RE: Rationale for the War [A Retrospective]

The following are snippets from an exchange with a Republican-leaning co-worker of mine, shortly after the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the rationale for that war. Consistent with my personal policy of benevolence and mercy (...rather Christian, no?), I won't reveal his name in order to spare him any humiliation, despite that this act of kindness may be wholly undeserved: by all accounts, this guy is still running with the devil, likely supportive of Wildly Popular Media Favorite and Maverick™, John McCain, and his McCain Doctrine...

At 10:27 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, [Horribly Misguided] wrote:

Allow me to spray some Cliché Repelant [sic] on this "No blood for oil" claim:
Oil prices, and oil company profits, are determined by market economics. If lots of oil floods the worldwide market, the price of oil goes down; if oil becomes scarce, the price goes up. Either way, oil companies adjust. Oil companies benefit most from stable relationships with stable governments; what they don't like is instability - which is precisely what war creates.

Unless the Iraqis drill and sell their oil, it is completely worthless to them. They must sell it somewhere on the world market to get any gain from it. Once they sell it, it becomes part of the world oil supply. So at that point, what difference does it make whether the oil came from Iraq, Venezuela, or Nigeria? The oil companies ALREADY HAVE the oil. Why would they need George Bush to spend billions of dollars to get them what they already have?

There are good arguments to be made in opposition to the war, but "No blood for oil" is not one of them.

At 11:01 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, non_seq wrote:

...Bush, Cheney, and other energy insiders stand to gain a lot by having a regime in Iraq who agrees (or at least complies) with the current vision for US economic hegemony. With this, energy traders and investors will have another middle east ally to help keep speculation to a minimum (especially given Iraq's control of the second largest oil reserves in the world), which will only serve to benefit multinational oil companies, to whom the Bush Administration has made no secret about its loyalty. This war is an investment in world oil dependence, which means these folks stand to gain a lot.

At 11:58 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, [Horribly Misguided] wrote:

And I would counter that the U.S. could've benefited a lot more from doing business with Saddam without all the time and trouble of going to war. I'm not buying into this vast right-wing conspiracy-theory of the Bush-Cheney plan for US economic "hegemony". Benefiting economically from US policy is a bi-partisan enterprise, and I'd be willing to bet a tank of gas that there are more than
a few senators with a D- behind their name whose pockets are also getting lined. Supposedly Gulf War I was all about oil too -- obviously that failed pretty miserably in 1991 if we have to go back and snatch those oil fields today.

At 01:25 PM 4/1/2003 -0800, non_seq wrote:

...I don't buy into conspiracy theories, either, and I agree that Democrats and Republicans have both benefited (and, hey, so have I with all the advantages of a dominant economy). I certainly don't vote exclusively Democratic.

But I'll say it again: Bush/Cheney make no secret of where their loyalties lie...it's merely that those loyalties don't align with my own, overall.

I still disagree that war will:

• Improve the lives of Iraqis (long term? maybe. but was war necessary to do that? we'll never know...)
  
• Improve our national security

But it will:

1. Potentially get rid of an asshole (Saddam if we win; Bush if we lose (with a protracted, costly (both lives and $$))
   
2. Be a boon to military-industrialists (Halliburton!)
   
3. As mentioned [earlier], it will benefit Bush's energy strategy, which I strongly disagree with: everything from his rejected plans to drill in ANWR (yay!), to his half-assed "promise" to develop alternative-fuel cells by 2030.

I ain't saying I like Saddam, but I think our attempt to get rid of him should have been better negotiated with the world community. France/Russia were on board before the Bush Administration began dropping hints that we don't need the UN, nor them. Colin Powell remains the primary reason why the Bush Administration continued to even work with the UN, but it was clear that there was no intention for the US to be cooperative...and I repeat: France/Russia were in agreement that Saddam was in violation of UN mandates, they simply don't favor rushing to war. And, yes, Bush, in the context of world opinion and preference, rushed to war.

But I suppose that the US can afford to isolate itself (rather than Saddam). Especially now that we need a strong international coalition to fight international terrorism.

Drinks? [/END]

Nearly 4 years on, let's revisit some of the statements made in this exchange to see where we stand:

1. Possible two-fer? We did indeed get rid of an asshole (Saddam), and we appear to working on ridding ourselves of the other asshole (latest approval/disapproval ratings) and his shitty policies
   
2. A benefit to military industrialists? My God. Let's just say that Eisenhower is rolling in his grave...
   
3. Iraqi standard-of-living/quality of life: Sadly, in the toilet
   
4. Improve U.S. national (or global) security? Ah...no.
   
5. ...And how does my favorite claim -- that "there are good arguments to be made in opposition to the war, but 'No blood for oil' is not one of them" -- fare 4 years later?

Well, apart from it being obvious from the start, there's now a new oil law up for a vote before the Iraqi parliament "within days":

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Sorry, Horribly Misguided: You and everyone else who rationalizes their complicity in this mess have oil- and blood-stained hands.

Please start cleansing.