[Dialogue] Oil and Betrayal in Iraq

[Harry Wainwright]

Published on Thursday, September 20, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
<http://www.commondreams.org>  

Oil and Betrayal in Iraq

by George Lakoff

Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the
Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a
New World
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594201315?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1594201315&adid=0024679AJ4A1DSNXSZWP&> , "I am
saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone
knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Greenspan even advised Bush that
"taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.

Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in
Washington did. But now it's in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all
facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US
invaded Iraq for the oil.

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our
troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that
they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their
homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed
<http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/09/16/whose-betrayal>  .
Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break
up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in
uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day,
month after month, year and year - and for some, forever! Children growing
up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces -
for oil company profits.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made
refugees. For oil profits.

And what profits they are! Take a look at the study of Iraqi oil contracts
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm>  by Global
Policy Forum, a consultant to the United Nations Security Council. Or read
this editorial
<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C19%5Cstory_19-9-2
007_pg3_1>  from The Daily Times in Pakistan.

The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi
government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the
Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights
for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by
future Iraqi governments. They are called "production sharing agreements"
(or "PSA's") - a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would
technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could
do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure
for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the "cost
oil" profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would
own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil
profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be
in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no
democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East
country has such an arrangement.

Incidentally, polls show the Iraqi people overwhelmingly against
"privatization", but "production sharing agreements" were devised so they
are technically not "privatization," since the government would still own
the oil but not control it. The ruse is there so that the government can
claim it is not privatizing.

But none of this will work without military protection for the oil
companies. That is what would keep us there indefinitely. The name for this
is our "vital interests."

Greenspan's revelation and the contracts need to be discussed openly. The
question must be asked, "Is our military there for the sake of oil?"

I have been struck by the use of the word "victory" by the right wing,
especially by its propaganda arm, Freedom's Watch. Usually, "victory" is
used in reference to a war between countries over territory, where there is
a definable enemy. That is not the case in Iraq, where we have for four
years had an occupation, not a "war," and there has been no clear enemy. We
have mostly been fighting Iraqis we were supposed to be rescuing. "Victory"
makes no sense for such an occupation. And even Petraeus has said that only
a political, not a military, settlement is possible. In what sense can
keeping troops there for 9 or 10 years or longer, as Petraeus has suggested,
be a "victory"?

What is most frightening is that they may mean what they say, that they may
have a concept of "victory" that makes sense to them but not to the rest of
the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to
guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result
guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as
"victory." Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing
us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to
prosper under our protection. That would be a "victory." Or if the Iraqi
army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there
protecting American investments and workers, that too would be "victory." If
the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments,
that too would be "victory" as long as oil profits were guaranteed and
Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn't matter if a
Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does.
It is still an oil company "victory" - and a victory for Bush.

Indeed, Kurdistan's PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter
form of "victory." As Paul Krugman observed
<http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14krugman.html>  in the New
York Times on September 14, "the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil,
is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member
of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight
body." Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of "victory."

If that is "victory," what is "defeat" and who is being "defeated?" The
troops who would have to stay to protect the oil investments would, person
by person, suffer defeat - a defeat of the spirit and, for too many, of the
body. And most of America would suffer a defeat, especially our taxpayers
who have paid a trillion dollars that could have gone for health care for
all, for excellent schools and college educations, for rebuilding Louisiana
and Mississippi, for shoring up our infrastructure and bridges, and for
protecting our environment. Victory for the oil companies, defeat for most
of America.

Is Greenspan right? Is this what "victory" could possibly mean? I do not
want to even think that the answers might be "yes." The thought itself is
too disgusting. But Greenspan has put the questions before us, and we have a
duty to pursue the answers. Because, if the answer is even half "yes," then
the troops and most Americans have been, and continue to be, betrayed beyond
measure.

Perhaps the most honest and straightforward way to pursue such answers would
be for Congress to frame the issue directly in terms of oil, as Greenspan
did. Here's a way to do it: The Constitution gives Congress authority over
military matters through its power to fund continued military action.
Without such funding, the troops cannot continue. Suppose Congress were to
pass a bill saying that no funding would be forthcoming for military action
in Iraq unless the Iraqi government drops all provisions for PSA's -
production sharing agreements - in its legislation. This would actually give
the Iraqi government sovereignty over its oil indefinitely and take oil
control away from Western oil companies. Even proposing such a bill
seriously would have two effects: To raise the constitutional issue: the
president has been overriding the constitution. And it would bring the oil
issue front and center, so we can all see if "victory" is really about oil
interests.

Suppose Greenspan is right, that oil was a primary factor in the Iraq
invasion, that "victory" means victory for oil companies, and that
"sacrifice" means sacrifice for the American oil industry. While I held the
very possibility that this might be true, I clicked on the following website
<http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?Itemid=146&bandwidth=high&id=875&o
ption=com_photogallery&task=view> . Perhaps you will feel as I felt.

George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226467716?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0226467716&adid=0YMBTNHB6V6DY8VR8SN9&> , Don
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1931498717?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1931498717&adid=16APC3HRG0DVDTS5SNXB&> 't Think of
an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374158282?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0374158282&adid=1VNHQSS79VRS7XPC8QCK&> , and
Thinking Points
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374530904?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0374530904&adid=03BWGWXQHHWFW74MG575&>  (with the
Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished
Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of
California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge
Institute <http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/> .

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org 

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/20/3969/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070923/0c30d7f5/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6731 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070923/0c30d7f5/attachment-0001.gif