[Peace-discuss] We never meant to leave

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Just to be clear, I think Andrew Sullivan is an idiot, but -- given 
what we at News from Neptune call the Incompleteness Principle (viz., 
"No one can be wrong all the time") -- he here gives an partial summary 
of an important article in the current LRB by Jim Holt, "It's the Oil"
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html>.  The whole aricle is better 
than Sullivan's summary and deserves to be read.  --CGE]


If Greenspan is right, haven't we already won the war in Iraq? ... Jim 
Holt explains why in the new LRB...

     "Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more 
than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long 
isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A 
mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in 
Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council 
on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels 
of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If 
these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now 
sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi 
oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the 
order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the 
projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

     "Who will get Iraq’s oil? One of the Bush administration’s 
‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to 
distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the 
Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The 
Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 
existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be 
discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years."

And so when we keep asking the Bush administration for an exit strategy, 
we are, in fact, asking the wrong question. There is no exit strategy. 
The point is staying there for ever in order to ensure that energy 
supplies are secured by the West. Jim goes on:

     "How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing 
permanent military bases in Iraq.

     "Five self-sufficient 'super-bases' are in various stages of 
completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties 
have occurred... But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite 
military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay 
there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule 
that conveniently brands itself as ‘al-Qaida’ is exterminated. The civil 
war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw 
into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian 
friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto 
partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure."

And so failure in Iraq is actually redefined as success. A long-term 
presence of 50,000 troops minimun is what seems to be in the cards 
anyway. Senator Clinton will keep the occupation going for fear of 
looking weak [not of course the only reason --CGE]. And the price is 
cheap relatively speaking:

     "The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen 
American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is 
in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because 
of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in 
oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for 
voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; 
it is a resounding success."

	###