[FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and again

Albert S. <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com> on Thu May 24 14:11:19 PDT 2007

Don't both the camps that you describe essentially
amount to securing/capturing oil for western
consumption/profit over the long haul(#1 on your
list)? As you say, over the short term, the war
destabilizes the region leading to a less reliable
source of oil, but a long term aim could still be a
secure oil supply(remains to be seen). The two camps
you describe only differing on how to achieve that
long term goal. Authoritarian state controlled oilcos
or Democratically elected state with corporate
controlled oilcos.

Assuming Hubert's Peak, it seems to me that Big Oil
might come to see the first scenario to be in it's
best interests. The reason being Oil Corps tend be
more efficient at extracting and marketing oil than
State oilcos. Such a healthier supply of Crude could
delay somewhat the dramatic spike in price expected on
the far side of peak oil. This would prolong the Oil
Age and delay the onset of substitutes such as

How does the Bush policy of aggressive substitution of
gasoline with ethanol fit into your theory?


--- Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

> So despite having railed about the neo-cons for
> quite some time now,  
> and sent along just about every half-assed
> hypothesis I've come  
> across about what's really going on with our foreign
> policy, in the  
> last couple of weeks it's finally all become clear
> to me.  Here's  
> what Iraq is *not* and was *never* about:
>    (1) "capturing" the oil to get it for our own use
>    (2) any sort of war on "terror" (indeed, has the
> opposite effect)
>    (3) revenge for the Bush clan
>    (4) Rummy and Cheney cleaning up a leftover mess
>    (5) establishing democracy in the Middle East
>    (6) WMDs, whether leftovers / the Islamic Bomb /
> Broken Arrow / etc.
>    (7) establishing a strategic beachhead / getting
> bases out of  
> Saudi Arabia
>    (8) any of the other du jour theories
> It is actually very simple;  it's subtle but, in
> hindsight, perfectly  
> obvious.  It's a fight-on-the-right;  a power
> struggle between two  
> factions of our (US) "conservative" wing, with two
> initially  
> overlapping but ultimately divergent agendas. 
> (Weirdly, both of  
> these ultimately incompatible agendas ground out in
> Cheney, who has  
> actually been constructing the almost-perfect
> geopolitical and  
> financial hedge for almost his entire career.)
> Side One:  the neo-cons + Pentagon.  MEANS: 
> creation of a *new* and  
> more controllable (than loose-cannon Saddam) puppet
> authoritarian  
> state tightly bound with a permanent free-market /
> private-sector  
> oriented constitution.  MOTIVE:  privatize the Iraq
> oil fields, get  
> them out of OPEC, and bust OPEC / the Saudis. 
> Strengthen the dollar  
> and get the Saudi debt-noose off of our necks. 
> Recover US economic  
> hegemony, and *hang onto it this time.* 
> OPPORTUNITY:  fear created  
> by 9-11.  They had the upper hand early in this
> fight, but caught the  
> backlash from...
> Side Two:  Big Oil + State Department Bakerites +
> Saudis + Big  
> Construction.  The *last* thing they want is private
> companies in  
> control of the second-largest low-viscosity oil
> fields in the world.   
> The Saudis want to keep control of oil production; 
> they want to keep  
> racking up US debt;  and they'd like to see a
> middle-of-the-road to  
> slightly-devalued (strategic move --- prevent
> further foreign  
> investment by US / dollar-based interests) dollar. 
> Baker / Bush, and  
> to a lesser degree Cheney, are the House of Saud's
> men-on-the- 
> ground.  MEANS:  eliminate wild-card Saddam, install
> more  
> controllable puppet authoritarian regime, but MOST
> OF ALL keep a  
> state-controlled monopoly ownership of the fields
> that will heed  
> OPEC's ridiculously-low historical production
> quotas.  MOTIVE:  keep  
> oil prices high, and everybody's happy;  Big Oil
> makes MORE money  
> when oil is higher;  Saudis are happy;  OPEC
> continues to price-fix;   
> juicy reconstruction and security contracts for the
> favored ones;   
> etc. etc.  OPPORTUNITY:  same as above.
> Ask yourself about all the maneuvering in the
> provisional authority,  
> etc.  Apply Ockham.  It's the simplest solution with
> the fewest  
> number of entities / interests / agendas --- indeed,
> there's really  
> one one primary issue at stake.  Opportunity
> presented, the initial  
> steps were identical for two different agendas, and
> the task was  
> undertaken;  but when things got to a certain point,
> divergence was  
> inevitable.  And hence we've been stuck for 3 years.
> But none of this is new.  The same thing has,
> essentially, been going  
> on in Iraq since its independence in 1932 --- or
> even before.  It's  
> ALWAYS been about keeping Iraq's oil in the ground
> and off the market  
> and controlled by somebody who will do exactly that.
>  The neo-con  
> agenda's the first significant deviation from that
> agenda by any real  
> power players - ever.
> Ironically, of the two, I find the neo-con position
> more attractive.
> :-/
> As for Iran --- well, there the threat / motivation
> / etc. may be  
> closer to what it prima facie appears to be.  Dunno;
>  not enough data  
> yet.
> jb
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list