A THOUGHT ON PETROL
By Publius II
In July 2008 the price of oil hit a new record of $147 per barrel. President GW Bush being an oil man, did he attack Iraq in 2003 to ensure a continuing supply of oil at a reasonable price? Well, nobody is perfect.
Information about what Iraq’s dictator was up to was thin, so some intelligence folks “sexed it up.” The result was documentation of a very extensive arsenal of weapons of mass death and destruction. According to secretary of defense Rumsfeld “a trained ape” knew about these devastating weapons.
Inconveniently for the Texas gunslinger and his warmongering friends, later investigation revealed that the intelligence was not very intelligent. Saddam Hussein had no weapons that could threaten the US.
In fact he had no WMDD whatsoever. (Publius II works with truth, so he has relabeled these war tools “weapons of mass death and destruction.”)
After learning this inconvenient truth Bush tried to connect the war in Iraq with the war on terror. But this one did not fly when word got out that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden intensely dislike one another. Maybe he wanted only to be rid of the terrible Saddam, but if this is true why are soldiers and marines still there nearly 16 years and 4,400+ US fighter deaths later?
Was it his popularity rating (which slumped to 20 percent)? He did not really win the 2000 election so a war-generated boost would help him establish his personal power base. Furthermore he recalled that his father when president attacked Panama for much the same reason. But this would be war based on a political number.
Maybe the real reason for the invasion is connected to young Mr. Bush’s testosterone? The attacks of 9/11/01 filled him to capacity in that department. But only kings and dictators declare war based on a hormone. (Pocket Gofer 11 discusses this issue.)
And even they always pick fights against other nations and not a tactic called terror. Maybe he wanted to restore the Bush family name after his father failed during Gulf War I to waste Saddam? Not even GW Bush would start an international conflict to resolve a family matter. So it must be oil.
Clyde Prestowitz in his 2004 book Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions wrote that if this conclusion is accurate the cost of the war (about $170 million a day then, later increased to around $300 million) must be patched into the calculation. With this done Prestowitz figured the real price of oil was about $200 per barrel, which translates to $8 per gallon of gasoline at the pump. (Yes, this shocking book is about the U.S. of A.)
In 2004 oil sold for about $40 per barrel. Later it soared to $147 and plummeted to $32. Today it is about $80.. Updating the above real price of gas to the present, the pump price per gallon is about $3.00. A 20-gallon SUV fill-up comes to $60. (The cost of the present Iraq war is less than it was in 2004. But then there is Afghanistan, where it costs $7 to deliver one gallon of fuel to the battle zone and $250,000 a year per US soldier.)
The only forecast available is more increases due to ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. For decades US foreign policy in that area has propped up dictators in the interest of stability and a dependable supply of oil. Today we see the result. So much for President Bush’s desire to provide a continuing supply of oil at a reasonable price.
This sad tale omits mention of an estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.. And then there are thousands of partially alive soldiers returning home with limbs blown off, eyes missing and/or PTSD.
IEDs (improvised explosive devices) were the single biggest killer, so the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Organization was formed in 2006 by the Pentagon to solve the problem. Five years and $17 billion later the conclusion is zilch. The single biggest killer is still killing.
Also omitted is Iraqi resentment at having a foreign aggressor conquer and occupy their country. Not only that, it tortures some of those who object.
There is lots of controversy today concerning torture. Former vice-president Dick Cheney led the battle to preserve torture as a means of extracting presumably useful information from detainees.
In Iraq as elsewhere Al Qaeda organizes its forces into independent cells where a member of one cell has no knowledge of what the others are doing. Furthermore cells constantly dissolve and reorganize as they respond only to receiving money and fighting the enemy. Each decides by itself how, where and when to do the fighting.
Weak torture victims will say anything to avoid further pain, and strong ones are not about to reveal anything significant. Moreover, in the case of Al Qaeda members they also most probably don’t know what their interrogators are trying to pry out of them.
The conclusion is that torture, however defined, accomplishes practically nothing except making the torturing nation a barbarian in the eyes of the world. The US government signed on to Geneva (Switzerland) Conventions in 1949 and 1975 that make torture illegal. These agreements were systematically violated by the Bush administration.
Mr. Cheney tried to provide documents that show how much useful information was obtained thru barbaric abuse, evidence of which is not permitted as part of court trials. Nine-eleven mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed was brought to NY City from Guantanamo Bay for trial. He was “water-boarded” 183 times. How will a court determine that what he says was not influenced by all that torture?
It would be hard to know what is truth and what has been fabricated. By its secretive nature such evidence is easy to fabricate by anyone who defends the use of torture. Independent verification is practically impossible.
And then there are the tax breaks, below-market royalty payments, depletion allowances, tax credits and hidden subsidies lavished by the government (read “taxpayer”) on BIG OIL.
Big oil firms earn tax credits due to royalties paid for oil extracted abroad. This was supposed to avoid double taxation, but the reality is a huge windfall for the companies. No prize for guessing who picks up the resulting slack in government revenues.
Big oil also makes out like a tall dog in wartime. American forces consumed more than 1 million gallons of fuel a day in Afghanistan and, until recently, a similar quantity in Iraq. (Some of this is supplied from Iraqi wells, but not as much as assumed. See the essay “A Thought on Corruption.”)
In terms of total subsidies allowed by government to BIG OIL, this is only the tip of the iceberg. These companies hire lobbyists who drag gigantic bags of money down the corridors of the Congress. The amounts are kept secret.
In September 09 the AP reported that big oil is again “lavishing funds” in Washington, shattering the previous year’s records. Career politicians in the congress responded with several key bits of favorable legislation.
Guessing, for the typical family of four maybe around $4,000 more. That $60 SUV fill-up may understate the case.
For decades the government has been pushing alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal. It has got so excited about these sources that it has forced Joe/Jane Taxpayer to subsidize them so they can compete with subsidized oil and natural gas. The conclusion has citizens supporting both BIG OIL and also other forms of energy with their tax dollars.
By now a thinking citizen reading this essay has concluded that BIG OIL has been bringing great gobs of dirty money to congressmen. In this he/she would be accurate. If he is unhappy about this development he is not alone. Over the past 40 years eight presidents have complained about the addiction to oil.
Someone should ask, is the money for the elites that good? Today someone is asking, as the BIG OIL companies report multi-billion-dollar profits as required by law.
Here is a thought. Get rid of all forms of assistance to BIG OIL and also those for ethanol and alternative sources of energy. The taxpayer would make out both coming and going, and BIG OIL would become simply oil. The economy would kick the oil habit, and along with this much if not all the political skullduggery and killing of innocent civilians and soldiers that roils the Middle East today.
There would be no need to ship weapons to and create war in the Middle East. The market would enable citizens to freely choose what form of energy is best for them, including green forms. (Politicians would be unhappy to see part of their loot taken from them but, not to worry.)
Andrew Bacevich in his book The Limits of Power writes of additional savings from energy independence. “Imagine the impact just on the pentagon were this country actually to achieve anything approaching energy independence. US Central Command would go out of business. Dozens of bases in and around the Middle East would close. The navy’s fifth fleet would stand down. Weapons contracts worth tens of billions would risk being canceled.”
Bacevich wrote before the recent shale oil boom. Today America is fairly close to independence, but BIG OIL is still big and defense contractors are still fat and sassy.
President Bush kept nearly all the money spent on the Iraq war off the books. In this way those taxpayers who were financing the war could not know how much it was costing them.
As of 2010 the last nation that was a member of the 2003 “coalition of the willing” was no longer willing. It had had enough of the fiasco in Iraq so it pulled out. The Obama administration put the state department in charge of the war (?).
Now, a thinking citizen would not stop even here. In Saudi Arabia $$ billions in oil revenues are splashed around among thousands of filthy rich Saudi princes and sheiks.
It is quite possible that US citizens who drive are in part paying for Iraqi insurgents and other jihadists to kill American fighters. Iraqi oil is imported into the US and refined into gasoline. Some of the money paid for the oil goes to insurgents.
If there is any truth to this allegation it would surely be news-worthy. It looks like news of the war in Iraq is in fact being manipulated. This should not be a surprise. Truth is the first casualty of any war. Top warriors in the pentagon clearly don’t want the lid blown off this one.
During the 1980s Iraq and Iran were mired in a grisly and senseless war. Weapons for both sides were supplied by the pentagon. Some of these were fired at our soldiers during the 96-hour Gulf War I. Most if not all of these same weapons are still in Iraq today.
All these issues are interconnected because the government rigs the energy market so that oil dominates all other forms of energy. Most of the world’s oil reserves are located in Middle East countries.
A lot of this oil comes from the Middle East, so billions of US dollars flood into Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and Arab emirates. These billions vastly exceed the money that citizens of these countries spend on imported US-made products and services. This causes a vast accumulation of dollars in that region of the world.
This imbalance of trade is not good. Continued over years it causes the value of the US dollar to decline.
Therefore in its infinite wisdom the US government sells billions of dollars’ worth of weapons into the Middle East. These sales retrieve some of those oil dollars. Logically the government is interested in keeping things stirred up over there, as this stimulates demand for weapons.
But here comes the kicker. With the Middle East unstable oil production becomes undependable so the price increases. (Tremendous demand by China and India also force up the price.)
Unthinking citizens bitch about this inconvenience. Thinking citizens grow concerned about Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian citizens who are being killed and maimed while simply going about their daily business. And it’s not just bombs and missiles. IEDs, drones and suicide bombers also discriminate poorly as they kill and maim. Pocket Gofer 18 shows how unrestrained international trafficking in weapons stokes arms races.
So, what is the typical Iraqi citizen really thinking today?He/she has learned that most of some 600,000 of his fellow citizens were killed by a ruthless foreign aggressor who has tortured some of those not murdered. If he has not suffered the massive pain of losing family members he probably knows some who have. This aggressor has occupied his fatherland for 15 years (along with others not so ruthless).
In addition, he knows that US forces are seriously overstretched and that thousands of its fighters suffer from injuries and fatigue. Increasing numbers have committed suicide and still others have endured destruction of their families.
The behavior of American forces has recruited many thousands of freedom fighters (called insurgents by the pentagon).
Finally, he knows that without a comprehensive change in US foreign policy there will be more of the same. Today we think there has been at least an incipient change. President Trump wants to remove troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan..
The brief example noted in the essay on corruption illustrated only the tip of the iceberg. Iraq competes for the dubious title of most corrupt nation in the world. US citizens working in Iraq have apparently been taking notes, according to FINEC (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) that the US government organized.
James Glanz (News & Observer 3/10) described US workers ripping off their fellow taxpayers’ money. “—- suspected of having mailed tens of thousands of dollars to themselves from Iraq, —–. —— millions —- moved thru wire transfers. Suspects used cash to buy BMWs, humvees and expensive jewelry —–.”
Wayne White was a senior intelligence official based in Iraq until 2005. “Since —- 1991 ——— dealings with foreign companies and contractors have been laced with bribery, kickbacks and other fraud,” White said, ——. “—– setting up fraudulent companies to hide the illicit gains.” Here are more examples of US citizens’ tax dollars at work.
There are variety of sects, tribes and clans in the north. There is little if any evidence that US planners have made any serious attempt to understand the interethnic dynamics that impel these groups toward violence. This omission violates perhaps the only applicable rule of warfare: Know your enemy.
In March 09 a Kurd from Northern Iraq who had been detained and tortured several times was interviewed (News & Observer 3/24). The former “insurgent” had put down his guns but he felt betrayed. He said “I’ve told the Americans, ‘If you keep alienating the people, all Iraqis will fight.'” He stated that Americans have not kept promises made to him and to his group.
“This will be a police state, no question,” says a Western diplomat with long experience in Iraq. “It’ll take two or three years. But it’s coming.” If this is true the presence of the foreign aggressor seems to be opening wide the door for Son of Saddam.
Did not President Bush say he wanted democracy in Iraq? Democracy is free choice by citizens improving their lives while considering the rights of others. By definition, it cannot be imposed by force.
Webster defines “insurgent” as one who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority. In the case of Iraq this means violent opposition to the Iraqi government. There is a little of that but most is aimed elsewhere. Something wrong here.
This is why Publius II calls insurgents freedom fighters. President Bush called them enemies of freedom. This is only one instance in which the two men do not see eye to eye.
The pentagon sees to it that very little news about returning veterans gets out to those who are paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and terror). Talking to the vets themselves may not yield much because they don’t want to relive the horror by discussing it.
So recourse must be made to political books, the better of which are read only by thinking citizens. Thomas E. Ricks wrote one called Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. The following quotation hits home.
“Triple amputee Vietnam veteran and Congressman Max Cleland voted in favor of the invasion because he needed votes back home. He suffered for it (and lost the election anyway). ’Thirty-seven years later, and I have another president creating a Vietnam. Kids are dying, getting blown up — that’s me.’ [Cleland continued:] ‘I see those young Iraq veterans, missing legs and arms and eyes. They are so brave. They have no idea what is down the road for them.’”
What people see and hear in the news are either brave young fighters, those who feel they must act that way in front of the cameras, or who fear punishment from superior officers who themselves are starting to wonder why they are in Iraq. The flip side is suppressed.
Some 50 years of oil-soaked US foreign policy has trampled on the sensitivities of Arabs and Muslims. The government has shown more interest in oil than in people. Because the news media are largely press agents for the government most ordinary US citizens believe that Muslims are either terrorists or just bad people. Most of these folks have never met a Muslim so they naively believe what the news media tell them.
Muslims believe in Islam, which has five basic tenets: 1) There is only one god, he is Allah and Mohammed is his prophet; 2) Alms for the poor; 3) Face Mecca and pray five times daily; 4) No food, drink or sex between sun-rise and sun-set during the Holy month of Ramadan; and 5) Make the Hajj (trip) to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if you can afford it.
Called the Qu’ran, the Muslim holy book describes jihad as a struggle within the individual for excellence. Unemployed and frustrated young men who are angry at Western governments’ 50-year humiliation of Muslims have redefined jihad as a violent struggle for honor and dignity. Therefore media reports concerning Muslims apply to only a tiny minority of the billion of believers worldwide. Sex and violence always sells.
Funds from Iraqi oil were supposed to go toward reconstruction. There are several problems with this idea. One is that a lot of Iraqis argue that since America destroyed the country it should rebuild it.
Another problem originated with the pentagon, where top warriors were against rebuilding any foreign nation. Apparently they see themselves as war fighters only. Furthermore large proportions of the revenues from Iraqi oil production were diverted toward private pockets and toward the insurgency.
Finally, roughly $100 billion of taxpayer dollars marked for reconstruction was frittered away by bureaucrats fighting over turf. The pentagon manufactured fake progress reports to cover up the failure.
The British government in January 2010 conducted a comprehensive inquiry into just how that country got sucked into the Iraq war. This is interesting, in that the US government apparently sees no need for such an inquiry.
Ministers and other officials saw fit to ignore the advice of government lawyers who raised questions concerning the legality of plans to go to war. “More than ever, joining the war appears a mistake in policy, shoddily executed.” (Economist 1/30/10)
President Bush naively thought he could remove Saddam and then create a democracy that would spread beyond Iraq and throughout the Middle East. The invasion and the civil war that followed killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and all but destroyed the country. The Iraqi in the street must think that if this is democracy he/she wants absolutely nothing to do with it.
The logical conclusion is that war based on the whim of a war monger is not a good idea. Thinking about the situation more, the world may be approaching a state where even thinking career warriors are wondering whether war itself is not a good idea.
Several retired generals have spoken out on this subject. One of these, Anthony Taguba, looked into the abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and concluded that President Bush and several of his lieutenants are guilty of war crimes. What is even more encouraging is that a news medium published these remarks. See the essay “A Thought on the Futility of War.”