The oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait have still not recovered from the gulf wars
Ten years ago a "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq. The incredible campaign of shock and awe wiped out the entire Iraqi military in just six weeks and the Husseins were captured or dead within six months. Eight years ago Saddam was hung, one year ago the last trucks of the US occupation force left the country.
The invasion of Iraq was an event which still scars the political landscape across the world, whether it be the collapse of US popular support across the Arab world or the continued aversion of the west to military force without UN consent. However, the debate which still rages is the one of motive. Why did the duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair decide to invade what was one of the regional powers of the Middle East?
The word on the edge of everyone's tongues was, and still is, oil. What other explanation could there have been? After the intelligence was discredited, after the weapons they were looking for was never found. Why else would the world superpower invade a country half way across the world which just happened to have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world.
It is a popular theory, it plays well into the idea of selfish capitalist motives for an illegal conflict, of a clique of oil barons and political leaders willing to throw away the lives of soldiers for political gain. But was oil really the reason behind the war?
The argument that it was seems to rest on a very simple line of thought. Iraq has oil - the US uses oil - therefore the US would want to take the oil. This is an argument backed by several factors, including the control of petrodollars, collusion between the government and oil companies and the nonexistence of any weapons of mass destruction. But all of these factors have their flaws.
The argument that it was seems to rest on a very simple line of thought. Iraq has oil - the US uses oil - therefore the US would want to take the oil. This is an argument backed by several factors, including the control of petrodollars, collusion between the government and oil companies and the nonexistence of any weapons of mass destruction. But all of these factors have their flaws.
- Saddam was planning to shift sales for oil from US Dollars to Euros - So what? The widespread online conspiracy theory about petrodollars and how the US currency will collapse the moment oil moves to Euros makes absolutely no sense. Not only does it completely ignore that currency markets are a huge industry in themselves, but also that Iraq was a relatively low-level exporter.Crippled by rounds of sanctions, Iraqi exports in 2003 were tiny. In fact Iraq cut off its exports completely in 2002 and it had barely any effect on, well, anything. The professional opinion is that the online petrodollar conspiracy theory is no more than that.
- Removing Saddam would give the US control over Iraqi oil - It is almost universally regarded that the coalition of the willing were completely unprepared for the scale of the insurgency which erupted after the invasion, peaking in 2006/2007. Even then the damage of the war would have set back Iraqi oil supplies, already far from the largest exporter in the region even at its peak. Western powers have a long history of oil deals with dictators they do not get along with Even worse, removing Saddam would remove the US's most valuable asset as a foil to the power of Iran. Why the US would want to overthrow a government they needed to hold back Iran's influence only to take control of a relatively small state they could much more easily strike a deal with? On top of that, what guarentee is there that oil would be seized upon by the US first - The Iraqi government still controls almost all Iraqi oil, and two of the first powers to be involved indirectly are Brazil and Norway. Those are risks not even the US would take just for oil.
- Removing Saddam would open up a huge reservoir of oil supplies - Even if this were the case, it would be one of the largest backfires in warfare since the Vietnam war. Iraq oil production collapsed and the first deals were only signed half a decade after the war. Iraq oil production only recovered to pre-Gulf war levels this year, and are still half that of in 1979. Not only is a decade a hell of a long-game in both political and economic terms, but knowing full well how swiftly the Asian powers were growing the US would also have known most of the trade in oil from Iraq would flow East to China, not West. Not only that but an Iraq with such large oil exports would directly challenge the US's second most powerful regional ally - Saudi Arabia. With Saddam gone Saudi Arabia is the primary regional opponent to Iran, meaning this shift would result in a significant possible reduction in US influence in the region. The exchange of oil for influence simply is not a good enough deal for the western powers to have taken.
- There were no WMDs - This is true. However the argument is now whether this was a mistake or a conspiracy. Although there is a case that the case for WMDs was invented purely for tricking the international community and domestic audiences into supporting the war, it is not a strong one. Firstly, it is very short-sighted, as it would swiftly become evident it was made-up the moment the invasion finished, destroying the reputations of both major powers involved and set back their ability to intervene anywhere militarily significantly (which is exactly what happened). Secondly, it is not a strong excuse, as Pakistan, South Korea, Libya and South Africa all openly developed WMDs and no UN measures were granted for invading these nations. If a UN mandate was not important, why bother with the WMD excuse? Thirdly, the case that it was a genuine problem of intelligence is one that is quite strong. Even individuals against the Iraq war more frequently point to the incredible intelligence failures involved before turning to the concept of conspiracy. There were no WMDs, but it seems that a genuine belief that there were was the driving influence of the decision to go to war.
Iraq was about the oil seems like one of the most often-stated unofficial truths of international commentary, but the case simply does not stand up. That it may well have been one of the influencing factors of invasion is clear, as oil often is in most international affairs carried out in the region, but that it was the only or decisive factor is not. There are many different factors which may have contributed to the invasion in 2003. Oil may have been one. But it was not the only, nor the decisive, factor for the War in Iraq.
Geo. HW Bush invaded Iraq the first time after Iraq invaded Kuwait, declarng quite clearly that the invasion was over oil, but why more specifically, is unclear, because it was never mentioned publicly again in those terms by the administration. I don't think it was to safeguard US oil supplies, as much as it was to keep Iraq from controlling Kuwait's oil supplies. Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil by drilling into Iraq from Kuwait; however, the solution need not have involved invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe victory of coalition forces over Iraqi forces was stunning, even when one considers the qualitative difference in forces. GHW Bush was a victorious wartime president as a result, which usually assures re-election. However, it was Clinton who won the election, stealing GHW Bush's second term.
At this point, the discussion gets interesting within my theory. In spite of GHW Bush's victory, he did not get re-elected. The majority of the pundits assessed the loss on the basis of the depressed US economy ("It's the economy, stupid."). However, I recall it being reported a short time later that there was a perception within a segment at the depths of the Republican Party that thought that, since GHW Bush did not get re-elected, and Sadaam Husein was still in power in Iraq, Husein must be smugly thinking he had won, or it was perceived in the Middle East that he had won. My problem is, I cannot find where I saw the item, nor can I trace its author or his/her source.
However, in the light of later events, the speculation in this regard may be worthy, because the remnants of Bush Sr's administration transferred easily into Bush Jr's administration, notably Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice, but there were several others.
Bob Woodward, in the first paragraphs of his book, "Plan of Attack" suggests major emphasis was placed on briefing the President-elect (Bush Jr) on plans to invade Iraq...as part of the hand-over process. This was not only prior to the 9/11 attack, but prior to Bush Jr being inaugurated. Clearly, there was a significant level of enthusiasm for invading Iraq PRIOR to 9/11 within the incoming administration, and in spite of intelligence briefings highlighting threats from al Qaida and Usama bin Laden. They lacked a convincing case for action to re-invade Iraq. This would account for Bush Jr's/Chaney's hunt for any links at all between al Qaida and Iraq, and of course, we now know that there were none. The fabrications were very likely motivated by exactly this quest in these circumstances, but even post-9/11, arguments for war against Iraq were clearly contrived.
The implications of this emphasis on Iraq, the greater Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan are obvious, but the cost to US diplomacy and credibility is devastating.
Your evidence does not hold up, nor do you provide any plausible alternative motives behind the U.S invasion of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteYou need to do more research on the neo-conservatives and study their interests and agenda.
How does the evidence not hold up?
ReplyDeleteThis article was not designed to present alternatives, that would have required going into each possible motive in equal detail. Doing so would fill a book.