1/15/07
Is it just me, or is the justification for the ongoing GWB occupation of Iraq more and more obviously about oil? Of course, way back when GWB was just rattling his sabre, the “No War For Oil” bumper stickers began to sprout on Volvos, Toyotas & Hondas, but this linear logic soon became obscured by the layers of geo-political complexities involved: Saddam was a mass-murderer, Saddam was a threat to regional stability, the U.S. needed to take the threat of global terrorism more seriously after 9/11, the U.S. couldn’t just sit back and wait for the terrorists to strike again, the Arab world saw him as a threat too, a free and democratic Iraq could only emerge if Saddam’s regime was toppled, etc., etc.

For a time after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the war of words was thicker than the actual physical combat. Europe was divided in its allegiance to the U.S. unilateral action, with Britain leaping onboard and France urging caution. Knee-jerk American hawks came up with the brilliant propaganda blitz of “freedom fries.” The Arab world was divided for its own reasons: Islamic fundamentalism threatened existing regimes, allies of the U.S. like Saudi Arabia, which thrive on class inequality. Religious zealots have the power to mobilize masses of poor people against the status quo. But at the same time these regimes gain some breathing room when the anger of their poor populations can be directed against a foreign, demonized enemy like the U.S. The result has been for Arab political leaders to play both sides of the fence, positioning themselves with the U.S. on the global stage, while encouraging anti-U.S. sentiment among their citizenry.

So it is not too surprising that the Bush administration has been able to push its war agenda along, taking advantage of the confusion and ambiguities of the issues, even as all the lies, mistakes and lack of planning became more exposed each day. The argument, which seemed to trump all the questions, went like this: The U.S. had to do something. Maybe it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but now that we are there, we can’t just leave.

This argument seems to suggest that GWB did make a mistake, that his administration has been somewhat misguided and inept in its Iraq misadventure, that we created a power vacuum when we toppled Saddam’s regime, but that the U.S. is now committed to stabilizing the situation, and supporting a new democratic Iraqi government until it can stand on its own feet. This is the “stay the course” logic which GWB has been reiterating for years now. Even his most vociferous critics within the U.S. government tow the line that we can’t just pull out of Iraq and leave a power vacuum. Ostensibly this is because of the U.S. commitment to political stability in the region.

But what is the purpose of this stability? Is it to promote peace, save lives, reduce suffering, allow for the civilized political resolution of geo-political conflicts? Methinks not. For the Bush administration and all the power brokers involved, stability is narrowly defined as “business stability,” which can be further narrowly defined as “oil.”

GWB has been getting, in my humble opinion, something of a free ride from his critics. He has been painted as the C-student frat boy who rode into the White House on the wealthy coattails of his dad. He has been painted as the dangerously self-confident cowboy guided by his fundamentalist simpleton view of the world. This character portrait has explained his refusal to admit any mistakes, to examine opinions outside his small coterie of advisers, or to work with groups which have agendas different than his. But I think this is misleading. GWB may be a dangerous man, but he is still the representative of the corporate powers which guide U.S. economic and foreign policy. He may be a mediocre mind, but he still represents the best and brightest among the monied elite. So the question really is what is their agenda. And once again, the answer is “oil.”

A more accurate reading of the Bush administation’s approach to Iraq is that U.S. companies need access to Iraq’s oil, and we will not leave that country until they get it. The new Iraqi government can hem and haw all it wants, it can institute democratic reforms or not, it can revert to a repressive police state if it wants, as long as we get that oil. Laws are being set up now that will ensure foreign access to Iraq’s oil. The only problem is if the Iraqi government that ratifies those laws is toppled, foreign companies are back to square one.

It’s becoming clear to a growing number of journalists (those not completely in service to the corporate elite) that the most serious issue on the world stage in coming years may not be terrorism or religious fundamentalism, but the struggle to control energy resources. In the name of national security, governments will use any means to secure access to these resources, even if it involves violating civil liberties at home or international laws abroad. If government and corporate leaders believe that controlling and securing access to oil and other energy resources is the most important thing, then sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and military personnel, decimation of communities and infrastructure, despoiling the environment, exponentially increasing toxins, disease and human suffering, are all a small price to pay. In this strategic view, nothing is more important than securing access to energy resources.

Therefore, no matter how crazy it seems, no matter how badly managed this war has been and still is, it makes more sense to GWB and the corporations which back him to stick it out, because the one thing they can’t give up on is that Iraqi oil. Everything else is just details.