Washington's strategy reveals U.S. motives and plans for Iraq's future
by ARTHUR KENT

The UN failed to act against Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad, U.S. leaders charged, but America wouldn't. It's a clear, simple statement, but like most doctrinal contentions it's essentially misleading: the UN, in fact, failed only to act within a time frame dictated by the Bush administration. A majority of nations on the Security Council resisted the American agenda -- and made the President's day. "The Bush administration wanted war from the start," says Steven Livingston, senior research fellow at the University of Washington's Center for American Politics and Public Policy. "This is now just a political culture on steroids.

While the President talks of humanitarian assistance, specialists in strategic studies say Washington's plans for rebuilding Iraq are based on far more practical and self-serving objectives. Paul Rogers, a professor in the department of peace studies at Britain's University of Bradford, told Maclean's: "The bottom line essentially is that this is not about short-term profit from oil reserves, but long-term control of what is really the world's absolute key energy source. The Gulf is now so important that it would be simply unacceptable to the kind of people controlling the Bush administration not to have control of the area."

Full Article:
http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...er/57443.shtml
--------------------------------------------------

Could still be about oil yet. No wonder starting the war just does not seem right.

Just a reincarnation of the lame "war for oil" argument. It's truly such a weak argument that even the radical Left wingers rarely use it anymore. The only people I've seen using it lately are in the middle east, where the government controlled media have pounded it into citizens to the point where it's started to sound reasonable to them.

Thoran, do you really think that Iraq being the 2nd oil producer of the middle-east is just an unfortunate coincidence ? :D

I'm not saying it's the main reason though. But it counts for sure.

The "war is about oil" argument?

ARRRGGGH, not again! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well when the war is over and a government as been established I just hope just hope your country will get its troops out of the region and let the UN take over to show that it isn't true. If not I am quite sure you will be witnessing 9/11's over and over again and no one will care.

[ 03-26-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

No I think that if we'd wanted oil we'd have been able to buy all that we wanted, and if that was the case the sanctions would have been lifted long ago. Saddam has never proven a difficult man to "do business" with. Why would the US go through the cost and risk of a war, so that at the end we can buy oil from Iraq... when we could have bought oil from Iraq at any time by lifting sanctions.

"War for oil" makes absolutely no sense, and the existance of such a resource in Iraq does not automatically mean it's a factor.

It's not about "getting" the oil, and even if it was - why buy it from a madman when you can get it at knockdown price from a friendly government you installed.

But that's not what it is about. It's about control. Saddam is a nutter, and the US, UK and, well, nobody wants one of the world's biggest oil reserves to be under the control of a lunatic who could do anything at any time, including pump millions of barrels of it into the Gulf.

War for oil is not stuipd - it makes fantastic economic sense in the long term. The problem is, when you say that oil is a motive, people assume you mean Bush sneaking in there with a 50-million gallon bucket and siphoning the stuff off, before nipping back to the USA. That is *not* what's happening. The USA hasn't gone there to steal the oil, and neiather have we. Oil is a factor, but we're interested in sorting out it's long-term stability, not hiding a few billion barrels of it under our jackets and making off into the night.

Well said Bardan.

Pritchke - the war for oil alone argument is a very weak case. A better case is for long term stability as what Bardan said.

Saddam had his chances and he failed miserably and he isn't going to cave in by UN sanctions alone or UN pressure.

It's pretty obvious that UN santions never really had the desired effect on saddam's regime. I think several countries have been skirting or violating UN sanctions since 1991.

Sanctions, in fact, bolstered his regime by making sure that his own people suffered while blaming it all on the US.

[ 03-26-2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

Stability is a valid reason for the war... and as Oil stability is a factor in world stability it does come into play. However, instead of saying that the war is for "Oil" it is more accurate to say the war is for "Regional Stability" which is a much more comprehensive and appropriate term. Is it coincidence that "Oil" is being used instead of "Stability", umm... NOPE. Heck, "Stability" is one of the things that the Coalition is ADMITTING the war is about, and it's not particularly objectionable... so there's not much point in complaining about it. By substituting "Oil" for "Stabiltiy" people are purposely distorting the goal to create something they can complain about.

The reason that substitution is a problem is because of the connotation that the US is really seeking to "Control" the oil supply, which is bunk. So the opposition is using a nugget of truth but distorting it by relying on an implication that is totaly unsupportable. Even your seemingly reasonable post above falls into the trap by throwing in the "knockdown price" line. Again you're implying that the US will gain some advantage in oil pricing by doing this. This assertion is simply unsupportable based on the historical performance of the US in dealing with countries that are under their "control". Therefore your own post points out quite conveniently the reason why the whole argument is baloney.

No, the 'knockdown price' line was simply a response as to why the USA didn't simply buy the oil off Saddam. If all that mattered to the US was getting oil right now, and as much of it as fast as they could, as cheap as they could, this is certainly what they would do. However, governments think in long term strategies (most of the time), and if the USA was only interested in "getting" oil, I still believe they would go for the knockdown price road.

USA international opinion would drop below rapist level if it was seen to be dealing witn Saddam for large quantities of oil purely for it's own personal gain, I don't believe they would ever just buy immense quantities of it off him. They'd probably not like the fact they would be funding a regime in a way guaranteed to get them on the wrong side of everyone. Much better for them to oust Saddam and claim humanitarian motivations, then get knockdown oil from the newly installed government, and deal with the far lesser 'corruption' accusations that would be levelled at it.

The important point to realise is that all of the 'knockdown' comment was merely a response to Wutang about why if getting oil right now, and as much of it as possible was the USA's only aim, I think they would go the 'install a new government and make a deal' route than 'buy it off the most unpopular man in the world' route. Remember, though, i don't think that this is the USA's motivation, and so though all of the above is what I think it would do in a given situation, it's not what I think they are doing.

There was nothing in the main body of my post that suggested that I objected to Saddam's control of Iraqi oil being ousted in this way. I'm actually quite in support of it. The economic health of the world will probably be greatly improved by it.

I'm no economist, but there seems to be a big link between the stability of oil supply and the growth of the various stock markets. If you remove Saddam, you remove an extremely volatile and unpredictable element that is, in effect, making a difference to our day-to-day lives because of his uncertain influence. Add to this that an oil-grab would set you up for a while, but that removing an oil-damaging tyrant could sort out the economy for a great many years to come, and you arrive at at least one of the reasons the USA is waging this war. It's probably a far more important reason to the republicans controlling the puppet .. .cough ... president than any humanitarian concerns, but who cares?

Saddam being gone is a good thing. A democratic government in Iraq will be a good thing. Does the fact that it was motivated by a desire to stabalise the US economy make those things bad? No, it doesn't. Good things can grow in questionable ground.

I don't agree, though, that regional stability is the goal. There is a difference between oil stability and regional stability. In fact, having a USA-sponsored government in the heard of Arab country will probably be an unstabalising factor. Most of the Arab governments hate Kuwait for being exactly that. Iraq would become the same. The rest of the Arab nations would see it as becoming fat off dealing with 'The Great Satan', and there would be more political instability. The oil supply, however, is the important thing. People say war for Oil for a reason - because it is. War for stability would be an admirable goal, but it's not the current goal.

That pretty much sums it up Barden. It isn't just about oil but it is about economics and America does have an hidden agenda. I believe Bush to be a good man but he is being led around by the nose and doesn't know it. I really doubt this war is about stabilization. Saddahm may be an evil man but there are many people in the world worse off than Iraqis and nothing is being done to liberate them nor will it. When they set up their puppet government it will cause tension with surrounding Arab countries. Saudi Arabia is a puppet government of the US and isn't this the exact reason that 9/11 occurred. We are shooting our selves in the foot again and may be causing history to repeat itself. I don't agree that starting a war a causing people to die is justified to stabilize any economy however. I am sure Iran and other Muslim countries will even feel threatened enough to buy WMD.

Saudi Arabia is a puppet government of the US? Really? Do tell.

[ 03-26-2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Isn't the main reason that Bin Ladan hates the US so much because of their military presense in Saudi Arabia as well as the manipulation of the Saudi King by the US government.

[ 03-26-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Bardan - I think you confused my statement earlier with someone else heh. I actually agree with most of what you say.

Pritchke - yes the US is in Saudi Arabia precisely to watch over Saddam in Iraq and to fly those no-fly zones.

I just want to see the UN sanctions lifted and no-fly zones ended but it just isn't going to happen with Saddam around.

And Saudi Arabia isn't a puppet govt of the US. Why do you say that?

[ 03-26-2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

Where can I get one of those niffty jackets? ;)

Personally, I think that countries claiming that the Coalition is going to war for oil are hypocrites. They will get as much benefit as the Coalition will and they know it.

About your post. I think that you should do some research. I saw nowhere that the Coalition would create a puppet government, and neither is Saudi Arabia a puppet government. It's a US backed government, but it's not ruled the the US, as a puppet government would be.

Also, even if the goal of the Coalition was to create a puppet government, the Iraqi would still get better living condition than they do under Saddam.

First a prelude: (edit: sorry for the length)

I have been reading this forum since the war began and am very impressed in general with the level of intelligence and tolerance exhibited. Now a (some) proviso(s): I am an American and damn proud of it [img]smile.gif[/img] . I am a registered independent with conservative leanings. I support the war as advertised...in other words, no reservations as to the professed reasoning behind it. Now that I've declared my basic positions (clarification and expansions at request [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I agree, for the most part, that oil stabilization is at least a publicly unprofessed goal of the US and it's coalition partners. I do not buy the "war for oil" arguement simply because it extremely flimsy yet "popular" among those who believe it. In the middle east there are several governments that are "US supported" including: Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel (yes, I know they don't count as Arab), U.A.E., and Bharaihn(sp).

With the government backing statement being a given, I ask two questions:
1) Why is the coverage of the war so different between US reporting and the rest.

(note, I do not have availability to see UK, Aussie, Spanish, etc coverage and am colored by the US television coverage.) From the reports I have seen via CNN, FOX, and the three 'major' networks the general theme is "war is going well" with the usual contrary opinions saying "war is going badly".

2) If the US 'backs' such countries such as above... Why is the US so vilified by the Arab street?

To clarify this question I offer the following:

I have seen translations of some of the reporting of the Arab media outlets. Most, if not all, call the coalition troops "the occupying" troops. Most use Iraqi televsion without any thought of verification and source confirmation. Most Arab newpaper outlets decry this war as "imperialism".

With those statements a given (I don't read/write/speak Arabic...yet... am learning thanks to some American Muslims now) I find the statements above about "puppet governments" to be rather ludicrous. If the Saudis were so 'dependent' upon US support, why is it most of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are Saudi? Why is it the bulk of the 9/11 highjackers were also Saudi?

I could keep going with the clarifying questions but I definitely want some enlightenment on the first two questions.

I will give my answer to the questions I pose and let you tell me where I'm wrong. These will be simplistic...so be kind [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Ans 1) Typically, Arab (Muslim) controlled areas/countries/governments do not want to think/know their country could be changed into a "western" clone and think any change that direction could destroy their hold on the followers of Islam. (Yes, I know, there are a lot of holes in that one)

Ans 2) It is politically expedient for the US to have the alliances (too strong a word) with the above mentioned countries. It allows the US to actually have an influence in the region. Also, for the specific governments, it allows them to 'call on their US friend if they need it' (such as Saudi Arabia in 1991) but tell their populace, which I believe is not well educated, they are actually 'controlling' the US influence and keeping Islam pure.

Have fun [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-27-2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: macoati ]

Barden I'm not going to quote your post but address a few points...

I highlighted your "knockdown price" line becuse that is exactly the reasoning that the vast majority of people bringing up the "war for oil" concept are using. They're seeing the most simplistic reasons for this war, AND I might add the ones that do indeed show the US as being "below rapist level", and they're running with it. IMO, the only valid reason that Oil can be included as a causal factor in this war is within the framework of "increased world stability". Stabalizing the oil supply could effectively be argued to improve the stability of the world economy, and a nutcase in Iraq is certainly a risk factor.

As I stated before, I disagree with "war for oil" because it's a straw man, the opposition has set up a US that wants to CONTROL Iraqi oil and resources... and then points to this imaginary US and tells the world how horrible it is. It's a popular concept because it's so simplistic that everyone can easily latch onto it.

With regards to buying Saddam's oil... EVERY country that's a player in this debate (except perhaps Russia) are guilty of buying Iraqi oil over the last 12 years, all of them full well knowing that many of the proceeds of these purchases have financed rearming the Iraqi military. Just because Saddam is a bad guy don't believe that the rest of the world hasn't been very willing to do business with him.

As far as influencing the global markets, Iraq's influence in the oil supply has been marginal since the gulf war (accounting for a few percent of international oil shipments). There are a number of other countries that quickly (and happily) increased production to offset the drop in Iraqi production. Long term the reserves in Iraq are important (due to the volume) but if we were taking a "long view to get control of Iraqi oil" we could just as easily waited out Saddam... he wouldn't have lived forever. Again IMO the oil argument as it is being forwarded by most proponents (they say it's about control, not stability) is a poor argument based on numerous invalid or weak assumptions.

I additional disagree that the war was intended to stabilize the US economy (which is a different subject in and of itself). Again if anything the risk of a large land war far outweighs the potential benefits. The relatively low spending required (a few percent of GDP) means there will be little direct economic stimulation in the mil/ind complex, and the uncertainty of a large land war again will cause much more economic uncertainty (BAD) than anything else. If Bush had wanted to improve the economy (something he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in), he'd have been better off spending that 75 billion domestically.

Regional stability will no doubt suffer in the short term, but long term there is much to be gained by removing a high risk dictatorship from the region. Global economic stability cannot be achieved without regional stability. Or to put it another way, we shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse here... regional stability will lead to a stable oil supply, which will positively impact global stabilty (and the global economy). You can't have a stable oil supply in a region that is a powder keg. Of course this brings up then next logical target in this effort... Israel/Palestine. This problem will need to be resolved for the pressures in the middle east to have any chance of easing.

(edited to correct analogy mayhem)

[ 03-27-2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

RE: Saudi Arabia - Since when are allies "puppets" of the US. Does this mean that Britain is a Puppet government of the US? How about France... they've been one of our staunches allies for hundreds of years, are they a puppet government of us (or MAYBE we're a puppet government of THEM... since they were the stronger of the two of us for most of the relationship).

Bin Laden is a big rich baby... his religous sensibilities are offended by "infidels" on the holy ground of Saudi Arabia. Keep in mind that this is what got Bin Ladens panties in a bunch in the first place, not Palestine, not the suffering of his people. Of course he's since grabbed onto those causes too because they make good press.

The Saudi government knows that the US is a stabilizing influence in the region, and so they tolerate our presence and walk a tightrope between popular intolerance for non-muslims and the need for those non-muslims. If the Iraqi threat goes away, so will Saudi permission for US bases on Saudi soil.