Friday, September 14, 2007
The real meaning of "No war for oil"
"No war for oil," meaning "fight no war to get oil," has become something of a lefty bumper sticker idea, the clear implication being that the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation were a nefarious plot to grab Iraq's oil for the benefit of Americans, or even specific American friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. This, along with the idea that we invaded Iraq at Israel's behest, are necessary accusations if one's goal is to charge the hawks not merely with having made a bad policy choice, but for having made that choice for illegitimate or immoral reasons.
I never thought the claim that we invaded Iraq "for oil" made sense for the obvious reason that the straightest path to the oil would have been to cut a deal with Saddam Hussein. We were essentially at war with Iraq all along, flying 10,000 sorties a year to police the war zones and strangling it with economic sanctions so tight that the NGOs claimed that the West was "responsible" for tens or hundreds of thousands of excess deaths a year from economic deprivation. If the point was to "get" the oil for American companies, why not trade the lifting of American sanctions for drilling concessions? Well, a wealthy Texas oilman is on trial right now for acting on precisely that idea. He had a close relationship with Saddam Hussein, and tried to influence the United States government against attacking Iraq:
Prosecutors say evidence at the trial will include the diary of an employee of Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization who said Wyatt bragged during a Jan. 27, 2003, meeting that he had convinced a U.S. senator to speak out against an attack on Iraq.
Diary entries indicate Wyatt also discussed the nature of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, including anticipated troop numbers, timing and direction of attack, prosecutors said.
In permitting the evidence to be shown to jurors, Chin noted in a ruling last week that the government planned to prove that Wyatt received the first allocation of oil under the oil-for-food program in 1996 and continued to receive oil until U.S. armed forces entered Iraq in 2003.
Wyatt's lawyers are expected to argue at trial that he always had the best interest of the United States in mind in his dealings with Iraq.
In Oscar Wyatt's view, "no war for oil" means "fight no war so that we can get the oil." He understood that there was a much more direct path to control over Iraqi oil, and one that would have appeased those Democrats who opposed the war and whose hearts bled for the Iraqis suffering "because" of American sanctions.
No wonder this case is generating so little interest in the press, which is curiously uninterested in Wyatt's claim that he persuaded a U.S. Senator to speak out against the war. Only Reuters drew a line between Wyatt's bragging and a particular U.S. Senator -- Ted Kennedy -- and that was weeks ago. Stories published in the New York Times and elsewhere did not mention Kennedy by name, probably because editors figured he would have spoken against the war anyway. And he would have. But the Wyatt claim is evidence that Ted Kennedy damn well knows that oil interests would have much preferred cutting a deal with Saddam than invading his country. Has he ever said as much?
[Typo fixed]
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Sep 14, 11:32:00 AM:
"'No war for oil,' meaning 'fight no war to get oil,' has becoming [sic] something of a lefty bumper sticker idea..."
It's "No blood for oil", and I'd say it has becoming a lot more than a "bumper sticker idea." It's a core principle of the moonbat ideology.
Along with what you said about cutting a deal with Saddam, there's another aspect of the war that the "No blood for oil" crowd finds particularly disturbing.
Or would, if they dared think about it.
About a year ago some British nutcase in my Usenet group said something about how the war in Iraq was "all about oil." Here was my response:
_________________________________
You're absolutely correct, bud. Since you're British and probably don't understand the inner workings of American politics, allow me to explain it to you.
You've probably heard that certain Americans are crying for President Bush's impeachment? It's because of the oil. Where is it? Here we were supposed to go in, kick some Iraqi butt and grab all this free oil, glutting the market and causing our gas prices to go down, down, down, and what have they done since we invaded Iraq?
Gone up, up, up!
You can see why people are angry with President Bush. When a president breaks a promise like that to the American people, they simply won't stand for it. If you hear that "Bush Lied!" stuff, that's what it's referring to. The fact that he hasn't been impeached yet is just more clear proof of the way the international Republican cartel controls the media.
Thanks for caring,
Doc
________________________________
I'm so pleasant and helpful. :)
It does, of course, make the point. If this was all about oil, well, where is it? As far as I recall, none of the Iraqi oil fields were damaged. Six months after the statue in Baghdad fell, the first tanker should have arrived on the East Coast, ushering in a golden era of low gas prices and happiness for all.
Maybe next time. :)
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 01:31:00 PM:
Great point. The "war for oil" and "war for control of oil" (whatever that means) arguments drive me nuts.
In 2003 I had this huge argument with my girlfriend's friend in the car and she had no response to my point that if we wanted the oil we could just buy the damned oil. It's a world market for oil, anyway.
A lot of wingnuts seem to have this idea that we get the oil for free. What a dumb idea.
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 14, 01:45:00 PM:
TH - not to defend the idiocy of the lefty moonbat position, there is nonetheless a very plausible argument that selected US energy interests have benefitted from high oil prices. Just bring up an Exxon Mobil price chart from the war's inception to date and it becomes pretty obvious that refiners have done beautifully with high and icnreasing oil prices. And they were not doing so well before the war.
Now I agree that that has not benefitted the US consumer and voter. On the contrary, it has benefitted the Middle Eastern consumer -- to the extent such a thing exists -- because their economies, heretofore moribund with sub $30 oil -- have all dramatically expanded with higher oil prices.
In fact, all commodity-centric economies have benefitted in the current decade. Net net, it's less an Iraq War phenomenon than a demand driven result of global economic growth outstripping food, metals and energy discovery and production.
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 01:46:00 PM:
Blood for oil is exactly what France, Germany, and the Left wanted: Iraqi blood to be spilled for us to get cheap oil. Wanting to end the sanctions and keep a murderous despot in power, and we could trade with Saddam for oil. that would get us cheap oil, and, in their mind, "keep our hands clean" because it doesn't matter if people are tortured and die en masse as long as our military is not involved.
If we had just cut deals with France and Germany to divide up Iraq so they'd control some of the oil, they'd have supported us. But by taking the high road we "squandered" our international image.
What a wonderful, humane philosophy modern "pacifism" is.
By TheRadicalModerate, at
Fri Sep 14, 01:48:00 PM:
Well, this is one of those, "It's a dessert topping and a floor wax" discussions. We obviously didn't go into Iraq to "get" its oil. But we certainly went in to secure a free, uninterrupted supply of oil from the Persian Gulf.
Also, let's be realistic: "Fixing" Iraq (which may or may not be possible--that's a different argument) will do the US some marginal good, but maintaining a strategic presence at the head of the Gulf is hugely important. That's why we're not going home any time soon.
I can't think of any better reason to shed blood than to secure the American oil supply. There is exactly one way to completely devastate the American economy and that's to chop our oil supply in half. It would make the 1973-1974 embargo look like a love tap. To argue that the West doesn't have a vital interest is the height of moonbatism.
By Reliapundit, at
Fri Sep 14, 01:49:00 PM:
actually jimmy carter invented blood for opil back in 1980 - it was a key part of his last SOTU; it is called THE CARTER DOCTRINE, and it plainly says the gulf and its oil is a key strategic resource for the West and we will defend it.
By Wince, at
Fri Sep 14, 02:18:00 PM:
You're right, and it should be all in the punctuation:
"No war for oil"
vs,
"No war, for oil"
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 03:48:00 PM:
40% of the World's oil reserves are in the "Gulf;" and, you thought we went to war for "What" reason?
By antithaca, at
Fri Sep 14, 03:55:00 PM:
"40% of the World's oil reserves are in the "Gulf;""...
Well, they why didn't we just go get the other 60%?
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 04:28:00 PM:
You know, there *is* the bare fact to consider: if an accident of geology had not put so much oil under the sands of Arabia and the surrounding environs, we wouldn't care very much about what went on there.
Just because the moonbats turned it into shirts for Viggo Mortensen to wear on Charlie Rose doesn't change the truth of it, and it doesn't make much sense to me to deny that the stuff is the lifeblood of our nation. Nations go to war over vital resources, and always have. As been pointed out, even Jimmeh "Rabbit Food" Carter knew that.
Of course, we *have* a solution to that, but the 'bats aren't fans of nuclear power. Or wind power, if it interferes with their sailing.
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 05:22:00 PM:
They say "No blood for oil," but I think what most lefties really want to say is "No oil. Period. Except for private jets for Goracles."
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 14, 05:56:00 PM:
"In 2003 I had this huge argument with my girlfriend's friend in the car and she had no response to my point that if we wanted the oil we could just buy the damned oil. It's a world market for oil, anyway."
It certainly would have been a lot cheaper.
By Unknown, at
Fri Sep 14, 06:23:00 PM:
Well, they why didn't we just go get the other 60%?
By mike, at Fri Sep 14, 03:55:00 PM
Because Alberta just isn't a damn sexy as Iraq.
Or something.
By , at
Fri Sep 14, 07:22:00 PM:
As always, Americans forget history immediately, like babies do (which is what they are in terms of Nations). Saddam was trying to switch payments for his oil to the Euro, and to encourage others to do so, like the Iranians, obviously supported by France and Germany, and opposed by the US and England. This would have been disaster for the dollar, printed by the US in the quantity they wish at no cost, and was intolerable to the US-UK big oil, which sealed his fate and that of Iraq. Obviously it wasn't reported much by the US media... And who says big oil doesn't enjoy high oil prices? Do you think they want to sell you cheap gasoline? Suckers all, you are...
By amr, at
Fri Sep 14, 07:36:00 PM:
Two years ago I was traveling through my old stomping ground, San Francisco. I was on the Powell St. cable car talking to a seemly friendly Australian couple. After some small talk, the lady said we were in Iraq for the oil and that President Bush was stupid. It’s not nice to condemn my president, any president, when you are a visitor. My very strong comeback included if we were there for oil, then why when we had Kuwaiti oil under our control did we gave it back to them. What was disquieting was I received zero support from the packed cable car. But, hey, I was in the Socialist Republic of San Francisco.
By Papa Ray, at
Fri Sep 14, 08:52:00 PM:
There are not many liberals where I live, let alone "loonies", but most people accept that the U.S. was serving it's best interests in getting rid of a dictator and trying to bring some stability to that part of the world so that the oil would continue to flow.
There is nothing wrong with that, except that no American President in the last fifty years did it in such a way.
Ha..not even close to such a way.
Anyway, most knew that the Iraqis were the ones suffering under the sanctions and that Saddam was just continuing to build his forces and had big plans against any and everyone who wasn't in his pocket.
There were a lot of countries in his pocket, lots of money going out that should have been going to buy food and medical care for his people.
We (starting before Clinton) enabled Saddam and his thugs, we had to do something to stop him and to secure that area.
It didn't work out quite the way we planned, but history will show that in the end...
It did work out.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 14, 10:55:00 PM:
Oh, so now the war was fought in order both to 'protect the dollar' so as not to be paying inordinate amounts for foreign goods (like, uh oil) and ALSO to jack up the price on behalf of petroleum companies so we'd be paying inordinate amounts for oil.
And this despite the obvious point, that has already been made in this thread, that reductions in the supply of oil is *bad* for us. We must be *incredibly* stupid. How in the world did we rise to be the pre-eminent Great Power of the world? Dumb luck, I guess.
"As always, Americans forget history immediately, like babies do (which is what they are in terms of Nations)."
And this is just stupid. I mean, really dumb. To make a broad generalization about a nationality is one thing, and to base it on such an arbitrary item... I suppose Canadians, who did not achieve self-government until 1867, must be historically retarded? How about the Australians, with their date of 1901? And the Egyptians must be amazingly educated in history.
Right?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Sep 15, 12:10:00 AM:
The U.S. Constitution is the world's oldest charter of national government in continuous use. -- MSN Encarta
By , at
Sat Sep 15, 12:39:00 AM:
If those liberal jerks would quit blocking drilling in the ANWR and quit listening to the idiots from GREENPEACE,SIERRA CLUB, and the rest of the eco-freaks we would not have to shed blood for oil i say FEED THE ECO-FREAKS TO THE POLAR BERAS,KILLER WHALES and SKUAS
By Gary Rosen, at
Sat Sep 15, 02:28:00 AM:
Bingo. We have never had to fight a "war for oil", because the Saddam Husseins of the world have always been happy to sell it to us - at a pretty penny.
And that is exactly the problem - Hussein used all those "pennies" to finance the brutal oppression of his own people and terrorism abroad. What we have been fighting for is to take it away from the Husseins and hopefully turn it over to people with less malevolent intentions toward us and the rest of the world. We have at least partially succeeded in Iraq. Beyond Iraq, though, lay the issues of Iran and ultimately Saudi Arabia.
By , at
Mon Apr 21, 05:59:00 PM:
Generic Acomplia Rimonabant Zimulti drug is the new weight loss medication breakthrough
from Sanofi-Aventis , exceeding Phentermine in it’s ability to help you lose the weight! It is a CB1 cannabinoid receptor antagonist ,and Its main avenue of
effect is reduction in appetite. Acomplia acts by obstructing the receptors, which control the food intake and energy expenditure - Thus resulting in reduced
appetite. Brand Acomplia weight loss drug also has an added characteristic effect as a
smoking cessation aid.
Brand Duromine Ionamin weight loss drug is a popular brand name timed-release resin
version for the weight loss diet pill phentermine, and is used in combination with diet and exercise,to help you lose weight. It works by decreasing your
appetite.
Generic Meridia/Reductil SIBUTRAMINE HCI drug is a prescription medication thats used to
help people lose weight by acting on the appetite control centers in the brain. Studies have shown that using Meridia helps patients lose weight and maintain
weight loss for up to 2 years.
Xenical Orlistat weight loss drug blocks some of the fat that you eat from being absorbed
by your body. Orlistat is used in the management of obesity including weight loss and weight maintenance when used with a reduced-calorie diet.
Generic Xanax Alprazolam drug without prescription is used to treat anxiety disorders and
panic attacks. Alprazolam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain.
By Simons, at
Sat Mar 07, 05:09:00 PM:
If you want to know the real meaning of the term no blood/war for oil, you should ask the Earth First activist that coined the term in August 1990. These phrases resulted from a brainstorming session in response to the invasion of Kuwait. The fact that the US deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, on the same day as a Press conference/stunt planned several days in advance by the San Jose Peace Center, re-framed the meaning of those words for the entire world.
