Oil interests and the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Invasion on Iraq

It is clear that Iraq had been attacked and presently occupied neither for growth and development of the Iraqi economy nor for the advancement of American values, such as freedom and liberty. Instead, the actual motive behind the invasion and occupation had been to gain control over the vast untapped oil resources of oil within Iraq. Furthermore, the desire to acquire complete control over Iraqi oil has a historical significance because evidence has shown that imperial powers have on occasions cooperated with each other and at times confronted each other, depending on the situation, so that they can have complete power over the vast unused oil resources of Iraq. Abbas Alnasrawi (2001) reveals this inclination of the imperial powers, "It is a historical fact that the home governments of multinational oil corporations (U.S., UK, France) have all played significant roles in enabling their companies to acquire oil concessions, to penetrate markets and to deal with the governments of oil producing countries (Abbas Alnasrawi, 2001)."

It is also worth noting that the American and British oil companies have close connections with, both the Bush and Blair administration. Furthermore, these oil companies have been extremely proactive in their efforts to convince the Bush administration to invade Iraq. These developments have been noted by Abbas Alnasrawi (2001) who writes that this connection between the oil companies and the Bush Administration "is abundant and goes way back to the early part of the last century (Abbas Alnasrawi, 2001)." In addition, Dr. Ferruh Demirmen asserts, "For a good part of the last century, interests of national governments were closely linked with the interests of oil companies, so much so that oil companies were de facto extensions of foreign-office establishments of the governments. The latter actively lobbied on behalf of the oil companies owned by their respective nationals. The oil companies, in return, would guarantee oil supply to respective governments - preferably at a substantial discount (Dr. Ferruh Demirmen, 2003)."

Review of Literature the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was 'no credible evidence' of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty (David Sirota and Christy Harvey, 2004)."

The views mentioned above have been expressed by many scholars, writers and politicians. One former American President, Jimmy Carter, also condemned the invasion in Iraq. In an interview with the Independent, he asserted "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence... A decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'"

David Cortright along with his colleagues highlights the problems for Bush and Blair administration and cites reasons for the failure of the international coalition in finding the WMDs' in Iraq. They write, "The best analysts in the CIA simply had no foolproof way of discerning what Saddam had. They gave the administration a wide-ranging set of estimates, from benign to worst-case, and, given the way bureaucracies behave; the president's advisors adopted the worse case scenario." They further write, "...more odious in form and substance, is that the administration inflated and manipulated uncertain data, possibly even requesting that material sent to it be redone to fit preconceived notions. The Bush administration has gone to great pains to reassert that it stands by its previous pronouncements that prohibited weapons will be located in due time (David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber, 2003)."

The case of weapons of mass destruction

The entire Bush administration had been playing the mantra that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber (2003) write, " in his January 2003 State of the Union address President Bush referred to tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin and hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agent. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted in his February presentation to the UN Security Council that Iraq was concealing efforts to redevelop weapons of mass destruction."

These observations had been in contradiction with the UN investigators as they had inspected Iraq on more than 700 occasions. The UN investigators had found nothing that would support the claims being made by the Bush and Blair Administration. "Dr. Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) told the Security Council on 14 February, 'So far, UNMOVIC has not found any [proscribed] weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions....' (David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber, 2003)"

The case of Iraqi nuclear weapons

Once again the entire Bush administration had lobbied against the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. President Bush while addressing the State of the Union asserted, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber, 2003)."

David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber (2003) expose the bitter truth of these claims. They write, "Investigations into these charges by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that the supposed documents upon which the claim was based were crude forgeries. The signatures on the documents were fakes, and the letterhead belonged to a military government that no longer existed."

The case of mobile weapons laboratories

The Bush administration consistently asserted that the Saddam regime had mobile labs and that the weapons had been shifted to Syria. The then Secretary of State Colin Powell had been the most vocal amongst all the Bush administration's officials. These claims too had been nothing short of propaganda staged against Iraq. As David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber (2003) write, "UN inspectors searched extensively for mobile laboratories during the 1990s but found no evidence confirming their existence." They further write, "Hans Blix told reporters on 4 February that UN monitors inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing. 'Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found.'"

Conclusion

It is clear that the justifications for the war in Iraq had been based on false and manipulated intelligence. The Bush and Blair administration not only deceived their own people but also the world, at large. Many believe that the real motive behind the Iraqi invasion and occupation had been the cast untapped oil reserves it possesses. The American neo-cons along with the British equivalents had neither any plans to establish democracy and liberate the people of Iraq nor did they have any plans to put together global human rights principals in the wart-torn Iraq.

It is without a shred of uncertainty that Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the entire world. It is also extremely clear that one of the motivations for the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been to control those oil reserves. On the other hand, at the present, in the post-war stage in Iraq, it is absolutely necessary that United States of America and its coalition partners collaborate and team-up to stabilize the present disordered Iraqi situation, for the reason that a free, stable and democratic Iraq is very important not only in the interest of United States but also very important for the harmony, growth and development of the world. Even the moderate opponents of the Iraqi war wish that the elections held in Iraq are not the end but the beginning of a new period for the Iraqi people so that they can grow and develop as a progressive and liberal community in a free and democratic Iraq.