Alan Greenspan’s new political memoir does not just criticize the George W. Bush and the Republican Party on economic grounds. Greenspan, who had plenty of inside connections with the Bush White House as the long-time Chairman of the Federal Reserve, also had some harsh things to say about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Greenspan writes, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” If Alan Greenspan, a lifelong Republican, is willing to admit that American hunger for oil is the principal motivation behind the ongoing American military occupation of Iraq, it shouldn’t be a big point of controversy for the rest of us with more moderate political leanings.
Let’s follow through on Alan Greenspan’s hint, and elect a progressive President in 2008.
(Source: The Age, September 17, 2007) – Yes, it’s just now September 17 over in Australia, where The Age is printed. Be glad you’ve got a bit more weekend left if you’re here in North America.
I have never understood the “no blood for oil” slogan.
The British interest in the Middle East before WWI was definitely about oil–you know, the Arab Revolt and all that. The increasing German influence in the area meant England–with no oil of its own–would lose the upcoming war with Germany unless it could buy and ship oil without trade and shipping restrictions.
I have heard this “it’s about oil” thing passed around the the Arab street, but no one who repeats the slogan can tell me what it means. Does Iraq not have enough oil for itself that it can’t afford to export? I think not. It was exporting oil to France and Germany under Saddam. Didn’t most of Iraq’s oil export go to China?
The Aussies love to repeat anything even vaguely anti-American so it doesn’t surprise me to see this cliche repeated in a Aussie publication. But Alan Greenspan? Surely his area of expertise is money.
Can anyone explain this “blood for oil” thing to me in a way that does NOT sound like some vague conspiracy theory?
Iroquois, oil is money. The new standard of our economy is not the gold standard, but the oil standar. That’s why Alan Greenspan’s area of expertise includes understanding the role of oil in American foreign policy.
Also, just because the oil motivation is irrational on the right wing’s part doesn’t mean that it isn’t the motivation.
So how does maintaining a military presence in Iraq get oil money for the U.S.? Is someone in the Bush administration planning to back up an oil tanker to an Iraqi refinery and pump oil into it at gunpoint? (tankpoint?)
If you can get oil money just by sending troops to some country, why aren’t we attacking Sudan, Mexico, Brazil, Canada? They’ve got plenty of oil, they’re a lot closer, and it would be a whole lot cheaper to ship troops and everything.
Saying oil money is a motivation because it’s irrational doesn’t make any sense to me. Is there an proof anyone in the administration has decided the U.S. can get oil money from occupying Iraq? Is there a memo somewhere? A joke at a Republican fundraising event? Any documentation whatsoever? It’s simply true because it doesn’t make any sense?
Iroquois – Iraq (and afghanistan) are both extremely rich in oil, sit on the proposed route of a major pipeline, and neither sold much oil to the US (In fact, before the war, Saddam was considering being one of the first in the world to price his oil in euro’s as he did so much business with france and germany)
Saddam was also one of the worst enemies of the rulers of saudi arabia (including the bin laden family) who do a lot of business with america – no scratch that sorry, they do a lot of business with american corporations.
So, you invade Iraq and afghanistan. That doesn’t “give” america any oil (even though under the Iraqi constitution 50% of Iraq’s oil has to be effectively given to foreign corporations like Chevron and BP.) What it achieves very well is to utterly ruin two very large oil producing states, and force the worldwide oil price up. Doesn’t sound like this war is helping anyone get more oil huh. Well, not if you’re not the managing director of a major US corporation.
If you are though, and you have republican friends, well, you’re probably in the business of selling oil … bingo … you’ve pushed the world oil price up, and destroyed two countries who sell oil to your foreign competitors. The Iraq and afghan war weren’t so much about getting hands on oil, as making sure nobody else can, ever.
I thought Afghanistan had NO oil. Sure, there has been a pipeline proposed, but not seriously. Mostly it would take the oil from the Caspian sea offshore drilling and bypass Iran. Most agree it’s not workable because of the distance and the political instability of the tribal areas. Afghanistan doesn’t have any coastline, right? so a pipeline would have to go through another country as well to reach a port city.
Even Saudi provides only 17% of the U.S. oil.
Cutting in foreign corporations makes more sense as a motivation–but most countries have nationalized their foreign-owned businesses and that just isn’t a way of doing business in the world anymore. Where do you find the info on Iraq constitution?
Instability in the region certainly makes the price of oil go up, as does the increased amounts of oil needed to maintain military operations, but unless you’re very orwellian, that doesn’t make sense as a long term strategy.
I’m still thinking the war was a way to rearrange power in the middle east and defeat terrorism. Terrorists are useful, but only when they’re under the control of a stable and friendly government. Historically, whoever has held Iraq (or Babylon) has held the region.
I’m surprised nobody is advancing an Israel conspiracy for this.
“No Blood for Oil” means that we should not have a war for the sake of access to oil.
For an example of comments made by Neoconservatives that indicate an intention to take advantage of Iraqi oil for American benefit in the context of overthrowing Saddam, take a read through this chronology of comments made by Paul Wolfowitz:
http://www.ips-dc.org/wolfowitz/tl_01-05.htm#_edn47
Note his comments before the war that Iraq could be expected to pay for its own reconstruction very soon, and his determination in December 2003 that reconstruction contracts should only be rewarded to the U.S. and coalition partners.
Sorry, Ralph, but now that I have had time to read this, this is not a smoking gun. As much as I distrust Wolfowitz–you’re really playing into my prejudices here–at every turn he makes clear the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. The oil profits were to go to a fund for Iraqi reconstruction, not New York ground zero reconstruction.
Some Middle East leaders have been calling for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East for a long time, and this scenario fits well within the Marshall Plan vision. It doesn’t seem strange to me that the countries who opposed the occupation would not be called on to participate in reconstruction. After all, did the axis powers who fought against the U.S. participate in the reconstruction of Germany after WWII?
If there is any proof of “blood for oil”, this isn’t it.
You’ve got to do a little math here:
Wolfowitz wants to move Iraqi oil wealth to a fund for Iraqi reconstruction (A).
Then he wants to move money from the fund for Iraqi reconstruction to U.S. and pro-U.S. corporations (B).
The intention to move money to A, then move it from A to B, adds up pretty conclusively to an intention to move money to B.
Unless Wolfowitz gets either A) a piece of the pie or B)is rewarded by those who have a piece of the pie, you don’t show anything.
Besides, how many companies in the world are really able to do the kind of reconstruction necessary in Iraq? My understanding is the Iraqi economy was so devastated by ten years war with Iran, etc., they had no money for upgrades for like the last 30 years. The whole oil sector is supposedly rusting to a halt. Anyhow isn’t the cabinet level Iraqi responsible for the oil sector busy masterminding Shiite death squads that take Sunnis out of their homes at night for entertainments?
I think something will hit the fan later about the reconstruction companies, Halliburton et al, but the same set of facts that works for the blood-for-oil narrative also works for the conservative-patriots-in-action narrative.
Until Cheney is granted asylum by Dubai, the math doesn’t add up.
Wolfowitz gets a piece of the pie when his Neocon friends land him cushy jobs in the World Bank, at some think tank somewhere, etc.
His Neocon friends own stock in (or in Cheney’s case are still being paid by) one of the few companies in the world that COULD have done the kind of reconstruction work necessary in Iraq (if the dreams of peace and stability had materialized).
As things turned out, most of the reconstruction money ended up coming from U.S. taxpayers and going to security. But there’s still money in that; just ask Blackwater. And Blackwater dances with those that brung it, spreading the money back around to the politicians who grant it contracts.
Wolfowitz had cushy jobs with think tanks, government agencies, NGO’s way before he invented Iraq. And you’ve not demonstrated any link between Wolfowitz and Blackwater either.
Administrators always move money from point A to point B. That’s what they get paid to do. Unless some of it goes in their pockets, there’s nothing unexpected about it. And Wolfowitz was a highly placed person in several administrations who would have independent qualifications to get jobs on his own without starting any wars.
You concede that there was a plan to move Iraqi oil wealth to American and pro-American corporations in the aftermath of the Iraq war (move money to B, as you say).
The slogan “No Blood for Oil” objects to this kind of plan, and wars fought with this kind of plan in mind.
This is absolutely clear, yet you continue to object.
Odd.
No it doesn’t say there was a plan, or even a proposal. It says Wolfowitz made a statement. That’s a far cry from a formal policy or even a recommendation. It might have been just running something up a flagpole to see if anyone would salute it. Lessor members of an administration do that all the time if the head politico isn’t ready to put their name on something yet.
In fact, at the time I did hear some favorable comments about rebuilding Iraq down at the local mosque, and from people who were very critical of U.S. policy. My understanding is the oil infrastructure was crumbling because of lack of repairs during years of warfare with Iran and also the sanctions.
And Wolfowitz didn’t talk about “moving wealth”. He talked about paying for services rendered. Would it make sense to hire someone who was opposed to U.S. presence to do the work? That certainly would invite sabotage. I don’t see how this type of reconstruction would be any different from the Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan reconstructed Germany so that it became a major manufacturing area with newer infrastructure than the U.S., very competitive with our industries, and very high precision steel manufacturing. Did people go around saying “No blood for Volkswagons” or “No blood for Mercedes’” or “No blood for breweries”? Think about that while you’re celebrating Oktoberfest.
U.S. postwar policy in Iraq was very different from the Marshall Plan. Naomi Klein wrote a piece on postwar economic policy in Iraq that pulls together a lot of examples:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
She makes a pretty good case that (despite the prevailing soundbite you get now) there WAS planning for the postwar phase of Iraq: leave it to the magic invisible hand of the marketplace.
Under Bremer, Iraq, with its huge oil reserves, was left wide open for unprecedented profiteering. I quote Klein:
“But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.
If these policies sound familiar, it’s because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. But while these reforms are only ever enacted in part, or in fits and starts, Bremer delivered them all, all at once. Overnight, Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world to being, on paper, its widest-open market.”
That’s a truly remarkable piece you linked to, Ralph, I’ve skimmed most of it and will read it more thoroughly later. My first impression was that it was not so much an example of malice aforethought as gross stupidity, but maybe greed is more like it. It certainly illustrates the current debate over using civil service, not for profits, or private enterprise to deliver government services.
As you may recall (or not) it was Al Gore who did away with something like half of the federal government under the National Performance Review. The result was a shadow government of private contractors that no one knows how to categorize or count.
Blackwater is another example of what can happen when the government doesn’t have direct control over those providing services. And weren’t there private contractors at Abu Graib, or was that just a euphemism, (or cover)?