How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand?

U.S. Economic Agenda and Iraq

The more people feel wars are "just" the less of a psychiatric problem society will have with conducting them so the U.S. administration does the best job it can to sell their wars as necessary. It requires very sophisticated public relations and the Bush administration has been very good at it.

But no matter how well they sell the Iraq war the facts are it was necessary to invade Iraq for economic reasons. It really had NOTHING to do with "humanitarian concerns" and very little to do with those illicit and insidious weapons of mass destruction. Everyone in this administration knows there really was "no imminent threat" or even a "gathering threat" as the Bush administration likes to call it - but the U.S. national interest is at the heart of this unprovoked war of aggression against the Iraqi people.

AND there also was really little concern by the French, the Germans, China or Russia about "humanity" or "weapons of mass destruction". They also have economic concerns and interests. They opposed the war in Iraq because their interests were directly threatened by the U.S. agenda. The U.S. national interest and policy revolves around profits and the globalization of American capital. The U.S. will take license to go anywhere, at anytime to insure its economic agenda and the invasion of Iraq was all about Economics, the Euro, Oil, and Projecting Power in West Asia all of which are very much in the U.S. national interest and George Bush's imperialistic ambitions.

"The 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq in the name of evacuating Kuwait only caused a terrible immediate loss of life but systematically and deliberately devastated the entire civilian infrastructure of Iraq. Eleven years of sanctions (it was ultimately 13 years of murderous sanctions) have already wreaked unparalleled devastation of the country's economic life and effected what a senior UN official termed "genocide" by systematically starving the country of elementary needs. Iraq is not free to spend the earnings from sale of its own oil in the way it wishes. `No-fly zones' and repeated bombings devoid of all legal cover have violated the country's sovereignty and security. Under U.S.-U.K. protection, pro-U.S. Kurdish forces hold sway in northern Iraq. In the guise of `weapons inspection,' brazen espionage has been carried out by the United States, U.K., and Israel." [(RUPE) Research Unit for Political Economy - "Behind the Invasion of Iraq" 2003 - Monthly Press]

Before the invasion Iraq had announced it's intention to switch to the new EURO standard and get off the American Dollar standard, which caused a lot of discomfort for George Bush who is mismanaging an already faltering economy.

Many veterans bare the scars of America's wars. The VA hospitals are full of vets suffering from:

"..combat shell-shock, war neurosis, effort syndrome, battle fatigue, acute combat stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, and most controversially, Gulf War syndrome - but they all essentially describe the same phenomenon: the human mind buckling from intolerable stress and the psychic wear-and-tear of witnessing and committing dehumanizing acts." [Joy Press, "Shell-Shock and Awe....." April 9 - 15, 2003 Village Voice - http://www.villagevoice.com/]

The war was supposed to be fast and the weapons precise, but more and more it is becoming obvious that the boots on the ground in Iraq are confronting the reality of a very imprecise war on civilians and soldiers and there has been a lot of killing.

Young men and women have been taught the art of war and have experienced for the very first time the experience of taking someone else's life - and the process can't help but leave deep psychological scars which will never fully heal.

When there is time to think, for those with moral concerns, the only "shock and awe" will be to their emotional well being.

"[The] 'shock and awe' was supposed to eliminate or disable the bad guys, leaving invading ground troops the feel-good task of rounding up grateful Iraqi soldiers and basking in the warm welcome offered by an overjoyed populace." [Press]

It is Not Over Yet

And it isn't over yet. U.S. plans are a lot more far-reaching and not secret at all. The U.S. intends to reshape the politics and establish American hegemony over the entire region. That is really what democratizing them means. It means hand picking their government and making it one that recognizes American hegemony over their oil.

"The Bush administration is actively considering invading various countries and replacing regimes in the entire region--Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Lebanon are among the countries to be targeted." [RUPE]

"Control of petroleum resources and pipeline routes is obviously a central consideration in U.S. imperialist designs worldwide--note the long-term installation of U.S. forces from Afghanistan through Central Asia to the Balkans; the entry of U.S. troops in the Philippines and the pressure on Indonesia to involve the United State in a campaign against Islamic fundamentalists in the region; the drive for U.S. military intervention in Colombia and the attempt to oust Chavez in Venezuela. (The systematic drive by the United States in northern Latin America has close parallels with its campaign in West Asia.) The United States is particularly anxious to install a large contingent of troops near Saudi Arabia, anticipating the collapse of, or drastic change in, the regime there. Saudi Arabia has the world's greatest stock of oil wealth. Indeed the United States is contemplating using the invasion of Iraq as a springboard for a drastic political `cleansing' of the entire region, along the lines of the process long under way in the Balkans and continuing in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Indeed, it is even willing to provoke, by its invasion of Iraq, uprising in other states of the region in order to provide it with an occasion to invade these states. All this is not speculation, but has been explicitly spelled out in various policy documents authored by or commissioned by those now in charge of the U.S. military and foreign policy." [RUPE]

Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves which is presently at 115 billion barrels, but it is expected that now that will go to 220-250 billion barrels - and it is according to experts, one of the cheapest to extract. Iraq is an economic bonanza.

"Not only is the United States increasingly dependent on West Asian oil for its own consumption; its capture of West Asian oil is also intended to secure its supremacy among imperialist powers." [(RUPE) Research Unit for Political Economy - "Behind the Invasion of Iraq" 2003 - Monthly Press]

"The global crisis of overproduction is showing up the underlying weakness of the United States real economy, as a result of which U.S. trade and budget deficits are galloping. The euro now poses a credible alternative to the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, threatening the United States' crucial ability to fund its deficits by soaking up the world's savings. The United States anticipates that the capture of Iraq, and whatever else it has in store for the region, will directly benefit its corporations (oil, arms, engineering, financial) even as it shuts out the corporations from other imperialist countries. Further, it intends to prevent the bulk of petroleum trade from being conducted in euros and thus maintain the dollar's supremacy (in military terms and in control of strategic resources) will prevent the emergence of any serious imperialist challenger such as the EU. In that sense the present campaign is in line with the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which called for preventing any other major power from acquiring the strength to develop into a challenger ot the United State's solitary supremacy. (A European foothold even in Iran could bring about a euro-based oil economy; this perhaps explains the puzzling inclusion of Iran in the `axis of evil.'" [RUPE]

Is it a Change in the Weather

Before the war there was a unified opposition from France, Germany and Russia - who now as they think the war is over (and U.S. imperialism won) are making statements that are more conciliatory to the U.S. and in support of the war.

What appears to be hypocrisy isn't; it is the standard operating procedure of imperialist nations, an agenda which includes grabbing as much for themselves as they can and when that requires that they oppose the U.S. they will and when that requires that they support the U.S. they will regardless of the statements about humanitarianism and all the rest. It is "BUSINESS AS USUAL", and we should realize that they will say anything but we always have to examine what the true reasons are and the national interests of these players and not accept words which are merely meant to misinform and influence the masses.

American Disrespect
The Ministry of Oil was protected

The Museum of Antiquities was not

It is tragic that 5,000 years of historical artifacts have become a casualty of this war. Archeologists in the United States met with the State Department prior to George Bush's invasion of Iraq and requested protection for the antiquities at the Museum of Baghdad. In spite of that request, the Ministry of Oil was protected; the Museum of Antiquities was not. The museum has been looted and Iraq's antiquities have been destroyed and stolen. They are no more. It is typical of America's racism and lack of respect for other cultures that this was allowed to happen. It is a tragedy of the greatest magnitude.

Not only have many in the world but if the polls are correct, mostly the United States - where more people believe in God than any other Western country (does that say something about the bible believer?), have been desensitized to the destruction and the killing, the war makers are also desensitized to what they are doing in Iraq. Those who handle the missiles and bombs - and drop them, scrawl their insensitive and child-like messages (as if anyone will ever read them - unless they are duds). Interestingly more people in America believe in heaven and hell and believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and these bible believers are also more conservative and they supported the war.

To be fair, not all people who believe in God supported the war. The Pope spoke against it. I know many Christians and Jews who were opposed to this war. But where is the sense of humanity and respect for life from the rest of them? If they sincerely believe in God they must surely believe in the injunction, "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

The UN was disarming Saddam. The UN was doing the job. It was George Bush who ordered the killing and all those who support him must also feel responsible. Was it worth it? Was it worth the lives to get Saddam and to impose our brand of democracy on the Iraqis? Is it worth the lives to change the world in George Bush's image? Of course that is merely the excuse and the intention of this administration is no different than all the others which preceded it and it had nothing to do with saving Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's oppression. If it did, the U.S. would never support tyrants and dictators whenever it suits our national interest and U.S. imperialism.

"On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colorful messages in childish handwriting: "For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse." A building goes down. A market. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles." [Arundhati Roy, "The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire" - In These Times - (4.11.03)]

Those who dropped their guided and unguided missles and bombs don't see the faces of their victims. They're merely targets and we've heard the phrase lately, "targets of opportunity" as if a face and name was not in some way attached to that target.

"On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."" [Roy]

And the consequence of being separated from truth, many now believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11 when there was no connection at all.

"To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teen-age tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said." [Roy]

So what was the problem of that soldier who told Iraqis when they were protesting the presence of U.S. troops to "get out of my fucking face. We're here so you can have freedom." The soldier does not understand that freedom also includes the freedom to protest. It does not include a freedom to be abused by Americans.

Freedom is not a freedom to be persecuted and oppressed or the freedom to be subjected to "Wild West" type justice and U.S. coalition forces shooting at them. What the soldier probably means is the freedom to have the same kind of fake democracy the troops have in America (the freedom described by Erich Fromm, the "freedom to do bad things to others". Freedom also must include the right to be safe and free from abuse. The freedom the soldier has is the freedom to enlist in the army because he needed the job and then be free to fight wars for the "ruling elites" and to serve an "unelected" president. Or the freedom to have a democracy in Iraq as long as it is a democracy acceptable to Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush.

"According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent of the American public believes (and many still do) that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll says that 55 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports the al-Qaeda. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess." [Roy]

SO how much care and concern for artifacts would you expect from people who believe everything they're told and don't question their "superiors" because "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head."

Nabhal Amin, deputy director at the Iraqi National Museum is correct to blame the destruction of national treasure on the United States for not taking control of the situation on the streets. The U.S. violated the Geneva Convention for not protecting the hospitals and should have anticipated the lawlessness which would accompany the invasion of Iraq. For them not to do so is a crime against the people of Iraq and a crime against humanity.

Looters, including some soldiers (and members of the Iraqi opposition) took or destroyed 179,000 items of antiquity at the museum and they hauled away what they wanted by the wheelbarrow full. These treasures are the record of civilization in Mesopotamia and they date back 5,000 years. They are irreplaceable and they are invaluable. Artifacts are pieces of history and Iraq was the birthplace of agriculture and most of civilization was born there. Various empires conquered the region and moved through Iraq and still these treasures were preserved. Writing can be traced to this region. Yet, all it took was less than a month of U.S. unprovoked aggression and culpable disregard for their history, to disrespect them, and to wreak so much destruction and death. America was the first to invade and allow these treasures to be destroyed and stolen.

Hank Roth

#####