History Will Show U.S. Lusted after Oil

[cal04]

The 1973 embargo sparked a new hawkishness in Washington. An article in the March, 1975, issue of Harper's, titled "Seizing Arab Oil," unabashedly outlined plans for a U.S. invasion to seize key Middle East oilfields and prevent Arab countries from having such control over the modern world's most vital commodity. The author, writing under a pseudonym, wasn't just any old right-wing blowhard; it turned out to be Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. But seizing Arab oilfields was too risky as long as the Soviet Union existed. The Soviet collapse in 1991 opened up new possibilities.

Kissinger's old idea was taken up with new interest by a small group of right-wing Republicans who, in the late 1990s, formed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In a 1998 letter, the PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to overthrow Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, whose potential control over "a significant portion of the world's oil" was considered a "hazard." Is it really such a stretch to imagine that, only a few years after forming the PNAC, oil was still on their minds? "The plan to take over Iraq is a revival of an old plan that first appeared in 1975. It was the Kissinger plan," James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Kissinger, told me in an interview in Washington in 2003.

Dyer insists that the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil, but about extending U.S. power. But these goals go hand in glove. Gaining control over oil is crucial to extending U.S. power, and will be even more so in the coming years as the world's easily-accessible oil reserves are depleted, creating ever fiercer competition for what remains.

All this will make controlling the Middle East that much more crucial. Or, as Cheney put it in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999, when he was CEO of oil giant Halliburton: "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies." Now that he's vice-president, Cheney no longer talks about the Middle East as "the prize." He talks about it as the place terrorism must be confronted.

more
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1226-24.htm

[Eric J in MN]

1. Check out the blog article I wrote tonight,

Republican Con of the Week: George W. Bush Says the Iraq War is for 'The Freedom and Security of Us All,' as Plans Drawn Up to Privatize the Iraqi National Oil Company to Benefit American Oil Corporations

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_12_26_george_w._bush_says_the_iraq_war_is_for_security_of_all.asp

[Ms. Clio]

2. A great piece--it's about the oil and PNAC, stupid!

More:

Perhaps it simply sounds too crass.

It implies that those at the very top of the U.S. government willingly sacrificed countless lives to further a cause that has nothing to do with liberty or democracy.

This sort of allegation certainly doesn't fit with the respectful, even deferential approach generally taken in the U.S. media towards George W. Bush, just chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year.

Raising the oil factor also perhaps sounds unsophisticated. Some commentators, like syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer, scoff at the notion of an oil motive, suggesting it's not necessary to invade countries to get their oil: "You just write them a cheque."

But buying oil isn't the goal; getting control of it is.

[Kurt Remarque]

3. yep, and it's no secret!

none of them deny their authorship of the pnac documents and they are proudly displayed for all to read. the media totally dropped the ball on this concoction of the current iraq invasion years before bush was selected and 9/11.

[Ms. Clio]

7. Not much of a "conspiracy," is it?

It just has to be translated sometimes. For example, "bringing democracy to the Middle East" means waging war on as many countries in the region as is required to safeguard U.S. interests and aspirations.

[Raster]

4. Make no mistake. The rest of the world community now sees us...

as a threat and is stunned by the level of our betrayal. In one fell swoop we have gone from the order of law, to plunder and pillage. We have served notice on the world community, including our friends and allies, that we no longer honor international law and diplomatic protocol. The United States is now seen as the biggest threat to world stability.

[indepat]

5. Does not even the recent past suggest such a lust?

[OnlyInAmerica]

6. I think history will show

That mankind as a whole lusted after oil. Notice how quickly the rest of the world jumped on the bandwagon when Saddam invaded Kuwait, threatening to control 1/3 of the world's known oil reserves.

[SweetLeftFoot]

8. Sort of

But nobody in the world is addicted to oil as the US. As a non-American I can simply NOT understand why people are allowed to drive SUV's if not for legitimate work purpose.

Jesus, if I was the father/brother/uncle/friend of somebody who'd died in Iraq, I'd walk the streets with a bucket of pig blood, ready to throw on any SUV driver I passed.

[Raster]

9. Some Americans believe that it is our RIGHT to drive whatever we want,

no matter the consequences. Our current federal government has done nothing to dissuade anyone from that line of thinking.

The current neocon mindset infecting most of this country advocates doing what we want and taking what we want because we are the toughest bully on the block. And what is really tragic, is that many, many Americans who KNEW IN THEIR HEARTS THAT INVADING IRAQ WAS WRONG, allowed it to happen because of the lure of controlling the world's (supposed) second largest oil reserves. Basically good, rational people allowed themselves to be sold the lie that invading Iraq would pay for itself. And I further maintain that every non-braindead person in the US knew we were going in for the oil. We were told what we wanted to hear: (1) it wouldn't cost us a thing; (2) we would bring democracy to Iraq and in the process we would be best buds with the new Iraqi Democratic government (thus controlling the oil); and (3) we were bringing stability to the middle east.

[SweetLeftFoot]

10. You know

I can deal with pro-war types who simply say "Yeah, we went for the oil, no ifs, no buts" far more than those who still spout crap about "freedom is on the march" and "Saddam + 9/11 = ?" etc etc

[Raster]

11. Yep. They ain't foolin' anyone. Trying to cloak the Iraq fiasco in a

shroud of respectability is one of the most disingenuous and smarmy things $hrubco and bush* have done. There is a VERY good reason the rest of the planet considers the bush* administration liars and thieves. They are.

[Dancing_Dave]

12. And 9/11 was the "New Pearl Harbor"

That PNAC regarded as necesary in order to "catalyze" American's into the mood to become such an agressive oil-stealing empire of chaos.

And the Bush-Cheney Junta followed the plan all the way through to the end and it's been a total disaster. And until enough Americans are able to face the terrible truth, the nightmare will not end.