Greenspan: War about Oil;
Bloody Sunday in Iraq
Alan Greenspan confirms that he urged the Bush administration to take out Saddam on grounds of petroleum security for the US, and says one official told him, 'unfortunately we can't talk about oil.' Long-time readers know that I think restructuring the architecture of US energy security was among the major motives for the Iraq War. This thesis does not contradict the Mearsheimer-Walt theory that the Israel lobby and Israeli security formed a major impetus to the war, since US and Israeli interests in energy security overlap. It is just circumstantial, but I see a nexus in the American Enterprise Institute of Exxon-Mobil money and former officials and Neoconservative intellectuals, both with the ear of Dick Cheney.
A lot of violence was reported around in Iraq on Sunday in the wire services. It is worth going and looking at the Reuters and McClatchy roundups, just so that one is not lulled into thinking that the security situation is all cleared up. This is still a no man's land, with guerrilla hijacking vehicles with people still in them (a child was kidnapped this way in Kirkuk), with bombs and mortars going off, and with vicious firefights between private armies, all with overtones of a set of creeping ethnic civil wars. Although some reports talked of 30 killed, I count many nearly twice that, and of course only a fraction of deaths are reported.
McClatchy reports significant violence in Iraq on Sunday.
' - 5 civilians killed and 22 injured in a café in the centre of the town of Tuz Khurmatu, to the south of Kirkuk as a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest detonated himself at 11:15 this morning. The suicide bomber was riding a bicycle and detonated as he reached the café; the numbers given are a primary estimation. The explosion also caused the destruction of nearby houses and shops. . .
Security personnel of a Convoy Escort Team of a Private Security Company [working for the US State Department] opened fire, killing 9 civilians and injuring 15 in Nisoor Sq, central Baghdad, at 12:30 this afternoon, said Iraqi Police. . .
Reuters reports more civil war violence in Iraq for Sunday. I see patterns here. There were two major attacks in Diyala northeast of Baghdad, one killing 14 and wounding 7, and the kidnapping of 8 persons in an ambulance hijacking in the provincial capital. In the Sunni Arab center of Samarra there was a mortar attack with casualties. There were several major bombings in Sunni Arab parts of Baghdad itself, and two district council members were assassinated, surely a sign that someone is attempting to displace municipal leaders. Some sort of major altercation broke out between a US private security company and guerrillas in the capital. In the north, there were bombings in Kirkuk, Tuz Khurmato and Tal Afar, and a Kurdish fundamentalist preacher was killed in largely Sunni Arab Mosul. Underneath these details, you can see the slow war for control of Baghdad between Shiite Arab and Sunni Arab guerrillas unfold, with the US forces largely irrelevant to it (the Shiites are winning the capital). You can see Sunni-Shiite or Sunni-Sunni violence an hour and a half northeast of the capital in Diyala province. Then in the north the ethnic battle for Kirkuk and its hinterlands continues. You can see ethnic and political violence in the north, with Kurds killed in four cities, probably by guerrillas of other ethnicities. Details:
' MUQDADIYA - Suspected al Qaeda in Iraq militants killed 14 people and wounded seven in the predominantly Sunni Arab town of Muqdadiya [Diyala Province], 90 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .
BAQUBA - Gunmen hijacked an ambulance carrying eight people in the city of Baquba [Diyala], 65 km (40 miles) north[east] of Baghdad, police said. . .
BAGHDAD - Twelve bodies were found in various parts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said. . .
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed five people and wounded six in Mansour district in western Baghdad, police said. A separate roadside bomb killed one person and wounded two, also in Mansour, police said. .
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed one person and wounded three in al-Harthiya district of western Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed a member of the Municipality of Bayaa district of southern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed a member of the Municipality of Doura district of southern Baghdad, a hospital source said. . .
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed one person and wounded two near al-Shaab National Stadium in central Baghdad, police said. . . .
KIRKUK - A roadside bomb exploded near the convoy of a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (PDK), wounding a guard and a pedestrian in the city of Kirkuk, police said. . .
MOSUL - A Sunni mosque preacher who belonged to the Kurdish Islamic Union was shot dead in northwestern Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
[Tal Afar] - At least two policemen were wounded by a roadside bomb in the centre of the town of Tal Afar, 420 km (260 miles) northwest of Baghdad, police said.
SAMARRA - Several mortar rounds landed in a residential district, killing two people, including a child, and wounded four on Saturday night in the city of Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .
NEAR HILLA - Shi'ite militias attacked a Shi'ite tribe, killing two men and wounding three in a town near the city of Hilla, 100 km (60 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. . .
At the Global Affairs group blog: Farideh Farhi on willingness to compromise on Iran's part and Gershon Shafir on Israeli PM Olmert's unwillingness to compromise and Mahmoud Abbas's fatal weakness.
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog: an account of the naval defeat inflicted on the French by the British.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/17/2007 12:16:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
A certain journalist called Greg Palast believes that the Israeli Lobby was used by Big Oil. In his last book he outline what must be a very convincing theory that the Neocons got backing by Big Oil because they were screaming loudest for war.
But Neocon and Big Oil interests diverged over what to do with the oil. The Neocons want to liberalise the oil markets to weaken OPEC and break any Arab resistence to continued zionism. Big Oil wants the oil to make OPEC stronger, to control prices better. Oh and guess what, the Neocons are defunct and the Dems are raising money like there is no tomorrow.
Greg Palast is not far wrong as I see it.
While we can generally agree that it is 'oil security' that has been the deciding factor in the recent and on-going American military involvement in the Middle East, it should be acknowledged that some of the very early critics of the martial (and perhaps 'marital') engagement identified the switch from the Dollar to the Euro as the key factor driving the Buscists down the road toward initiating operations on and in Iraq (and perhaps Iran to follow).
It has long been the case that the American Dollar has been the reserve currency for oil purchases for quite a spell, the ditching of which would have a devastating effect on the American economy. Many people decried the removing of the Dollar from the 'gold standard,' making it more dependent on various political machinations than on some solid form of matter that can be tangibly experienced. Yet, these same people forget that it is 'black gold' that replaced the metal some years back, perhaps most obviously in Nixonian times, making the capital flight to something more 'fluid,' rather than 'fixed' as an investment.
Gold remains a fixation for many as can be seen by the recent price fluctuations and increases, but what can one do with gold? A person cannot legitimately own it unless it has undergone some manufacturing process. One invests in peripheral ways that allow one to virtually control one's interests while ceding actual control to some other 'authorised' entity. 'Black gold' is much the same: one is only able to 'own' it once it has been processed. Any other investment is pretty much the same, one only establishing ownership of a car or house once the payments have all been made, yet to a disadvantage inasmuch as a car is a declining asset and a house never for sale is only advantageous to the tax collector who might wind up with it (or its value) anyway.
Not to beat up on the Euro, but the switch was a shrewd political ploy to not only remove the Americans from their preeminent role in the oil business but one intended to rend the fabric of the long-time allies along the lines of financial well-being. Once the tear was started, the expected success of the Arabs and Persians in their endeavours to marginalise the 'Great Satan' would have raised their status immeasureably among friends and foes alike. This we have seen by the Buscists concentration of effort on the region.
Europe, as a whole, is much more dependent upon the Middle East for energy resources than is the United States. Currying favour with their means of exchange only made good sense. We learn that Iran is demanding the Japanese pay in Yen*, something that runs parallel with the Euro stance. Diluting the Dollar continues unabated.
With the American Dollar on the ropes, it will take only a few body blows to make it succumb to the might of the oil producing nations. The Buscists have allowed themselves to be caught with a few left hooks and uppercuts by draining American resources for the continued efforts in Iraq. With the Billions of Dollars that have been poured down the sewer to wind up in the Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers, it has become almost indistinguishable from the rest of the toxic sludge that fouls those waters anyway. The only way out - besides throwing in the towel - is to introduce some nefarious tactic into the overall strategising, perhaps taking out Iran as the next ring cycle in the overall opus (that sounds perhaps too eerily like some ride of the Valkeries).** (We might note here that the Republicans have veered from the Wagner-like Siren-call toward more moderate tones and tunes, despite the perpetuation of contra-Aryan [Iranian] mythologies distributed by Zionophiles, the heirs of 'Nationalistic Socialism.'^)
Should the Dollar continue its slide, we can only wonder what the Neo-Palestinians (oka 'Israelites') will do for payola. The mere survival of that one-time English(!) protectorate depends largely on American patrons and matrons and Madonnas, the devaluation of the Dollar undercutting its ability to maintain its life-support system as the currency will have become worth less (if not worthless). Like the Dollar, the N-Ps will be driven toward some existential decisions as to their role as the counterforce of the heirs to real Aryanism (the Iranis) and their clients in Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Six or more Billion Dollars per year at a reduced value might require an increase in its allowance, making even the state-sponsored criminal activities there and in the United States less lucrative.*** We can only wonder what Egypt and others who have come to rely on American largesse will do once the inflationary effects of devaluation are realised.
It all comes down to money and the willingness of everyone to invest in the United States, thereby maintaining and increasing its value. Offshoring businesses and jobs, leaving the U.S. with only warfare to export, is self-destructive and in a violent way. It then becomes a matter of another existential contemplation as to who and where is most important. Leaving the United States as some financial and other services supermarket depends upon a strong currency and the means to maintain it. Breaking the will of the Dollar and people who depend upon it is THE certain way to break the bank, leaving the U.S. awash like the aftermath of some some levee along the Mississippi River being breached. By so doing, other foes can be overwhelmed as well, requiring different outlooks on the economic and political fronts in order to achieve solutions.
Unless, of course, the Fall-Wells and their ilk are correct: a 'final solution' involving something approaching Armageddon solving everyone's problems. Then, we can easily see, reducing the World population by a half to two-thirds will also solve the World's energy problems, leaving many places in the same state and condition as Iraq: dingy, dusty, dirty, destroyed, depopulated, and desolate.
* http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12321
Thu. 06 Sep 2007
BBC News
Japanese firm Nippon Oil is to start paying for Iranian oil in yen, rather than in US dollars.
** http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2117058,00.html
How the Nazis took flight from Valkyries and Rhinemaidens July 3, 2007
^ Sternhell and Maisel, *The Founding Myths of Israel* (for example)
*** Friedman, *Red Mafiya* and Malarek *The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade* (as examples)
"US and Israeli interests in energy security overlap. It is just circumstantial, but I see a nexus in the American Enterprise Institute of Exxon-Mobil money and former officials and Neoconservative intellectuals, both with the ear of Dick Cheney"
Prof Cole, you are sooo right. just try looking at the "way back machine" (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://aei.org) and check out the energy sector big shots falling over each other at the Board of Directors and trustees list at AEI. This site keeps a snapshot of all major web sites. I was not surprised to see Richard Perle's book "study of revenge" with Saddam's eyes peering at you, being pushed at the AEI front page for more than a month right after september 11th, 2001.
Sorry, the author of the book "study of revenge" is Laurie Mylroie, not Richard Perle, he was just pushing this idea and was urging visitors to read it and buy the the idea.
How hard is to shut Iraq and the world’s oil and gas taps down? Someone having bad hair day can give orders and it is done in three days. Only lame group of people who struggled throughout man’s history on this planet to hold on to 500 sqr. miles will conclude that invasion and occupation of Iraq and Iran is a mean of Petroleum Security. Normal thinking humans will most likely conclude friendship, cooperation, development and mutual respect and benefits are the norm to accomplish this goal.
It is worth going and looking at the Reuters and McClatchy roundups, just so that one is not lulled into thinking that the security situation is all cleared up.
Antiwar.com does that for you. They have a person dedicated to adding up the numbers on a daily basis.
Iraqi Casualties
American Military Casualties in Iraq
Devon M. Largio, a political science college student, published a thesis comparing references to Iraq and Osama Bin Laden during 2001 and 2002. He included the New York Times in his thesis and the tables at the end of his thesis (link below) showed the New York Times had about a 5:1 more references to Iraq than Bin Laden from September-November, 2001. On the other hand the thesis showed Bush had far more references to Bin Laden than Iraq during that period. The Congressional Record did not reflect the heavy bias of the New York Times toward Iraq.
For example the tables at the end of Largio's thesis show that for September, 2001, New York Times articles containing "keywords" had 141 references to Iraq and 28 to Bin Laden - a ratio of 5:1. In October, 2001, it was 222 for Iraq to 46 for Bin Laden - a ratio of nearly 5:1. By November it was 137 to 25, a ratio of 5.5:1. Why was the New York Times so heavily biased toward Iraq?
By comparison in September, 2001, the thesis showed Bush had no references to Iraq and 8 to Bin Laden. It wasn't until January that Bush referenced Iraq more than Bin Laden. The thesis included the Congressional Record which also did not show the strong Iraq bias of the New York Times.
Therefore it appears possible that the New York Times was leading the way to an attack on Iraq using it's prominent position reporting on the aftermath of 9/11 attack. We will have to be on guard to see if the New York Times is biased toward justifying the attack on Iraq, or is biased toward attacking Iran or Syria. Link: http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf
Imagine a history of Iraq that avoided the word oil or simply mentioned it incidentally, the way one might mention that reindeer live in Finland. It would be as silly as a history of Panama that did not dedicate at least one big fat chapter to the canal. There are hundreds of monographs that review events somewhere or another in terms of religion, social class, gender, climate change, or even bacteria. No one called Herodotus a fool for calling Egypt "the gift of the Nile."
Venezuelans might be fine people with diverse cultural and human qualities, but most would be candid that oil is the single biggest factor in domestic politics and international relations.
Witfoggel promoted a theory of "hydraulic civilizations" that explained numerous ancient autocracies, their rise and eventual stagnation. People have no trouble interpreting ancient Iraq in such a context.
Does the Arab world ever refer to oil as the "devil's excrement," in the sense of being a dubious fruit? Do any wish that the engineeers employed by Saud had found only oodles of fresh water?
Why not at least one big interpretation of contemporary Iraq that treats oil as the fiscal, political, and military driving force of everything else?
Aha, an idea: wold history explained according to "elephants in the room." So much of what might really explains things gets thrown aside by harumphs and sneers, because it just is not on good taste or flattering. Then 100 years go by, all the participants are dead, and some person unearths the ill-regarded elephant and is greeted as a genius.
this meme that america and/or the world's energy security was at risk is complete bull
saddam hussein never threatened to cut off the suppy of iraq's only source of resource of revenue
the reason for this whole scenario, which tacitly involves all the nations of the world, was and is the raising of the oil price as several important petroleum exporting nations starting with russia, indonesia, nigeria and mexico were on the verge of collapse due to fall of the price of crude in the late 90's
I think the Presidential debate needs a Democrat candidate to pus the repercussions of a withdrawal from Iraq on the table so far as our energy dependence is concerned. It's the elephant in the room not being discussed. No one wants to mention it, although I've heard various network commentaries that the Democrats seem to be "ready to deal with the consequences."
Of course, as soon as a Democrat does that, he or she will be attacked as the one who will raise taxes.
The dilemma of Iraq will be much easier to deal with, albeit, still like swallowing chicken bones, if the American people are considered adults. Just about every American understands gasoline prices will continue to rise. Only morons know they'll never come down again, relatively speaking.
We have enormous infrastructure needs, but where's the dough to come from? Supposedly, for every billion spent in infrastructure, 40-50,000 jobs are created. If we were spending $8 billion a month on infrastructure, we'd employ all available Americans, and be able to get immigrants south of the border, and elsewhere, to line up and be processed legally, to get a shot at such jobs.
The fact is, if the U.S. leaves Iraq, then Iran will have possible control of their oil resources, plus Iraq's. Or, maybe not. At any rate, the discussion needs to be fleshed out in the open. I don't know whether the situation in Iraq would change to favor the Republicans or not.
From where I sit, one of the most discouraging aspects of these past 6+ years of Bushism are associated with just how ugly Americans are these days. I hate to say it, but I wonder if the equation were put very plainly to Americans, just how many would suddenly demand we fight it out to the death in Iraq.
It would be incredibly discouraging. But, at least we'd know the truth about what our country is, is not.
Left gatekeepers propagated the myth the war was bout oil. The truth is zionists like Greenspan have dragged the West into The Middle East conflict on Israel’s side, on the back of a series of false flag terror attacks in the West blamed on ‘Muslim Terror’. Thats the truth. Thats why you don’t hear it.
Post a Comment
<< Home