn towards.
Here’s the question again Dave:
“are you claiming that Bush doesn’t think oil is a key enough resource for global domination to justify a new war in the middle east?”
Posted by DavidByron on November 21, 2002 06:57 PM
Does anyone else remember the OPEC embargo that crippled this nation? It is very clear, to me at least, that oil does make the world go round. It makes tanks go and jets fly. At the very least, low oil prices secure votes, and this is very important to either party. It is clear that bullionism of three centuries back has been replaced with an uhh…oilism of today. Whoever controls the world supply of oil controls the world.
Afghanistan is useful in many ways. One, I think the oil pipline argument is valid, and I don’t buy the logic of the American Prospect (The US hasn’t hesitated to work with insane dictators in the past when it has profited their economic interests). But even if it is invalid, Afghanistan is still useful from a military standpoint. It has always been a crossroads of invasion and civilization, and from it, the US can base operations to invade or threaten more stratigically significant countries.
You can take two roads on this. You can be naive about it and say, gee, the president is stupid. Or you can accept the true economic realpolitik of this world, and that is, oil is power.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on November 21, 2002 10:03 PM
There are two versions of the “it’s all about oil” argument, one which I buy and the other I don’t. The two get mixed together and the arguers go back and forth without seeming to realize they’re arguing different things.
Let’s start with the bad argument. This story is about a bunch of shady Texas oilmen, friends of the Bush family, who are pushing all this this mainly to line their own pockets. There may be some of these guys around and a few of them may actually make out like bandits here but they’re hardly enough to drive the country to the brink of an insane war. It doesn’t explain the motives of a Wolfowitz or a Perle or a Rumsfeld.
The other argument stresses imperial power, (you know, the power that abhors a vacuum). The guys propounding this theory have nothing to do with the oil business, but in their view the troubles in the middle east are largely due to the “wrong” people (such as bin Laden and his Sept 11. crew) having the oil and the money that comes with it. They have decided it’s better to subjugate the entire Arab world in the middle east by force of arms, taking the source of whatever little power they have away from them. And that’s about oil too. There is also the matter of paying for an imperial war with ambitions such as these. Iraqi oil may help them there.
In that sense, the “it’s all about oil” people are right. Can the debaters here please be clear about which “it’s all about oil” theory they are propounding or debunking?
Posted by Steve Cohen on November 22, 2002 08:35 AM
Thank you, Steve Cohen, for clearing the air a little bit.
One word about what you rightly call “the bad argument:” Those American oilmen who hope to make out, will probably make out better if there is a minimum of violence. This would be a short-term windfall from circumstances beyond their control, not a long-term investment.
War, as I’ve said before, costs tax money, creates uncertainty, and disrupts most profit-making activities. Business interests have, in general, acted as a brake on military action for that very reason; they tend to feel comfortable with what they have, and have too much to lose. This historical point tends to be lost on people who insist on bashing the rich and blaming them for the world’s evils.
On to the “imperial power” argument, that “it’s better [for US national security] to subjugate the entire Arab world in the middle east by force of arms.” I have addressed this issue before, but since DavidByron repeatedly insists on denying I did so and refusing to respond to it (sort of like a kid covering his ears and yelling “LALALALALALALA”), I will repeat what I said before:
There is no “national security” interest in controlling the entire world’s oil supply, or any significant portion thereof, for the same reason that there is no significant business incentive to do so: It’s too much trouble, too much expense, it makes too many enemies at once, and requires too much committment of force over too many regions of the world. The power we would gain by such agrab would be more than offset by the power we would waste in the process – even if we succeed, which cannot be guaranteed. In other words, controlling the world’s oil supply is IMPOSSIBLE, and national security interests are not served by trying to do impossible things.
(You could say we have a “national security” interest in conquering China. But does anyone think we could do it? Does anyone seriously think we should try?)
Anyone who knows anything about American public opinion can tell you that the American people would never support such a venture.
Furthermore, taking control of oil wells simply will not stop terrorism. In fact, any US military personnel we send to the Middle East will only present more targets for terrorists, whatever else they might accomplish, and both people and politicians know this.
One final word for the “Littlest Cynic:” No, there are more than” two roads we can take on this.” Have you considered a third possibility, that “the true economic realpolitik of this world” is a bit more complex than you admit? Perhaps if you would set aside the cynicism of which you boast and do some reading, you might understand this, instead of hiding in a simplified fantasy world where “oil” is all you have to think about.
Posted by Dave on November 22, 2002 09:53 AM
To Dave: I do not appreciate being attacked in that manner. I would be glad to debate the significance of oil, but if you feel the need to insult me, I will have no part in such an argument.
I do not think you could be less right on controlling the world supply of oil. The fact is that nothing else makes an army or an economy work. Armies and industries do not run on sugar or coal or gold, they run on oil, and this makes oil simply the most valuble resource there is. I agree that perhaps it is too much trouble to control the world supply of oil, but this does not seem to be the view of America. I would be very interested to learn your view on what determines America’s foriegn policy. For example, why so little attention paid to Africa (oil poor, yet also muslim and more often then not opposed to American policy) and so much paid to the Middle East (oil rich)? If America was truly dedicated to supporting the status quo, why would it, to this very day, support unpopular dictators in oil rich countries and unpopular coups in countries such as Venezeula in favor of big business? If you would have another answer, I would be glad to hear it, and I would not dismiss you as ill-read for putting it forth.
As far as business interests acting as a brake on war and not profiting off of it, this is simply untrue. Cheney’s own Halliburton made millions off of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. Defense contractors are certainly no brakes to war, and carry huge clout among congress. As for corporations standing against bloodshed and unpopular policies, this again is untrue. Just look at sweatshops and the oil industries conduct in Burma and in Nigeria.
Again, sir, I will welcome whatever refutations you decide to make and debate them again. The only thing I demand is respect. I do not know you. I do not believe that either of us hold all the answers. If you have the right one, I will accept it, provided you base it on logic, and not simply call me ignorant. Thank you.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on November 22, 2002 03:40 PM
“Armies and industries do not run on sugar or coal or gold, they run on oil, and this makes oil simply the most valuble resource there is.”
So you are saying that we are going to war to ensure our own supply of oil? That supply has been uninterrupted since the 1980s;new sources of oil have been discovered since the ’73 embargo; and due to various technical and economic factors, US dependence on foreign oil has been steadily declining, not increasing.
“I agree that perhaps it is too much trouble to control the world supply of oil, but this does not seem to be the view of America. I would be very interested to learn your view on what determines America’s foriegn policy.”
Terrorism; Israel; Iraq’s previous aggressive actions; concern that Iraq may possess and possibly use weapons of mass destruction; concern that Iraq may lend support to terrorist activities; desire to remove Saddam from power, both for stability in the region and for the sake of the Iraqi people; and failure of economic sanctions to force Saddam to disarm or reform his government. Your statements seem oblivious to these issues, despite the fact that they have been in the headlines off and on at least since Gulf War I.
I am not saying that Bush’s current policy toward Iraq is right or justified, or that it will adequately address our concerns; only that these are the concerns driving our current actions (whether or not either of us shares them) and fueling (reluctant) support for them among the American people.
Oil is an issue, but it is secondary, and not urgent enough to propel us into war.
As for “the view of America,” I have seen no evidence of a groundswell of popular support for a military effort to control the world’s oil supply. Can you show such evidence? I am certain that, given the choice of sacrificing to conserve and develop alternative energy sources vs. sacrificing for a long-running war on the other side of the world, the American people would choose (and are choosing) the former.
“Cheney’s own Halliburton made millions off of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure…”
I was making a generalization about how business overall suffers from the disruption and uncertainty of war, not referring to specific companies or sectors. Rebuilding after a war is, of course, another matter. As for defense contractors, they profit from procurement. Is there any evidence to prove that they exert real influence over actual war-fighting decisions? (“They profit from it, therefore they must be conspiring to make it happen” is not an answer.)
Have I addressed your points sufficiently?
Posted by Dave on November 22, 2002 04:33 PM
1. Dependence on foriegn oil is not declining steadily. The technological improvements you speak of are not being used. The oil from “new sources” are a drop in the bucket compared to existing sources, which, I might add, have been emptying out while these new sources have been popping up. Moreover, even if you are correct, this could just as well be about keeping other people out and controling oil price and maintaining our country’s dominance then adding to our resources.
2. Perhaps I am not sufficently aware of your stance on political issues, but I think we can both agree, judging from the name of this blog, that a war on Iraq for terrorism is wrongheaded. If we can both agree on this, why do you think a bunch of well educated people in the white house cannot come to this conclusion? Surely, you can’t think they are just stupid. Also, why Iraq? Saudi Arabia would make just as good candidate for our next venture, and would probably actually even help us in the war on terror. So why not them, why Iraq?
3. The argument that there would be no support for a war for the world’s oil supply is simply an argument to cover it up with b.s. reasons, not a reason to actually not go through with it.
4. I would submit to you as evidence of a Military-Industrial complex the testimony of one Ex-President Dwight Eisenhower, who clearly spoke of it’s existence. Also, many ex-generals go into the defense contracting business because it’s the only option. Therefore, present generals would be in favor of the defense contracting agenda. Lastly, defense contracting has not only a huge lobby, but is well supported by voters who are often employed by them. Many senators are afraid of voting against military pork because of the wrath of angry workers.
Thank you for respecting me, sir. That is all I ask.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on November 22, 2002 05:09 PM
It is funny that demand respect Dylan, given how condescending and disrespectful you have been of others. You talk smugly and refuse to acknowledge established facts, a form of lying.
That, ultimately, is a gross form of disrespect.
Now I’m a young female and I believe that President Bush IS spending all this money for War with Iraq to get the oil. I think that he is trying to get more support by giving us more oil. And you know what more oil means don’t you? Lower gas prices and lower gas prices means happier car owners. Anyway that’s why he said to not destroy the oil wells in Iraq to all of our military people fighting in Iraq. It’s plain and pretty simple when you you use your teeny weeny little brains that he wants the oil because nobody wanted to take out the “threat” when it was killing its own people. And the WHOLE Bush Administration can lick my toes if they think they can get away with their just ashaming, low-down, stupidity and greediness.
Posted by Raymond on March 24, 2003 09:00 PM
The last thing I wanted to say was that yeah! Look at Nigeria. I’m half Nigerian and I know my facts. Nigeria has been used by many countries like a towel. Nobody cares that its economy is sooo poor and nobody cares that its people are fighting against one another. All everybody else cares about is what little bit they can get from it. You know if other countries stopped using us and we just tied a little harder we wouldn’t be living so badly. You Americans are so spoiled that you cry over high gas and you get scared and run out to the store to get thing s like duct tape every time someone brings up the issue of anther terrorist attack. Don’t you have faith in GOD, OUR SAVIOR?
Posted by Raymond on March 24, 2003 09:13 PM