American Petrocracy

[Bushwick Bill]

Sorry for the Amcon link, but this is by the guy who wrote American Theocracy and runs somewhat counter to the Palast theory that the war was more about driving oil prices through the roof.

American Petrocracy

Among the shifting rationales for the war in Iraq, the most plausible motive may be the least discussed: access to oil.

by Kevin Phillips

Few lies have wound up injuring Americans more—in everything from automobile gas tanks and winter heating bills to diminished U.S. global standing—than a rarely revisited three-year-old fib-fest involving George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blair. Since World War I, history is clear: the British and Americans have been pre-occupied with only one thing in Iraq—oil. Yet in 2003, as their troops again disembarked, the pretense was all about good and evil, democracy and freedom. The disastrous outcome of the unacknowledged Middle Eastern mission, the struggle for petroleum, has rarely been discussed.

In part, that’s because a credulous press has swallowed an extraordinary fraud. Speaking on behalf of George W. Bush, then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer insisted in February 2003, “If this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people.” In November 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had likewise declared, “it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.” On the other side of the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament in early 2003, “Let me deal with the conspiracy theory that this has something to do with oil. There is no way whatever that if oil were the issue, it wouldn’t be simpler to cut a deal with Saddam Hussein.”

Horse manure. In the run-up to war, from Alberta to Texas, oilmen gossiped about the centrality of oil. Meetings of petroleum geologists buzzed about the so-called “peak oil” forecast that a dangerous top in global production was only a decade or two away. Specialized publications guesstimated how much taking over Iraqi oil could mean for profits and Exxon and Chevron. Polls of ordinary citizens from Europe to Latin America and the Mideast produced similar findings: people thought the invasion was about oil.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html

For reference, here is a flashback to recent Palast:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1517073

[Avalux]

1. I knew that 3 years ago.

It was always about the oil and still is; the powers that be aren't going to give up on that cash cow. :hi:

[kenny blankenship]

2. Access and price aren't necessarily exclusive of each other

If you gain preferential access to oil that you didn't have before, and in the same motion cause the price of oil to head north in a longrunning trend, you just doubled your fun.

However, the strategic access issue totally overshadows the speculative motive, in my opinion. They would have done just as they did, and would still be doing now what they're doing, even if the price of oil fell after the Iraq invasion. Iraq is about reimposing a (neo)colonial control by the west over Arab oil, breaking OPEC, and about interposing ourselves between that oil and our global competitors like rapidly growing China and a resurgent Russia.

The center of the American Empire has shifted from Western Europe and the Mediterranean to Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Even though Washington D.C. remains the political capital, the land center of empire will be in Iraq--they even call it CENTCOM, get it? From this center there are major oil fields within a few days drive by armored column in every direction of the compass.

This fact becomes the most important feature of the middle eastern landscape, dominating the thoughts of heads of state in the region. Declared or not, disavowed or not, American Empire EXISTS --it has plunked itself down in the center of the worlds' oil patch. Henceforth no one in that region rules their own country or is mayor of their city without the sufferance of the American President, who by the way is operating all this Imperial Machinery completely without Congressional say-so or oversight. All the people's representatives have as their role to play is a rubber stamp for off-budget appropriations for the ongoing war that was supposed to be officially over and done with 3 years ago. Not even the British Empire at its height operated as the expression of one Imperial ruler's royal and unquestionable will, like the Bushist Empire operates now. Parliament ran the British Empire, not the Monarch. Bush's Empire however, is run by Bush White House and Pentagon, answering only to Bush. Congress is just a billing address for the expenses. And everything we know about the deployment of this occupational force indicates that it unequivocally MEANS TO STAY. We are still building an "embassy" there that is larger than the city-state of the Vatican (a sovereign country!), and we are still building out several gargantuan, permanent bases in Iraq that are more like the size of some Counties here at home. This ain't some overnight excursion to do a little regime changing, or a simple in-'n'-out heist: this is colonial possession, aka Empire. No matter what noises are made about troop withdrawals before the midterm elections are held, it's clear that the continued occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces for the rest of Bush's term is the most sacrosanct, non-negotiable principle of American government. The Voting Rights Act may expire or not, gay marriage may be put down by the National Guard or Amendment or not, the southern border may be thrown open or not, but establishment of The Empire of Oil is non-negotiable.

[swag]

3. Recommended. Steve Clemons has some very interesting excerpts from that

here, including these very interesting paragraphs:

. . . the White House had to consider the huge religious and biblical element of the coalition that elected Bush in 2000. Newsweek polling back in 1999 found that 45 percent of American Christians believed in Armageddon and the end times, and almost as many thought that the Antichrist was already alive and on the earth. Because such beliefs concentrate among very pro-Bush evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Pentecostals, my estimate is that some 55 percent of the people who voted for Bush in 2000 would have told pollsters about believing in the end times and Armageddon.

This will strike many as an exaggeration, but the phenomenon is an important one. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals noted in 2003 that since the break-up of the USSR, "evangelicals have substituted Islam for the Soviet Union. The Muslims have become the modern-day equivalent of the Evil Empire." According to University of Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer, by the 1990s many prophecy believers saw Saddam as the Antichrist or his forerunner, partly because Saddam was rebuilding the ancient evil city of Babylon. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye fictionalized the Rapture-Tribulation-Armageddon sequence so successfully that it sold a whopping 60 million copies in book and tape form. Most of the readers were Bush backers.

Politically, this confronted the White House with both a strategic dilemma and a parallel opportunity. On the plus side, the huge chunk of Bush voters would want to view the U.S. attempt to topple Saddam Hussein in terms of the war of good versus evil. Weapons of mass destruction were a prop but collateral to the larger biblical context. Invading Iraq would evoke that context because Saddam was one of the evil ones -- maybe the Evil One, given his Babylon tie-in. Toppling him could aspire to biblical interpretation. Aiding Israel was also biblically vital. Bush had already carved out a related, overarching "good versus evil" posture with his heavily religious post-9/11 rhetoric.

. . . more

[swag]

4. Kick for Truth and Beauty.

Excellent article.