[lbo-talk] No oil for blood

Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Thu Jul 2 11:18:06 PDT 2009


Marv Gandall writes:


> Recently declassifed FBI documents show Saddam was well ready
> to cooperate with the US, as he had in the past, rather than
> confront it.

"As he had in the past" seems unbound; it should be bound to "*being ready to* cooperate" instead of the (implied) "cooperate" -- which he had never done, and likely never would.

It's almost a trueism to say that Saddam would prefer "being ready to cooperate" to being crushed. But I don't think that is much of a position :-) The affirming part of those FBI documents was, for me, the clear view that Saddam had: he had figured out how to live in a world of carrot and stick to his advantage; he did not count on what happened in March, 2003.


> There's no reason to suppose such cooperation would not have included
> allowing US oil firms to bid on contracts to develop Iraqi fields.

I'm sure if that was true, it would have happened in the 90s. I guess we'll never know, but it does seem like 12 years (from 1991 to 2003) was a long time that could have included "cutting a deal" ...


> "Asked how he would have faced "fanatic" Iranian ayatollahs if Iraq
> had been proven toothless by UN weapons inspectors in 2003, Saddam
> said he would have cut a deal with Bush.

I don't see how this is news; this was exactly his MO for the entire Clinton administration: cut a deal, buy some time/space, then back out. I'm not saying that he deserved what he got, but I also don't buy the claim that "the US could have just cut a deal" ...


> Did the US have to invade Iraq to have access to it's energy supplies?

My take is that 43 believed that it would never go anywhere with Saddam in power. He wouldn't "play ball" so he had to go, just like Noriega in Panama. It would be better or worse (he hoped, obviously, better), but it would be *different* than it had been. Since he surrounded himself with advisors who agreed, it was a done deal.


> When the US has confronted "rogue" regimes, it has typically relied
> on economic pressure, political subversion, covert military
> operations,
> and, on occasion, selective air strikes to force them into line.

None of this "worked" with Iraq, right? I go back to at least the 1975 timeframe, where it was clear to the US that they needed a backstop to the supply of oil from SA. That would mean either Iran or Iraq; the USSR chose Iran, the US chose Iraq. 35 years later, it's still "unsolved" ...

/jordan



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list