Fueling the War Machine(s) in Iraq

James W. Lindenschmidt
JWL.Freakwitch.net

March, 2003

Why is oil so expensive right now?

Earlier this week, I was sitting in a local dojo watching my daughter take a martial arts class when one of the other parents asked a question. "Can anyone explain to me why oil prices are so high?" At first, I didn't really have a good answer, but this question has been haunting my thinking since. So I set out to investigate an answer. It seemed logical to me that the George W. Bush administration was connected to this most important question; after all, Bush has seized quite an arsenal of power in the US, and virtually every major player in the Bush administration comes from the oil industry. But given the simplistic, contradictory, and transparent rhetoric coming from the White House these days, it was clear to me from the beginning that I could pay no heed to the Bush administration's words; rather, I must look instead to their actions, and re-trace the logic of their actions in order to deduce their motivations. I began to look for clues. Why, indeed, is the price of oil so high? And, what is the motivation for the seemingly imminent attack on Iraq?

The Bush administration and the oil industry

I have already mentioned the first clue. The Bush administration comes almost entirely from the oil industry, with deep ties connecting them. George W. Bush has run several oil companies, specifically Arbusto, Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, one of the largest oil field services companies in the world. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice served on the board of Chevron, giving such exceptional service to the company that she had an oil tanker named after her. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "has between $3.25 million and $15.5 million worth of investments in energy-related companies."Secretary of State Colin Powell is involved with Gulf Stream, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, which produces oil-burning war machinery and private planes for the economic elite. There are many other examples of these ties between the Bush administration and the oil industry; the unifying point here is that the US government is under the control of a group of people with clear, distinct, and vested interest in the bottom line of the US oil industry.

Cheap oil for Americans, or profit for the oil industry?

The second clue is that this war has nothing to do with providing cheap oil to the American people. Writing in 1992, shortly after the first Gulf War, the Midnight Notes collective observed that

The US imports only 10% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, a rate that has not increased since the end of the [Gulf] War. It had (and has) many other motivations for controlling the Persian Gulf oil industry: US oil company profits and petrodollars for the US banking system, for example. The US government has no inherent interest in a low oil price. Over the past forty years, US policy makers have variously sought to increase and decrease the price of oil. Oil prices were declining between 1981-86 but began to increase thereafter.
--Midnight Notes Collective, Midnight Oil: Work,Energy, War, 1973-1992 (NY: Autonomedia, 1992), ix.

Remember, Midnight Notes was writing at the beginning of the Clinton administration. They are correct that there is no general trend of the US government fighting for either high or low oil prices. Indeed, the tide has turned several times throughout history---sometimes low prices are fought for, sometimes high prices. The current administration, on the other hand, seeks profit for the oil industry, whether that profit comes from high or from low prices.

The machines of war

The third clue to consider is the scale of the US war machinery at work in the Persian Gulf, especially once war begins. As of this writing, there are 175,000 US soldiers already in the Gulf, with a vision of a 250,000-strong occupation force in Iraq after the war. There are already 50 warships and nearly 400 aircraft in the region, numbers that will only increase as the invasion unfolds. Now, think of the amount of oil required to fuel these vehicles. Huge ships and fighter planes aside, there are countless jeeps, troop transports, helicopters, cars, trucks, etc. moving in and around the Gulf. If and when the full-scale invasion begins, how many thousands of gallons of fuel will be burned in this waging of war? How many untold thousands of gallons have already been burned to move the war machines to their present, strategic locations? The Washington Post has reported that Pentagon estimates on the cost of the invasion have been increased to $95 billion" with huge reconstruction and occupation costs to come later." How much of that budget is for fuel? Is the recent price increase due to high oil prices? Is it any surprise that oil prices are high just now, with the invasion seemingly imminent? Then, once the attacks are over, and the fuel consumption of the "victorious" US military machine(s) goes way down, the American people will undoubtedly see gas prices fall once more, reinforcing the popular but naive opinion that war is somehow "good for the economy."

So these three clues, taken together, indicate that the very act of waging war in Iraq will be enormously profitable to the oil industry---millions of gallons of fuel will be burned, while the current high price of oil is unprecedented. The Bush administration understand that they have a limited window of opportunity to make enormous profits.

Why Iraq?

But why Iraq? Why not unleash the full fury of the US war machine(s) somewhere else? Given the colorful "high alerts" of the war on terrorism and the "threat" of the so-called "axis of evil," North Korea would seem to be a more imminent threat than Iraq, given their capability to strike the US with nuclear weapons. Additionally, the US has been waging war in Colombia for many years. 15 of the 19 terrorists that attacked on September 11th were Saudi Arabian citizens. If US policy is geared toward waging the "war on terrorism," then wouldn't Saudi Arabia seem the likelier target? Iraq is a brutalized, impoverished country; the first Gulf War virtually destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, and subsequent bombings and sanctions have resulted in countless deaths---500,000 children under 5 alone have died since 1991. Though Saddam Hussein is clearly a brutal dictator, it seems utterly unconvincing to say that Saddam poses any sort of clear and present danger to the American people. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden, the alleged architect of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, considers Hussein an "infidel," though this characterization has not stopped Bin Laden from urging unity among Arabs and Muslims against the US.

The fingers in the White House repeatedly point to Iraq's alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Indeed, this argument---that Iraq has WMDs and is therefore a threat to the US---is the centerpiece of White House rhetoric and their justification of invasion. Whether or not it is true that Iraq is in possession of WMDs is one question the US government may be able to answer; after all, Iraq was supplied most of its arms and WMDs by the US government. So if Iraq is indeed holding WMDs, the US government has the receipts for them. However, possession of WMDs is not enough to justify war; indeed, many countries around the world are in possession of WMDs, and the US has more of them than anyone else. There is an important question of sovereignty lurking here. Does a nation have the right to build its military power, even if it means acquiring WMDs? Perhaps more importantly, does one sovereign nation have the right to deny another nation its military capability?

Furthermore, what exactly is meant by a WMD? With a certain budget, one can build a WMD in a basement. Timothy McVeigh was convicted of bringing down a large building with fertilizer. Does that count as a WMD? The fact is that any nation with any sort of industrial capacity whatsoever is capable of producing WMDs. The ability to manufacture medicines indicate the possibility of chemical weapons. Oil production and refinement techniques indicate the possibility of missile transport. The notion of "criminal" has taken an important shift; rather than looking for a "smoking gun," we are looking for guns with the potential to smoke. We are dangerously close to enforcing law---up to and including capital punishment for hundreds of thousands of people---before any crimes have been committed. So given this philosophy of the war on terror, anyone on any level---sovereign nation or individual person---can be made into a target of this lawless war. So again, if anyone can be a target, why Iraq?

It can be no coincidence that Iraq has the second largest proven oil field in the world, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, representing "11% of the world's total" oil reserve. The report goes on:

In addition, many experts believe that Iraq has massive untapped reserves, putting it nearly on par with Saudi Arabia. Iraq's oil is also high quality and very inexpensive to produce, making it an extraordinarily profitable source.

After a US-led "regime change" in Iraq, the new puppet government of Iraq would be under US control, in a similar way to the regime change in Afghanistan. Predictably, the rhetoric coming out of the White House talks about "freedom and democracy" in Iraq; Bush is stating openly that he wants to make "an example" of Iraq. But an example of what? Again, we cannot turn to White House rhetoric; notions of "democracy" and "freedom" and "good vs. evil" have all been corrupted by this regime. If we examine the recent history of US policy toward Iraq, then the current situation gets even hazier. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But as such, he is not exceptional in this regard. There are many brutal dictators in power worldwide, ravaging the people in their countries. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has been left in power for 12 years since the first Gulf War. Make no mistake---the US could have removed him from power during US occupation of Iraq in 1991. The decision to leave him in power was a conscious and deliberate one. So why Iraq, and moreover why Iraq in 2003? It cannot be for the good of the Iraqi people. They have suffered enough for 12 years as a result of US action since the Gulf War; economic sanctions, continued bombings, and low-intensity warfare enforcing the so-called "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq have resulted in countless deaths and untold suffering. So for George W. Bush to claim any action on behalf of the welfare of the Iraqi people is dubious, and at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. The US government has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated its complete lack of concern---if not deliberate disdain---for the Iraqi people. How many more Iraqi people must die at the hands of American military and economic power?

But what about the American people? Is the Bush administration acting in order to protect Americans in the wake of 9/11? It would not seem so. Millions of people, both in the US and abroad, have organized and marched against American imperialism and in favor of peace. Millions more share similar ideas. Every American bomb that falls in Iraq will give some other orphaned child or grieving relative a profound, personal reason to hate America. The fires of anti-American sentiment leading to terrorism against the US are stoked with every missile launch, every bomb exploded, every bullet fired. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq will motivate the people of the world to terrorism, the only method of counterattack available to them. The American people will be in more danger than ever.

So who benefits from the invasion of Iraq? The Iraqi people will not. The American people will not. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime certainly will not. This leaves only the Bush administration and its deep, multifarious connections with oil capital. US control over oil production will increase. Sales of oil will skyrocket, with oil at very high prices. You have to hand it to the Bush administration. Their objective is clear, and they will pursue that objective singly and relentlessly, without regard to the quantity or quality of human life lost in the process. The drums of war in the Oval Office are loud, and the machines of war in Iraq are hungry.