It's not all about democracy, but it's certainly a big part of it. If we just wanted to pump the oil, this would have been a much easier and less costly undertaking. Hell, we wouldn't have really even needed to depose Saddam Hussein. If all you're interested in is protecting wells and pipelines, it's not that difficult. If we just wanted to satisfy our blood lust and kill people, that would have taken about 30 minutes instead of 3 years.
Hussein was threatening to demand oil payments in Euros. In one instance, he delayed the shipment of a tanker. He quite openly threatened the world's oil stability.
to make matters worse, the UN-imposed economic sanctions on Iraq caused the oil-producing infrastructure to decay into sub-standard condition.
On the positive side, the lack of drilling during the embargo has preseved iraq's virgin sweet crude fields. Saudi Arabia produces a barrell of sweet crude for about 2$ a barrell, whereas an Iraqi barrel only costs 90 cents (because the virgin fields have higher pressure).
The problem I have with the whole idea is our troops are not strategically well deployed if our purpose is to protect Iraq's oil assets. Under an oil pumping scenario, you'd want to spend all your military resources protecting the oil assets. We have quite a lot of military assets deploying on nation building tasks and building Iraq's security forces. None of this makes sense if the sole purpose is to steal Iraq's oil wealth.
You're not thinking long term. Ideally, the Iraqis will protect their own oil, and save the administration all the trouble of "trading our soldier's blood for oil". Because the media is focusing on the urban conflicts, it's a lot easier to believe that we're primarily there to liberate the Kurds and establish women's suffrage in the middle east.
I think it's important to realize that during the initial invasion, oil got flowing quite quickly, and with very few long-term interruptions (the ports in Basra and Turkey have large holding tanks so that even when pipelines got blown up, the money would keep rolling in).
The justification is of course "so the iraqi's can pay for the reconstruction and become independent", but the higher value is in keeping the global oil supply above crisis conditions.
But wouldn't that mean in the long term the Iraqis are going to be pumping their own oil and making money off it? I don't have any issues with an arrangement such as that. Most of the training we're giving the Iraqi military is in counter insurgency operations, rather than defense of fixed positions, which is what you'd want to do if you needed them protecting oil assets. If we had a long term interest in stealing Iraq's oil wealth, giving them an elected government and the training and arms to protect it wouldn't be a wise strategic decision.
i understand where you're coming from... Lots of anti-war folks say the US is "stealing their oil". That's a terrible misunderstanding.
What we're really doing is "liberating" the oil. It's not really important who's getting money from the oil. What really matters to the global economy is whether or not the oil is being sold at all. (primarily we need to get it to china and india, since they're the ones doing all of our work today). Japan signed a deal with Russia, so they're cool for now.
Imagine what would happen if Saudi Arabia turned off the oil tomorrow. Boom!
Saddaam was getting ready for a mini-boom. He had to be removed, and Iraqi production had to increase to meet worldwide demand.
The Saudis are a difficult problem, as they pump about 11% of the world's petroleum. The likelihood they'd turn off the spigot is low, since the Saudi Royal family has stayed in power by paying off the religious fundamentalists in their country. If the money stopped, they'd have a revolt on their hands.
I've thought a bit about what would need to be done if Saudi Arabia destabilizes or continues to use oil money to pay into charities that end up supporting terrorist causes. Something similar to Iraq is probably out, as Saudi Arabia has little secular tradition among its non-royal citizens. Creating a democracy there would probably be difficult, if not impossible, and even if it worked, they'd probably elect a very anti-west and pro-wahabbist government.
The only thing that would strategically work with Saudi Arabia would be to go in and seize their oil assets, and keep it flowing. Precisely what we're not doing in Iraq. This isn't politically feasible though, and I'd be reluctant to support such an action without knowing more about the Kingdom's oil infrastructure, and how easy or difficult it would be to protect. The world can't function without Saudi oil money though, but we could hit a point where the world can't abide by the problems created by Saudi oil money anymore either.
I concede that we didn't agressively control Iraqi oil assets, but there's a very good reason for that: public opinion.
We secured the oil *just enough* to keep things flowing at a trickle. Once the security handover is complete, the entire oil infrasructure will be available for operation "replace saudi arabia".
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 03:38 am (UTC)Hussein was threatening to demand oil payments in Euros. In one instance, he delayed the shipment of a tanker. He quite openly threatened the world's oil stability.
to make matters worse, the UN-imposed economic sanctions on Iraq caused the oil-producing infrastructure to decay into sub-standard condition.
On the positive side, the lack of drilling during the embargo has preseved iraq's virgin sweet crude fields. Saudi Arabia produces a barrell of sweet crude for about 2$ a barrell, whereas an Iraqi barrel only costs 90 cents (because the virgin fields have higher pressure).
Think about it.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 04:11 am (UTC)I think it's important to realize that during the initial invasion, oil got flowing quite quickly, and with very few long-term interruptions (the ports in Basra and Turkey have large holding tanks so that even when pipelines got blown up, the money would keep rolling in).
The justification is of course "so the iraqi's can pay for the reconstruction and become independent", but the higher value is in keeping the global oil supply above crisis conditions.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 04:32 am (UTC)What we're really doing is "liberating" the oil. It's not really important who's getting money from the oil. What really matters to the global economy is whether or not the oil is being sold at all. (primarily we need to get it to china and india, since they're the ones doing all of our work today). Japan signed a deal with Russia, so they're cool for now.
Imagine what would happen if Saudi Arabia turned off the oil tomorrow. Boom!
Saddaam was getting ready for a mini-boom. He had to be removed, and Iraqi production had to increase to meet worldwide demand.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 04:42 am (UTC)I've thought a bit about what would need to be done if Saudi Arabia destabilizes or continues to use oil money to pay into charities that end up supporting terrorist causes. Something similar to Iraq is probably out, as Saudi Arabia has little secular tradition among its non-royal citizens. Creating a democracy there would probably be difficult, if not impossible, and even if it worked, they'd probably elect a very anti-west and pro-wahabbist government.
The only thing that would strategically work with Saudi Arabia would be to go in and seize their oil assets, and keep it flowing. Precisely what we're not doing in Iraq. This isn't politically feasible though, and I'd be reluctant to support such an action without knowing more about the Kingdom's oil infrastructure, and how easy or difficult it would be to protect. The world can't function without Saudi oil money though, but we could hit a point where the world can't abide by the problems created by Saudi oil money anymore either.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 01:58 am (UTC)We secured the oil *just enough* to keep things flowing at a trickle. Once the security handover is complete, the entire oil infrasructure will be available for operation "replace saudi arabia".
no subject
Date: 2005-06-18 05:58 am (UTC)