The War Against "Excessive Influence" Over Oil

[Chris Alger]

In a recent NYT column, liberal and thrice-Pulitzered Thomas Friedman makes the obvious point that the "primary reason" the U.S. is concentrating on Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein from "extending his influence" over Persian Gulf oil. Friedman supports this motive. "I have no problem with a war for oil," providing that we get serious about energy conservation and truly democratize Iraq. "There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the U.S. being concerned that" Hussein "might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base." Friedman doesn't posit how Saddam's track record suggests any likelihood that he "might" acquire such influence, or even what influence would be "excessive," or where one can see any current influence he has on world oil markets. Nor does he address the obvious threat of a truly democratic Iraq having "excessive influence" over oil, as in the case where everyone votes for someone who promises not to sell it to a country that brought them war and despoliation. (BTW, the concern over oil is not only that it's necessary to fuel industry, but that the huge flow of dollars it generates end up in -- or spend enough time in -- the right hands).

But kudos to Friedman for at least stating the obvious instead of the usual propaganda about averting terrorism, spreading democracy and upholding human rights and international law. After all, if the U.S. were really going to war over WMD in the hands of brutal dictators, we'd at least refrain from assisting them, like we do now with Pakistan and used to with Iraq. Threat to his neighbors? Try convincing Iraq's neighbors: not even fanatically pro-U.S. Turkey to the north nor fanatically anti-Saddam Iran to the east favor Bush's war. Security Council resolutions? Ariel Sharon keeps them on a roll next to his bathroom sink (like the one passed three months ago demanding Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the West Bank, ignored without a peep from the U.S.).

What about the price to prevent Hussein's hypothetical future excessive influence over oil? A confidential UN report leaked a few days ago predicts 500,000 "direct and indirect" Iraqi casualties in the event of war, with an additional 3 million people facing malnutrition so severe they'll need "therapeutic feeding." Iraq has 23.6 million people. Terrorists causing comparable damage to the U.S. would mean over 5 million American casualties, requiring perhaps 1,000 attacks of 9/11 magnitude.

If the U.S. is justified in hurting this many people in order to preclude Iraq from "acquring excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base," would it be immoral for terrorists to do the same to the U.S. on the grounds that the U.S. already has "excessive influence" over "the world's industrial base," or perhaps the bread basket that could feed the estimated 800 million people suffering from malnutrition?

Put it another way: does the U.S. (or perhaps, "the West") alone have a pirate's right to inflict mass destruction in order to maintain its standard of living, or is violence against U.S. civilians to obtain a better share of basic resources justifiable?

I believe that one can answer no to the latter with a clear conscience only if one opposes the proposed war against Iraq.

The good news is that the war push might be unraveling faster than Sharon's reelection campaign. The possibility of Iraq aquiring nukes has grown more remote. Turkey and Indonesia are seriously balking. Warren Christopher has now joined Kissinger, Scowcroft and Brzezinski as publicly questioning the rationality of war, an unprecented (including pre-WWII) display of bipartisan foreign policy elites attacking war policy. And not that it matters much, but the anti-war movement is much better organized than it was in 1965.

Link to Friedman's Jan 5 column: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/op...html?tntemail1

Link to UN report (available through the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq website): http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.html

[MMMMMM]

Well what about what most of the Iraqi people want? Does that count, or are you just presuming they don't want Saddam deposed?

About 2/3 of Iraqis are severely oppressed by Saddam--they're not Baathists, yet even many Baathists live in fear. I can't find the article right now, but a couple months ago I read of a poll conducted inside Iraq...it showed that the majority of Iraqis would be happy to see Saddam deposed. Deposing dictators entails casualties. The fact that we, and the rest of the free world, have an interest in maintaining access to the world's oil supplies is important too. So is the increasing danger of Saddam continuing to develop WMD and eventually (maybe soon) supplying these weapons to terrorist groups who mean to target us.

I really take exception to the liberal philosophy that avoiding war is necessarily better than deposing brutal dictators. While we can't and don't depose them all, the very worst ones should be deposed--especially if their continued existence threatens us or the free world.

Why liberals seem to insist that leaving the worst dictators in power to continue abusing their own people is better than war is beyond me--especially potentially dangerous, psychopathic thugs like Saddam. If there ever was a dictator who should be deposed for both moral and pragmatic reasons, Saddam fits the description as well as almost anyone in history. And while there will undoubtedly be Iraqi casualties and suffering in a war, the same holds true if Saddam stays in power--he and his sons will just go on their merry way, murdering the opposition, torturing and raping--for a long time yet to come. He's been at it for decades now: why let him and his sons continue in this vein for decades longer?

I know if I were in an oppressed country, ruled by a tyrant, I'd be hoping some greater power would set us free. Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you think it's better to live as a slave than to take your chances on living or dying free. Well the people of Iraq can't be freed without our help. Don't assume the majority of them don't want us to free them from the Butcher of Baghdad. It's a presumptuous and arrogant attitude, and I don't think it truly represents the feelings of the majority of the Iraqi people.

[MMMMMM]

This post presumes that the potential war against Iraq is only about oil and that there are no valid anti-terror arguments for the war. It presumes that Saddam poses no WMD threat now or in the near future (either by himself or by terrorist group proxy). These suppositions are then expanded as if they were facts (a common Chomsky technique), and potential Iraqi casualties are compared to 9/11 victims as if the comparison is somehow meaningful. The USA is cast in the role of a pirate, willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions in order to ensure that oil revenue "ends up in the right hands." From this conjecture the question is raised whether terrorists may equally have the right to inflict equivalent harm on the US--even on US citizens--since the US already has "excessive influence" over the word's industrial base and bread basket (also, the fact that Saddam torched the oilfields before is conveniently ignored--as his attack on Kuwait is ignored when Alger claims his neighbors don't fear him--no mention of Kuwait, of course). The word "control" over resources is used broadly, conveniently ignoring the fact that the West PAYS for the oil, and that the countries which receive our dollars are damn glad to get the currency in exchange for an abundant resource they can only use a limited amount of themselves.

This post is an incredible display of leaps of logic, selective information, conjectures assumed to be facts, and poor analogies. It is, IMO, quite intellectually dishonest. Somehow I'm not entirely surprised because Alger often quotes Chomsky, and Chomsky uses similar tactics in his one-sided arguments filled with meticulously researched half-truths and conjectures expanded upon as if they were facts. False equivalencies abound, and while I suppose both Chomsky and Alger mean well, the end result is well-researched but intellectually dishonest arguments.

[Chris Alger]

I think it's safe to presume that the vast majority of Iraqis want Saddam off their backs but don't want to suffer a war to trade one dictator for another, like Saddam for Musharrif or the Shah or a House of Saud. I doubt that John Q. Iraq is so dumb that he thinks that the U.S. intends to "liberate" Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis and the possible detriment of the U.S. (meaning the dominant interests that drive U.S. foreign policy, rather than the enlightened self-interest of the U.S. public). Do you think Iraqis are ignorant of our history of support and material aid to Saddam and other brutal dictatorships in oil-rich countries? When have you ever heard the U.S. saying that it will compromise it's perceived interests because of the wishes of a foreign public? This particular administration has been an outspokenly in favor of "going it alone" in opposition to world public opinion on a host of treaties and issues; the war campaign is an example rather than an exception to this attitude. If the U.S. were even slightly interested in the well-being of Iraqis, it would have done something within the scope of it's legitimate power to do so, such as punish the corporations that violated U.S. law to support Saddam. Instead, it aggressively pursued a sanctions regime that caused the premature deaths of more than a million Iraqis and plans to kill and main hundreds of thousands more in order place our kind of guy on the throne.

The notion that the U.S. is pursuing war against Iraq for the benefit of Iraq is silly and perverse. I note that it has only recently surfaced in places like the Wall Street Journal and other neocon outlets as the latest propaganda line. It has likely emerged because other attempts to rationalize the war haven't fared well.

[Chris Alger]

"It presumes that Saddam poses no WMD threat now or in the near future (either by himself or by terrorist group proxy)."

It presumes nothing of the sort and in fact I believe that Saddam is a WMD threat, just like Pakistan and Israel, but that this isn't driving the push for war. We know this because the U.S. unabashedly supported Saddam while he was not only building but actively using WMD, just as it is with other countries.

"The word "control" over resources is used broadly, conveniently ignoring the fact that the West PAYS for the oil, and that the countries which receive our dollars are damn glad to get the currency in exchange for an abundant resource they can only use a limited amount of themselves."

I'm not ignoring the fact that the U.S. pays for the oil, you're ignoring what these countries tend to do with these dollars once they're paid. They invest them in with the transnational finacial institutions and buy arms and big ticket infrastructure projects from transnational corporations. These same institutions fund a huge portion of the campaigns of U.S. elected officials, and the think tanks and media that promote the war. What's more intellectually dishonest: this description of how real power works on a day-to-day basis, or the impression you're promoting that Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz lie awake at night worrying about whether Iraqis live in a democracy?

As for Kuwait, Saddam indeed seized the oil fields and torched them. He was driven out in a matter of months after a few days' fighting and his ability to do anything similar again has been largely curtailed, assuming he is that self-destructive. Now, tell me what bad things happened as a result that could justify 500,000 more casualties.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not suggesting the US is pursuing war with Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis and to our detriment. But it doesn't have to be either/or, does it? Getting rid of Saddam should benefit the Iraqis, enhance stability in the region, ensure access to markets for the oil (to their benefit as well as ours), and forestall or eliminate Iraq's WMD programs and the chances of these weapons getting into al-Qaeda's hands.

Once we get past the probably bloody initial process, there are pretty good chances (though not ironclad) that it will benefit almost everyone. The average Iraqi is dirt-poor despite Saddam's immense wealth and massive military spending. All Iraqis live in mortal fear of the regime. So as long as we handle the reconstruction well (and that's a significant and perhaps pivotal point), I really think this canbe a win-win situation for most people. Casualties will occur, but...so will murders, rapes and tortures if Saddam stays in power...and over a much longer period of time. So I really think that on balance, deposing Saddam is both a moral and pragmatic thing to do--it's kind of nice to see both aspects in greater convergence here than has sometimes been the case.

[MMMMMM]

The reason I said it presumes Saddam poses no WMD threat is because of your "kudos to Friedman for at least stating the obvious instead of the usual propaganda about averting terrorism."

I'm really not trying to promote the notion that Bush's first concern is the Iraqi people: I see a convergence of interests, including those of the Iraqi people.

I wasn't addressing the concept of "how real power works"--we can't necessarily control what oil-rich countries do with their oil revenues--but $ moving into those countries have at least some chance of benefitting their people. After all, they can't drink the oil.

I really don't think the 500,000 figure (of potential casualties) is the only, or even necessarily even the most, important aspect of this equation. What about the right to live free from fear of abduction, torture and murder by your own government? What about the numbers of Iraqis that will be murdered and tortured and kept in poverty for years to come, courtesy of Saddam and the two brutes he has for sons? How do you put a number on such oppression and suffering, inflicted on the populace, over many years? If I lived under those conditions, I'd surely want to take my chances of being one of the casualties if that gave me a shot at freedom and a better life under a better government. Again, I'm not saying this is Bush's foremost concern--nor should it be. I'm just saying that it appears that here could be a legitimate convergence of the interests of the Iraqi people and the West, and that the anti-war protesters seem to be completely ignoring this possibility (actually I think it's more a likelihood than a possibility).

[IrishHand]

Yeah...I'm sure the average Iraqi will be so much better off once we impose our will on how their nation is run. The Afghanis are certainly overjoyed with how much nicer things are now that the warlords are running things rather than...umm...the warlords running things. Sort of funny, don't you think, how little interest we have in that country now that the oil pipeline is back in business and we've firmly established our "right" to be in the country militarily.

There's nothing "quid pro quo" about the exchange that's about to take place. The average Iraqi will remain dirt-poor. The only people who will benefit will be whoever we jack into power there, a handful of Iraqis connected to the oil industry and large numbers of already wealthy American individuals and corporations. It's a domestic "quid pro quo" which has little to nothing to do with it's effect on the Iraqis. I'm sure that'll give us nice fodder for the media, but the reality is that we're dumping astronomical sums of money into our military efforts there in exchange for the expectation of huge profits in the long run.

The North Koreans are surely overjoyed that their lack of natural resources places them near the bottom of the 'evil doer' list despite the fact that they're probably the most powerful among them. (We're assuming Bush isn't daft enough to put the Chinese on that list.)

[IrishHand]

Your endless monologues about the horrible oppressions suffered by the Iraqis are well-intentioned, but fail to prove what you think they prove. What percentage of Iraqis do you you think get abducted, tortured, murdered, raped, etc? A very small one. I agree that the average Iraqi probably isn't too thrilled about the current government, but it's not as though they've had a government in his lifetime that was any better - and it's clear that the US interests have little to do with his day-to-day life anyway.

Nazi Germany was arguably the most oppressive government in modern history, and yet they enjoyed a disproportionate level of popularity. It's completely false to assert that simply because a government does some horrible things (depriving people of civil rights and liberties which lead to tons of abductions and murders, for example) it isn't popular with the people. People living in horrible conditions are generally eager to latch onto any person or group who promises them something better. Castro's a bit of a moron, but he's very popular in Cuba as well...

[Chris Alger]

"Getting rid of Saddam should benefit the Iraqis, enhance stability in the region, ensure access to markets for the oil (to their benefit as well as ours), and forestall or eliminate Iraq's WMD programs and the chances of these weapons getting into al-Qaeda's hands."

1. Benefit to Iraqis: Prior U.S. support and material assistance from the U.S. and U.S. corporations didn't "benefit the Iraqis," so why should we presume that U.S. support for whoever replaces him will? Why should we assume that a U.S.-imposed leadership in Iraq will deviate from the pattern of other U.S. clients (like Saddam) using oil revenues to maintain themsevles in power by using them for arms and internal security and doling out favors to powerful cronies? In other words, what forces will check the U.S.'s historical propensity to do this? Certainly not unconditional support for U.S. policy.

2. Enhance stability in the region. You mean our kind of stability. This is just an empty media phrase. A truly democratic Iraq would probably more tumultuous and unpredictable than Saddam. A major cause of instabilty is the active opposition to U.S. involvement in the region and the client states we support, and there's no consideration being given to rethinking these policies.

3. Ensure access to markets for the oil. The only reason Iraq doesn't have a market for it's oil is that the U.S. has refused to provide one, which in turn is caused by the inability of the U.S. to exercise the same control over Iraq that it does to other states in the region.

4. Weapons to al-Qaeda. Where's the beef?

5. WMD. This is naive. Israel is the most faithful ally of the U.S. in the region and it has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the region combined, with the possible exception of Pakistan, another case of a faithful U.S. ally more than willing to wave the nuclear sword to further its interests.