The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq is having a pernicious global side effect: It is fostering the belief that such a conflict would be a "war for oil" and therefore an exercise in imperialism, not an exercise in security.
This view is widely held in the Arab world, where commentators argue that the United States must be expecting instability in Saudi Arabia to compound the instability in Venezuela, and is therefore looking elsewhere for ensured oil supplies. It showed up in the signs and shouts of the antiwar demonstrators who came to Washington last weekend: "No blood for oil!" "We don't want your oil war."
The oil-industry connections of President Bush and Vice President Cheney reinforce the presumed oil rationale. Some proponents of the oil theory also cite the "Carter doctrine," in which President Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the United States would protect its access to Persian Gulf oil by "any means necessary, including military force." The Carter doctrine, however, was inspired by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and was directed against "outside" forces, namely Moscow; it was not about the governance of the Persian Gulf countries themselves.
Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.
First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased.
Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers.
It might be necessary to modify refinery runs to account for variations in oil quality, and shipping costs might increase with distance, but the overall impact would be tolerable.
Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States.
Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more.
As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.
Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, is writing a book on U.S.-Saudi Arabian relations.
I've used his "first" argument in previous posts. Its just supply and demand. If we were the cruel evil empire we would have ignored Saddam's nastiness and built up lucrative business with him - not just for oil, but for weapons and AGRI products too!
This is obvious.
But it is not nearly as enticing to the malcontents as a conspiracy theory.
"Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness." W.C.
Who is to blame for "The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq"? At least on this point everyone must be in agreement that the US and UK governments must take the lion's share of the blame for this.
Because of the above failure oil, defense, imperialism, liberation, wmd, Al-Quida, terrorism, or whatever else anyone can think of can be used as a compelling argument both for and against the war.
Who is to blame for "The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq"? At least on this point everyone must be in agreement that the US and UK governments must take the lion's share of the blame for this.
I agree to a large extent. But of course they are at a disadvantage as the people who are actually doing the work, taking the risks, and of course making mistakes along the way. Quite honestly I have very little understanding of what is going on over there. Whether its being bogged down in a war that was over in a few weeks, to looting, to no electricity, etc, etc, the only things that covered are the negative sides. What "positive" reports do come out are usually hyperbolized BS from the media over anxious to be first with a story that sounds exciting.
quote:
Because of the above failure oil, defense, imperialism, liberation, wmd, Al-Quida, terrorism, or whatever else anyone can think of can be used as a compelling argument both for and against the war.
I would also fault heavily other word leaders who do nothing to leverage their power/authority to counter these claims.
For shame!
"Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness." W.C.
Actually the best arguement for an Oil War war and still remains not U.S. control of Iraqi Oil. (the Bush clique are all oil people what do they care if the price of oil increases? ) But secuirty of the Oil Supply. this article and Charleses replies tend to reinforce rather than refute this. America is running out of oil. It benefits of the global supply remains secure in the hands of people it trusts to sell oil. this is particularly true if Suadi Arabia ever goes Phut!
+Most people demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." -Soren Kierkegaaard.
Originally posted by Dragonhalitosis Actually the best arguement for an Oil War war and still remains not U.S. control of Iraqi Oil. (the Bush clique are all oil people what do they care if the price of oil increases? ) But secuirty of the Oil Supply. this article and Charleses replies tend to reinforce rather than refute this. America is running out of oil. It benefits of the global supply remains secure in the hands of people it trusts to sell oil. this is particularly true if Suadi Arabia ever goes Phut!
I agree in general, and have posted many times that the US is and should be interested in the stable flow of oil in the world. The world is so dependent upon the stuff that we are almost obliged to do this.
But you will have a hard time extracting that admission from the left. It is much more exciting for them to use the rape and pillage model.
I am not sure I follow where the Saudi oil might go though. What do you mean 'phut!"
Would they refrain from selling oil? Is that an option for them?
I suppose they could always fall back on something else to support their dynamic economy.
"Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness." W.C.
I mean if I read things correctly the Saudis are little more than a corrupt Taliban with oil and yes there is a risk that they will face a revolution or a civil war. and yes that might cut off their oil s supply. If they can't sell oil they have plenty of sand.
I do find it interesting that you attack left wingers for basically being right if in a slightly wrong headed way. Good idea don't let those lefties get away with being right!
Oh and I don't think the evidence is that the U.S. has historically cared wiether ordinary arabs benefit from Oil wealth either judging by the history of Iraq Iran and Saudi Arabia.
+Most people demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." -Soren Kierkegaaard.
I do find it interesting that you attack left wingers for basically being right if in a slightly wrong headed way. Good idea don't let those lefties get away with being right!
I don't attack left wingers, I just think they are naive, misguided, and stupid.
There is a fundamental difference between accepting the fact that one of the primary reasons that the US overthrew Saddam was to get rid of a bastard who destabilized the region that was critical to the entire world (and the Iraqi's), and painting Bush out as an evil mogul out to pillage Iraq.
The fact that Saddam is a brutal bastard megalomaniac who murdered his people and attacked his neighbors, pursued WMD's, supported terrorism, etc., are just a few more of the many legs that the logic behind overthrow stands upon.
And just to make it clear, the left is wrong. Saddam was wrong. Getting rid of Saddam was right. Just because you use the word "oil" in a sentance, and I use the word "oil" in a sentance, doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions AT ALL.
"Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness." W.C.
Well I'm glad to learn that the U.S. Got rid of Saddam and here was I thinking that hes still there. But its a nice change to see the U.S. Lining up against Bastard megalomanic in the middle east usually (provided they are nice to the U.S. ) the U.S. seems to support them.
Nor Can I agree that he destabilised the whole middle east that seems way to extravagent yes he invaded Kuwait but that was 10 years ago and on the evidence I'd have to say he'd lost comntrol of most of his country and his airspace. but I will agree on you on one point I don't claim Bush was an ecvil mogul out to pillage Iraq.
He means well, and seems reluctant to consider the idea he may be wrong which maybe worse.
Sorry you said you'd used the same arguement as me on oil I thought that meant you agreed.
I don't deduct marks for spelling or I''d owe points!
+Most people demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." -Soren Kierkegaaard.
Last edited by Dragonhalitosis on 12-03-2003 at 11:48 PM |
I don't attack left wingers, I just think they are naive, misguided, and stupid.
There is a fundamental difference between accepting the fact that one of the primary reasons that the US overthrew Saddam was to get rid of a bastard who destabilized the region that was critical to the entire world (and the Iraqi's), and painting Bush out as an evil mogul out to pillage Iraq.
The fact that Saddam is a brutal bastard megalomaniac who murdered his people and attacked his neighbors, pursued WMD's, supported terrorism, etc., are just a few more of the many legs that the logic behind overthrow stands upon.
And just to make it clear, the left is wrong. Saddam was wrong. Getting rid of Saddam was right. Just because you use the word "oil" in a sentance, and I use the word "oil" in a sentance, doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions AT ALL.
naive, misguided, and stupid - the same could be said of the right. They were naive to beleive an Iraqi insurgence wouldn't occur. The history was there for all to see. It's still too early to get a clear picture where the occupation is going but it wasn't, despite what people say, what the Bush administration expected.
Misguided expectations and only listening to views that backed up those expectations, ie the information from the Iraqi exiles, and ignoring views that got in the way.
Stupid to get the whole pre-war PR exercise so badly wrong and stumble from one excuse to another when both world-wide and UN support wasn't forthcoming. If we in the West didn't believe, multiply that by a hundred to get an idea of how the Arabs see it and all that that entails.
Iraq's not the cake-walk the right thought it would be and it's only just begun. One more thing - I haven't heard anyone, left or right say that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power, although I don't feel one bit safer now he's gone, but then that's all part of the the terrorist argument.
Dragon's right to say "Nor Can I agree that he destabilised the whole middle east that seems way to extravagent" The US supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war BECAUSE he was fighting fudamentalism and US governemnts said right up to invading Kuwait he was a stableising force in the area, that's AFTER gasing the Kurds.
A little lesson for those that obviously are not either aware of or choose to ignore.
The US is 12th in the world for oil reserves, yet we're 1st in consumption consuming 19.998 million barrels a day, way up from the 70's. The energy crisis during the 70's was a wake up call that at first glance would appear that we've unfortunately have fallen back to sleep on but not so. It's all about oil companies making $$$$. Our dependency on oil is tantamount to an addict’s dependency on drugs and has the ability to cripple this nation and Carter knew it as well as every succeeding president. So it's vitally important to keep the world flowing with an abundant supply to keep oil companies rich and the US economy operating normally.
This article is misleading, why? Because they know fully well that Saddam was our enemy. He even tried to initiate another OPEC boycott on this country knowing that it would cripple us. They also know that Iraq alone would not immediately interrupt US operation, but let’s say Saudi Arabia for one of the reasons mentioned above that started this thread came reality and they halted or slowed down the oil flow. Then Saddam knowing this decides to do the same. This would have devastating affects on our economy and way of life. Gas prices would shoot through the roof. We already know Saddam wouldn’t bulk at the chance to do this. This is also why Bush buried that report on who was responsible for 9/11. It was a plane full of Saudis remember? Bush neatly tucked it away.
Those of you that are in the computer world know about fault tolerance. Well this is exactly that. To keep things going you must have a backup ready to spring online when the mains go down. Saddam was not US friendly. If anything happens in that region, he would be the first to jump on the bandwagon to hurt the US even further.
Like every other preceding president, Bush knowing this had to get Saddam out of there because that was his most direct threat against us. No one has even come close to mentioning it. Bush also had too many other temptations not to do it, and the perfect alibi to justify it to the US under the guides of “fighting terrorism” AND WE FELL FOR IT!!!!
Look, the US's dependency on oil is the Superman's kryptonite. This is exactly why we stay in those regions to assure that the flow of oil continues smoothly. We were in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq installing a US friendly government there. The 3 riches oil reserves in the world. This is called suring up the wall people plain and simple. The added attraction for Bush is that he and his Cheney gang (pun intended) can make millions in the process.
Wake up and smell the oil. Is this war about oil? You bet your life it is. We certainly need to keep the flow at pace with our consumption which increases with each passing year, but I draw the line when we lie to do it and so many of our troops are dying in the process. We here are so naïve, but it’s that way because we have been lied to for so many years and sheltered from real world events that to us only exists on CNN.
Wake up dear people. The oil is brewing. I hope one day it just doesn’t spill over and burn us beyond recognition.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
That graph simply shows that we use alot of oil and it said we import just over half of that. Did you see this story on that same page ?
January 2003
Bush Announces Hydrogen Initiative
President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen initiative during his State of the Union address. The initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and to generate electricity.
The initiative complements the President's FreedomCAR initiative, which is developing technologies needed to mass produce safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. Through partnerships with industry, these two initiatives seek to make these vehicles cost effective for large numbers of Americans by 2020.
The new hydrogen initiative and FreedomCAR will dramatically improve America's energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil, and are key components of the President's clean air and climate change strategies.
For more information about hydrogen technologies, see the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap.
Bush is trying to get alternative fuels into use. Granted it will not be wide spread for a long time but we have to start somewhere.
The faster you fall behind,
the more time you have to
catch up !!!
12-01-2003 06:33 PM
