Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

It's the Oil, Stupid.

By       Message neuroscott       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 1762
- Advertisement -

The United States' strength and strategic position will continue to weaken the longer it remains in Iraq. 

The Bush administration believed toppling Saddam would be relatively easy and that doing so would enhance America's ability to shape the Middle East.  Instead, Iraq has become a black hole that is devouring America's military, resources, prestige, and moral authority.  Not only is America's influence at its nadir in the Persian Gulf because of the invasion, but the preoccupation with Iraq precludes attention to other vital issues, such as the rise of China.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, is now admitting what most sensible people already knew: the United States went to war in Iraq because of oil.  Put simply, in the wake of 9/11 sophisticated policy experts recognized that the West's oil lifeline was highly vulnerable. 

For example, any hostile force -- Saddam, Iran, or non-state Islamic fundamentalists – that could close the Strait of Hormuz would be in a position to devastate the economies of the West.  Greenspan may not have put it in so many words, but a sudden rise in oil prices, say to $120 a barrel, would hit the Western economies like a weapon of mass destruction.  

- Advertisement -

The Bush administration could not wait for Saddam's "smoking gun to become an empty gas tank," to vary Condoleezza Rice's mixed and misleading metaphor.  

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, Ford administration retreads who had witnessed the political fallout from long gas lines in the seventies, would have been acutely cognizant of America's precarious petroleum predicament in a post-9/11 environment.  They recognized (given the fact that fourteen out of the nineteen highjackers were Saudi nationals) that America's energy security was tied up with the fate of the Saudi Royal family.  In other words, America's economic well-being rested on a pillar of sand.

There were other Realpolitick reasons to oust Saddam and install or cultivate a pro-American regime. 

- Advertisement -

First, Saddam had recently decided that Iraqi oil would be priced in Euros; a precedent that if widely imitated would hurt U.S. financial institutions. 

Second, exercising control over Iraq's proven reserves, the second largest in the world, would reduce OPEC's clout, bring down the price of oil, and diminish the amount of petro-profits flowing to anti-American jihadists. 

Third, with American firms managing Iraq's oil facilities the United States would both profit and gain leverage over strategic rivals like China. 

Fourth, by ensuring Iraq's oil was priced in dollars the United States could ensure that the dollar remained the world's reserve currency, which is a tremendous advantage for American financial firms. 

And finally, lower oil prices would bolster the fortunes of America's automakers because cheap petrol would mean consumers could continue to afford the energy inefficient SUVs Detroit was churning out.

Iraq's oil revenue was supposed to pay for Iraq's reconstruction, but things have not quite worked out as planned.  Instead, the United States finds itself in a vicious cycle, pouring more blood and treasure into an effort that increasingly promises only diminishing returns. 

- Advertisement -

Perversely, the invasion of Iraq has had precisely the opposite effect intended: oil prices have risen to $80 (a new high), which has worked to the advantage of America's adversaries (especially Iran and al-Qaeda). 

Iraq is like a Gordian knot; the more effort America expends in Iraq the harder it becomes to unravel the problems the invasion has engendered. 

The United States is now involved in a proxy war against Iran.  To withdraw from Iraq, hardliners argue, would essentially hand Iran and Islamic extremists a victory. 

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

About the Author -- Scott D. O'Reilly is an independent writer with degrees in philosophy and psychology. His work has been published in The Humanist, Philosophy Now, Intervention Magazine, Think, and The Philosopher's Magazine. He is a (more...)

neuroscott Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is George Bush a Sociopath?

Bush Loses His Mojo, and His Mind

Character is Destiny

Top Ten Reasons Dick Cheney Should Run for President in 2008

Bush vs. History and the Future of Iraq

Sean Hannity's America: The Politics of Hate