[Peace-discuss] Re: why we invaded Iraq

[John W.]

Carl, you mention Viet Nam below by way of comparison.  I'm curious what 
you think was the REAL reason why we went to war in Viet Nam.  Do you think 
it was the stated ideological reason (the "domino theory"), or do you think 
there were other factors?

Equally respectfully,

John Wason



At 05:28 PM 3/10/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>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 sourrce 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 rreasons 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