On 9/25/2010 11:09 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
> MG: You understand that the first Gulf War did have "something to do with oil", that "the US did not want to "put a lot of oil in Saddam's hands."
Why the obsession with oil? Iraq brazenly invaded and annexed a neighboring country, a recognized member of the U.N. Suppose there had been no oil. Suppose it had been, say, Noriega invading and annexing Belize. Are you really sure there would have been no US intervention? The fact that the invaded country had a lot of oil made things worse because absorbing it would have given Saddam even more money, weapons, and leverage. But before the invasion, Saddam already had a lot of oil and yet Bush Sr. was extremely friendly, maneuvering to defeat Congressional sanctions (for Iraq's chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds).
> But the Iraqis were already sitting on a lot of oil of their own, which was of interest to all the majors.
The major oil companies? What did they get out of it?
> In any case, oil is oil, whether Kuwaiti or Iraqi or Saudi Arabian, and you're correct in assuming that it was, at bottom, security of access to that oil which prompted the first Gulf War.
What does this mean, "security of access"? You mean security that Iraq would continue to sell its oil? What else would it do with the oil? Or do you mean security of price? In which case, what was the desired price of oil, high or low? Presumably giving one OPEC country a lock on a bigger share of world oil would result in higher prices. So the US wanted to prevent higher prices? But the major oil companies make more money when oil prices are high. In the 70s, OPEC quadrupled the price of oil and it threw the world economy into convulsions. You know who was behind that? The Shah of Iran and the Saudi Monarchy. They were rewarded with massive weapons sales. So I'm confused; it's hard to figure out exactly what theory you're insisting I sign on to. You seem much more interested in incanting the magic word "oil" than in explaining what exactly it has to do with anything.
> Now you would have to explain what happened in the intervening decade which, in your view, abruptly eliminated oil as a consideration in the second Gulf War against Saddam by the second Bush.
What was eliminated from consideration after the First Gulf War was Iraq's absorption of Kuwaiti oil, because it was no longer operative
> MG: Our disagreement has never been about whether the US wanted to rid itself of Saddam. But to say it's "because you don't fuck with the USA" and to simply leave it at that is to say nothing at all.
>
> Of course, you don't fuck with the USA, but why not? The answer is that the Americans and their Western allies have been unable to abide regimes who are a threat to "fuck with" their oil supplies.
And what about regimes that piss off Washington without threatening any oil supplies? The US has a hands-off policy toward them? Let's try to introduce some basic logic to this argument.
> MG: I don't agree that "it would be wrong to look for some specific rational goal" for overthrowing Saddam. In fact, you approvingly cite what was, from the neocon perspective, the "specific rational goal" of using his overthrow to demonstrate the US will to use its military power against its adveraries. But, like Woj, you don't inquire into the purpose served by that exercise of power, which in the final analysis was to strengthen US imperialism. Kristol and Kagan and the other neocons generally are self-conscious proponents of "empire" who have argued for the aggressive deployment of US power to maintain and expand it.
That's what I meant. It wasn't a specific goal, it was about imperial grandeur in general.
> MG: US domestic politics weren't the only reason which made Iraq a target. There's abundant evidence that Bush officials and advisors who were instrumental in the Project for a New American Century had targetted Iraq for regime change well prior to 9/11.
Yes, but again, that wasn't about oil in particular, it was about glory in general.
SA