Iraq Is About Oil

Military.com ^ | June 29, 2005 | Allan Topol

[robowombat]

President Bush was very wise to make his Iraqi speech this week. He and his advisors are following the same public opinion polls we all are. Polls show that support for the war among Americans has been falling.

Time has now become an enemy, almost as threatening as the insurgents, to the President's ability to achieve a victory. Our nation does not have much patience for fighting wars that are not discernibly winnable in a relatively short period of time. With congressional elections next year, anti-war sentiment could easily be expressed by voters -- resulting in the erosion of the Republicans' overwhelming control in both houses. Even a Democratic party with no vision of its own could be the beneficiary of hostility toward the war.

Thus, the President has to continuously assure the American people about the status of the war against insurgents and Iraqi nation building to keep his support from sliding further. Against this objective, Tuesday evening's speech was a respectable effort of dealing with a very difficult issue. Bush was correct in not setting a date for the United States' exit from Iraq. However, notwithstanding the President's optimistic assessments, the war against the insurgents does not appear to be winnable in a matter of months. Nor does it seem likely that a democratic government in Iraq can be in place, presiding over a secure nation, in the foreseeable future.

One of the most vexing questions for many Americans is why exactly are we fighting, and why so many Americans are dying or being wounded in this far away place called Iraq. In the days before the war, the answer was because of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had. Though the President may have been correct in relying on that rationale based upon the intelligence then available to him, the evidence failed to support that explanation. The second rationale was that Saddam Hussein was a horror to his people and a threat to his neighbors. That was absolutely correct, but Bush's foes contend that we aren't forcefully removing every terrible despot around the world.

The rationale given in the President's speech is that Iraq is the critical battleground in a war against Islamic terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no doubt that the fundamentalist Jihadists who would destroy freedom and democracy in the west in and in the Middle East are flowing into Iraq to fight the United States. The President's opponents claim that we are responsible for creating the terrorists by our presence. This is unfair. The terrorists were mobilized even before we toppled Saddam. It's better that this war not be fought on American soil.

The question still is whether the 9/11 rationale is enough for the American people to accept the casualties and costs of the war. Are we willing to become modern day crusaders intending on beating back the potential threat to our way of life from Middle Eastern terrorists. The jury is still out on that question, with the answer depending on how many casualties we suffer.

There is, however, another justification for the war that the President didn't raise in his speech and has never spoken about publicly, but must be an important part of the discussions at the White House. That is oil.

The Chinese bid for Unocal has underscored what has been obvious for some time. The United States' economy and our way of life depend upon oil -- sixty percent of which is imported. Faced with a surge in demand from China and India and the disruption of supplies to the US because of political issues in Venezuela, Nigeria and elsewhere, we must ensure that the flow of oil on the world market continues from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq and leave chaos behind, the Jihadists will no doubt destabilize Saudi Arabia and other gulf producers. We cannot afford to let that happen.

The time has come for the President to state publicly what most of Washington has long been discussing. The Iraqi war is about oil and its continued flow to the United States. This is something the American people can understand.

[Fierce Allegiance]

If it's all about oil, why didn't we invade Canada or Texas or the Gulf of Mexico?

[Zacs Mom]

You left off one very important sentence from that "Opinions" article:

"All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com."

[Alia]

I think... the author is referring to the "Cartel". We've had problems with the "Cartel" for 40 years; it's played havoc with our politics. And this is why we need our OWN ENERGY SOURCES AND RESOURCES.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

" In the days before the war, the answer was because of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had."

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. " -- GWB, January 28, 2003

[Alia]

Liberal protestors jumped the gun for a quick "ad slogan" in their "War Against Oil". To their dismay, IMHE. The image lefties provided the world was that the only reason "we" went into Iraq was to STEAL their oil. Truth is, Saddam Hussein was not only dealing illicitly, illegally, and immorally in re Iraq Oil; but aiding and abetting the terrorists.

Stabilizing Iraq as an independent supplier -- it opens FREEDOM on the FREE Market. US has not done any "oil stealing" in Iraq. The US DOES, however, need to pass its own energy-resource policies.

Liberal Intelligentsia has been fully in on the "oil cartel" and its deleterious effects upon US domestic operations and in re trade. By bootstrapping the US in re "oil"; outsiders (outside US) have thereby been empowered to play "politics" within the US scene. Liberals know this. They aren't "environmentalists" as much as they are filthy capitalists bent on the sell-out of US Sovereignty. Their followers, however, have little to no clue about this -- they think it's about Kumbaya.

[robowombat]

Not quite all about oil. Our Saudi 'friends' practically insisted the US military get out of the sacred sand pile after 9-11. They had been more gently nudging us towards the door ever since Khobar Towers. The Saudis goal is simple, preserve the monarchy. We obliged but had to finish Saddam off first since (a) the air blockade of Iraq would have collapsed without the Saudi bases which would have meant Saddam would have emerged victorious in a year or two over the US (not the message the Global War on Terrorism is supposed to send), And (b)we really have serious doubts about the long or even mid range stability of SA. If the Saudis succumb to an Islamacist revolt the production of oil there will go into a tailspin for a while and the new regime is sure to try and jack prices as high as possible. This combination can have really bad impacts on the global economy (remember 1979 and what happened when the Shah fell). Therefore, a replacement for SA as a stable and relatively pro-western source of lots of oil is needed and Iraq without the Baath and Saddam seemed to admirably fill the bill. That seems to be the basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Alia]

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

China and the recent UNOCAL deal.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

This guy writes FICTION for a living, and has a whole archive of articles like this that he's written for Military.com.

http://www.allantopol.com/index01.htm

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"ALLAN TOPOL, a graduate of Carnegie Institute of Technology who majored in chemistry, abandoned science and obtained a law degree from Yale University. As a partner in a major Washington law firm, he practices international environmental law. He writes a weekly column for the on-line newspaper Military.com. An avid wine collector and connoisseur, he has traveled extensively, researching dramatic locations for his novels, some of which are portrayed in Spy Dance, Dark Ambition, Conspiracy and now in Enemy Of My Enemy."

International Environmental Lawyer. 'Nuf said. ;)

[robowombat]

That doesn't necessarily mean the author's views are without merit. Dennis Wheatly also wrote fiction, a lot of it , and much of it about supernatural nonsense. However, he was a very keen observer of military and intelligence trends and a virtual expert on disinformation. I'm not saying this fellow is Wheatley's peer , but I am saying that expert status by self definition of being a certified inside the beltway type doe not makes for better quality analysis and avoids group think and kowtowing to the party line to avoid angering information sources.

[in hoc signo vinces]

Yep...he's got an agenda, and he'll manipulate the truth to meet it.

A sophister in the "tuest" of senses.

[Alberta's Child]

The author really overlooked a major issue that is relevant to any discussion about the "war for oil" argument. From the U.S. perspective, the major economic issue in Iraq is not necessarily oil itself, but oil traded "freely" on the global market in U.S. dollars.

If you go back over the last 50 years, you'll find a disturbing (to me, at least) thread that seems to run through almost every military conflict that the U.S. is involved in. In so many of these cases (Iraq and Yugoslavia in the last 15 years are the two most recent ones), the U.S. has ended up engaging in military action in response to a foreign government's decision to nationalize a key sector of their economy.

[robowombat]

This obvious common sense seems to be'too obvious' for much of the left intelligentsia to want to grasp.

[Alia]

Fascinating, Diana. Mr. Topol is a lawyer with Covington & Burling.

Covington & Burling and Democracy, Data & Communications Announce Alliance

Washington, D.C., June 28, 2005 - Covington & Burling and Democracy, Data & Communications, L.L.C. (DDC) today announced an alliance to provide integrated support services for political action committees. The firms will offer joint, high-level strategic counsel for responding to challenges associated with PAC compliance and fundraising. Both Covington and DDC currently represent numerous Fortune 500 corporations, trade associations, and their PACs.

The alliance allows both firms to offer organizations an integrated solution enabling them to better align their PAC management and fundraising practices. The PAC experts at both firms will work closely together to provide cutting-edge fundraising techniques and complementary technologies, while emphasizing careful compliance with the increasingly complex federal, state, and local election laws.

"This alliance will enable us jointly to provide the gold standard in PAC support services," said Rob Kelner, head of Covington's Election Law and Political Law Practice Group. "Changes in the campaign finance laws have encouraged the creation of many new PACs and have caused corporations in particular to modernize and grow their existing PACs. Covington and DDC can meet all of the PAC-related needs of our clients in an efficient and legally compliant manner."

Holly Pitt Young, DDC's Vice President for PAC Development, added, "Our joint strategic counsel will be particularly valuable to organizations that are just starting a PAC or are seeking to expand their PACs rapidly. Covington and DDC can help organizations maximize the potential of their eligible class cost-effectively and in accordance with FEC guidelines."

Covington's nationally recognized election law practice advises clients on compliance with the federal and state campaign finance and election laws. Covington also represents clients in disputes with the Federal Election Commission and state election agencies. DDC is a widely respected and leading provider of PAC consulting services, including fundraising software tools, strategic PAC development advice, and PAC accounting and reporting.

[Wombat101]

Hmmm..Considering that the price of oil has hovered around $60 a barrel for the last few months, I wonder what happened to all this oil we're supposedly stealing?

No Blood for Oil? Apparently this working in reverse: No Oil for Blood, since 1,700 Americans have been killed in Iraq.

[Alia]

It *could* be the result of rainforest math taught in the schools, eh? ;> Can't see the forest for the trees?

[robowombat]

One of the true mysteries of the Saddam regime is why after Tariq Aziz managed to convince the great leader in 1991 that Iraq really needed to get rid of all physical capabilities to create WMD Saddam insisted on continually baiting the inspection regime and engaging in a wide range of the behavior guaranteed to keep him in the US and yes even the UN's gun sights. Why after destroying WMD physical capabilities Iraq didn't play possum for several years and as soon as the embargo regime was lifted then quietly restart its WMD program is rooted in Saddam's juvenile thug mentality.

[Alia]

Addendum: Rob Kelner, Covington and Burling, January 9, 2002:

Uncivil Fracas Over Civil Rights Commission Heads to Court

"The notion one agency of the federal government essentially suing another agency of the government raises some very serious questions about the role of the chairperson in this very dicey legal issue," said attorney Rob Kelner, who is representing Kirsanow. "We think the attempt by the chairperson to intervene in this case borders on the bizarre."

AND

Campaign Finance Reform: The new law is hurting political parties and helping special interests

"Bobby Burchfield and Rob Kelner are attorneys at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling and represent the RNC in its challenge to BCRA".

[JimRed]

I saw "Military.com" and assumed it would be a pro-WOT article; instead it sounds like another liberal rant against Evil Oil.

That said, his conclusions are correct. My letters to the editor during the oil "crisis" in the early '70's suggested that petroleum products be phased out as motor fuel over a 10-20 year period, creating incentive for private industry to provide alternate fuels. They didn't listen then and they won't listen now.