Reasons for War

[Terrance]

The Great Quail wrote:
> 
> Terrence,
> 
> I don't have a lot of time right now, so I will be very brief. Also, since
> we agree on a lot, I don't see the reason in a protracted debate. Many of
> your points seem to address misunderstandings regarding what I was trying to
> say, which is my fault for not being more clear.
> 
> >but first I think it is important to dismiss the idea that oil is
> > the reason the USA, the coalition, the people of the world want to and
> > need to "stabilize" the region.
> 
> We'll have to disagree. While it is not the only reason, without the
> presence of oil, the US and the West in general would have a lot less
> interest in the region. When I say "oil is at the root of it," I mean
> literally, oil is at the root of US involvement in the region. I appreciate
> your arguments for other reasons -- and you are right, of course -- but my
> original point stands for me: without oil, the US would not be half as
> interested. And the tremendous oil wealth is also something that helps
> create the disparity between the people and the ruling classes.

Of course the United States, England, everyone involved is involved
because of the oil. You can't talk about Iraq and not talk about oil. On
your last point and on your point about the secular modern potential of
Iraq (possible Democracy), in  1980, when there were some 13 million
Iraqis and oil was being pumped at 3.5 million bpd (3.3 million of it
being exported), the income (21.5 billion USD and 26.5 billion USD
respectively), the people were getting the oil money. Iraq was not at
all like the Gulf monarchies or Iran, petroleum revenues trickled down
to ordinary citizens in Iraq with a strong public sector, extensive free
public services, and a large body of small landowners (note that while
oil is so important as an export it is agriculture and water that is
more the life blood of the Iraqi people). This was when one could buy
goods in Iraq with US dollars which were flooding the cities and towns
which were modernizing and expanding their economic infrastructure. This
is also when the French became the dominant  Western nation doing
business with Iraq, selling arms for oil. With those arms and the oil
money, Iraq went to war, first with Iran, next with the Kurds, next with
the US led coalition and the Kurds. The biggest non-human casualty of
these wars was Iraq's oil industry. It's dead. And  the Russians, who
sold Saddam arms on credit and may not get paid. Moreover,  the oil
market has gone through a fundamental change that (Iraq's war with Iran
and the failure at Bali and so on...killed  OPEC's oil shock power and
handed the market over to market agreements between producers and
consumers. Iraq, after failing to take Kuwait and thus become the big
swing producer in OPEC, made its deals with France and Russia because it
owed them about 15 billion dollars. But the sanctions were in place. So
the French and the Russians have been working to get the sanctions
lifted and do business as usual with Saddam. Add in the Chinese, who are
in catch-up phase and in need of more oil everyday, and who have power
in the UN too, and who have opposed the UN attempts to punish Iraq for
its war on the Kurds, and you have a battle of Anglo-American allies and
French-Russian-Chinese allies. The Anglo-American alliance loaded up the
Gulf states with arms while demanding that Iraq disarm. The US split the
KDP from Saddam, but permitted them to ship oil to Turkey. It goes on
and on, all sorts of deals and complexities and oil is involved in every
thing, but it is surely not the reason why the coalition has invaded
Iraq. That's a far more complicated thing than oil.

TBC