[Peace-discuss] Re: why we invaded Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

Karen--

Yes, I do think it's fundamentally about oil, but not just
about oil.  I like the remark that if Iraq's principal export
were asparagus, we wouldn't have the better part of the U.S.
military there.

American foreign policy since the Second World War has been
fundamentally about oil.  U.S. insistence that it control
Mideast energy resources is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign
policy, in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 
But it's control, not access, that concerns any USG.  

You're right that the U.S. economy receives very little of its
oil from the Mideast -- about 10%.  U.S. domestic oil
production supplies about 50% of total U.S. consumption.
Foreign sources provide the rest, primarily Canada, Venezuela,
Mexico, and several African countries.  The U.S. imports more
oil from west Africa than it does from Saudi Arabia.  

But the Mideast has about two-thirds of world oil reserves. 
If the U.S. controls that, it controls its real economic
rivals in the world -- Europe and Northeast Asia (Japan,
Korea, China) -- because they import so much from the Middle
East.  The U.S. then has what President Carter's National
Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (it's a bipartisan
policy) called "critical leverage" over its competitors.  

It's been understood since the Second World War that if we
have our hands on that spigot -– the main source of the
world's energy -- we have what early planners called "veto
power" over others. And of course U.S. planners want the
profits from that to go primarily to U.S.-based
multinationals, and back to the U.S. Treasury -– not to rivals. 

But there were other reasons for invading Iraq, beyond the
goal of establishing permanent bases in the midst of the
world's largest oil-producing region.  First, Iraq was
defenseless (unlike, say, North Korea or Iran): contrary to
U.S. propaganda, Iraq was no danger to even its nearest
neighbors (as they recognized), much less to the U.S.  Second,
it was a good place for U.S. planners to demonstrate the
lengths to which they would go to keep lesser states in line
(as they did much more murderously in Vietnam -- where no oil
was at stake -- and even in Serbia, on the edge of U.S.
concerns).  And third, of course, 9/11 could be used as an
excuse, however irrational that was.  (Did you note that,
while 72% of American troops in Iraq think that the U.S.
should get out within the year, 85% said the U.S. mission is
mainly to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks
[sic] and 77% said they also believe the main or a major
reason for the war was to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda
in Iraq?  Amazing.)

Best, Carl 

P.S.-- I've written about these things in several places --
e.g., in the Public I before the invasion of Iraq. 
A version of that article is at
<http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook02262003.html>.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:47:26 -0600
>From: Karen Medina <kmedina at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: why we invaded Iraq  
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>Dear Carl,
>
>Recently, a member of the Peace Discuss list who is also a
critic of 
>AWARE mentioned that she/he was given the impression that you
(Carl) 
>were of the opinion that the occupation of Iraq is all about Oil.
>
>I find this rather odd, because I was under the very strong
impression 
>that you (Carl) think it is about Power and Control of the
area, and not 
>the Oil per se. In fact, you are one person who continually
points out 
>that the US gets very little of its oil from the area.
>
>I just thought I would invite you to set me straight in a
public forum.
>
>Respectfully,
>karen medina
>