On Terrorism

On Iraq

It's about the oil, stupid!

Everyone knows this, though their interpretation and reaction varies considerably. It would not be fair to say that it's ONLY about oil, to be sure, but if Iraq didn't have the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserve, the U.S. would almost certainly not have invaded. For example, North Korea has a far better documented nuclear and missile capability, and Kim Il Sung certainly is starving and mistreating his people. But North Korea's not even in the top twenty countries with proven oil reserves, so we'll continue to pursue mere diplomacy and economic sanctions.

This essay is really about the where the petroleum lies and how that affects U.S. policies. Almost nothing about the U.S.'s Iraq policy makes sense without considering the economic realities of the oil supply. It is always government policy to couch economic interests in patriotic terms -- freedom, democracy, overthrowing tyranny, will of the people, and so forth. No one wants to believe that their sons and daughters are risking their lives for something as mundane as a stable oil supply. After all, who wants to do the dirty work for a bunch of fat corporate cats sitting in their penthouse offices who are getting rich?

t's easy to see the corporate fat-cats as the villains. I wish it were that simple. They are, unfortunately, doing exactly what we (the real "people") want -- lots of products to consume at cheap and predictable prices. When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and gasoline went up a dollar a gallon, everyone was furious and panicking. The price quickly came back down but it was a huge shock to the American psyche and economy. We all want stable prices. A stable predictable supply keeps those prices stable. We want low prices. Repressive regimes that exploit their workers can help guarantee those prices. So whose fault is it really?

America has always gone to war for "American interests." We like to think those interests are freedom and democracy, etc. but the real American interests have always been economic. Even the Boston Tea Party was meant as a protest against Britain's economic control over the colonies. World War II, admittedly a fight against some really nasty regimes, didn't start until those regimes began to expand into neighboring countries, thus threatening our markets. Plenty of non-free and non-democratic regimes have had our full support (e.g., in Latin America), in return for a favorable environment for corporations and easy access to raw materials and products. So what's wrong with admitting that we have economic interests? It somehow seems shallow and cheap.

The future of Iraq

Of course, official policy is that the U.S. will only remain in Iraq for a short time, long enough for it to get on its feet and get the oil flowing at pre-war levels. No one really believes this. Look at the other countries where the U.S. rushed to either help or conquer. Consider Germany and Britain, where we still have troops and military bases after 60 years. Consider South Korea, where we still have troops and military bases after 50 years. Consider Kuwait, Panama, etc. In short, we don't ever leave a country where we fought a war! Well, that's not really true. We left Vietnam in defeat after a years-long war failed to help a corrupt government there. We left France and the Phillippines when their governments kicked us out. So a more accurate statement is that we've never pulled our troops out of a country voluntarily.

Take a look at the Iraq Study Group report, a non-partisan attempt to sort out all the problems in Iraq and propose solutions (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html). There are several very specific recommendations with respect to how Iraq's oil industry and revenues should be organized. It's remarkable that with all the talk of "let the Iraqi people decide," this hands-off attitude stops when it comes to what we really need Iraq for -- its oil. What if the Iraqi people decided to ship their oil to China and Europe instead of the U.S.? What if they decide to up their prices in return for a stable supply? Don't worry -- we won't let their "freedom" go that far.

About the other oil-rich countries

While I'm at it, let's take a look at how our foreign policy is shaped by how much oil a country has. For comparison, the U.S. is 11th on the list, with 21.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Venezuela - number 7 on the list with 79.7 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. In the typical U.S. tradition, Venezuela was ruled for decades by military and right-wing governments, highly sympathetic to the U.S. and very cooperative of the U.S.'s interests in a stable oil supply. When an election placed the socialist Chavez in charge (by an election whose fairness no one disputes, not even the U.S.), we immediately began the process of isolation and international economic pressure on his government. Was it because he's a socialist? Of course not! It's because he didn't represent the moneyed elite of Venezuela, the ones who were able to guarantee a stable and steady oil supply. Uncertain control of the oil leads to uncertainty about the future supply, and hence U.S. economic pressure. The goal? Either remove Chavez or marginalize him within his country so the moneyed elite can once again guarantee a stable market.

United Arab Emirates - number 6 on the list with 97.8 billion barrels. As a collection of small old-fashioned absolute monarchies, these emirates are already stable sources of oil. Their governments are easily manipulated into cooperating, since power is in the hands of a very few people and also because they have no other leverage than oil; therefore, if they can't sell it, they have no economy.

Kuwait - number 5 on the list with 101.5 billion barrels. We all know what happened when Saddam Hussein's government tried to take over Kuwait -- the western economies rushed in with half a million troops to restore the absolute monarchy of the Emir of Kuwait (what was his name, anyway?). Now it's a stable base of operations for U.S. troops, and provides a stable oil supply.

Iraq is number 4 on the list with 115 billion barrels. If it were smaller, it would look like Kuwait by now, a stable base of operations and a stable supply.

Iran - number 3 on the list. Here's the current focal point for U.S. bad-guy-country rhetoric. Why? Because they're number 3 on the list! And they really do have a nuclear capability, more so than Iraq ever did. Why don't we invade them? Wait until 2011 before you answer. Invading Iran will be much harder than Iraq (it's much bigger and rugged, more like Afganistan). That means the government will have to spend a longer time hammering at American public opinion to gradually convince us that Iran is a real threat to our freedom, democracy, world peace, etc.

Canada - number 2 on the list with 179 billion barrels. This one's easy; we've already dominated their economy for a century. Though they don't particularly like us, we're so tightly bound culturally and economically that it's hard to imagine any disruption there, at least in the short term.

That brings us to the clear number one on the reserves list -- Saudi Arabia with 264.3 billion barrels, nearly a quarter of the world's reserves. Once again, a nice stable monarchy, closely tied economically to the U.S. gives us great hope for stability. In some sense, much of our jockeying for the rest of the oil supply is so that we can at least pretend that we don't need Saudi Arabian oil; that we could shop elsewhere if we really wanted to. We all decry the repressive culture of the Saudis, the purpose of which is to repress dissent and keep things running smoothly. But wait and see what our government does if Saudi Arabia ever displays a hint of instability in its government or society.