War in Iraq

Iraq War As the end of the year slowly approaches, there is an expected transition of power by the United States and its allies to allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves. The media has tried to convince us that we as a nation have liberated the country of Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators in the world's documented history. Saddam equated to a modern day Adolf Hitler.

Saddam Hussein would surely have destroyed the American way of life by using his weapons of mass destruction that he had been stock piling for years. And if that was not bad enough, Saddam was also said to have supported the efforts of Al Qaeda's terroristic network. Our nightly news and all of the media hype may actually have us as a nation beginning to believe this, ah, stuff, for the lack of a better term. The war has had an effect on the world.

"In London, Brent Crude climbed to $38.40, reaching levels last seen following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The recent surge in oil prices has been driven by ongoing security concerns in the Middle East and a supply shortage. Global demand for oil has never been higher, lifted by heavy consumption in the U.S. And fast-growing China." (BBC World News, "Oil prices set new record highs") This report aims to disprove all of those well spun media anecdotes.

The focus of this report is to show how the leaders of the United States and other first world nations have blatantly attacked a sovereign nation with the sole purpose of extracting that nation's oil reserves for the oligarchy and future positioning of the precious resource. "According to some, the Iraq crisis has been created as a pretext and cover for an "oil grab" by the United States, Britain and the international oil industry." (Yergin) Our current war with Iraq is nothing more than Blood for Oil.

Comedian Wanda Sykes said it best when she so elegantly drove a tractor-trailer up to a drive through window of a famous fast food restaurant during one of her television shows: "We need the Bush Administration to send our troops wherever they need to go because I personally like to drive a bigger family car or ah, truck." Ironically, her television sitcom is no longer on the air -- She must have struck a nerve. Iraq's economy has a very large oil sector to say the least.

The nation's oil reserves produce roughly ninety-five percent of Iraq's foreign exchange earnings. "Its reserves are the second largest in the world - behind only those of Saudi Arabia." (Yergin) Some history on the Iraqi nation has shown that they are and have not been financially stable even with all of this natural resource available. Iraq is actually an original member of the Ottoman Empire but was occupied by Britain during World War I. "In stages over the next dozen years, Iraq attained its independence as a kingdom in 1932.

A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest was Saddam Hussein." (Iraq) In the mid-1980's, the nation of Iraq created for itself a massive financial problem due to its high expenditures to support an eight-year war with Iran. Iraq also suffered mass destruction of their oil export facilities during that war which caused them deplete income and forced them to borrow large amounts of money from the world in an effort to maintain itself.

"Iraq suffered economic losses from the war of at least $100 billion. After hostilities ended in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities." (Iraq) In 1990 when President George Bush Sr. was in office, Iraq attempted to right its sinking financial ship by invading Kuwait. After a short war with Kuwaiti allies, mainly the United States, subsequent international economic sanctions, and damage from military action by an international coalition further obliterated Iraq's financial standing.

The nation of Iraq was a beaten foe long before the most recent Desert Storm Action. "However, 28% of Iraq's export revenues under the program have been deducted to meet UN Compensation Fund and UN administrative expenses. The drop in GDP in 2001-02 was largely the result of the global economic slowdown and lower oil prices." (Iraq) If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he was desperately in need of them throughout the Iranian war.

Even the British government concurred with United States allocations that he was preparing weapons of mass destruction as the world did nothing to stop this mad man. But why did he not use them when he was losing to Iran? The weapons of mass destruction angle is one that motivates the joint chiefs of staff here in the United States to act. The United States policy against such weapons is quite clear.

"Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- nuclear, biological, and chemical -- in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. We must pursue a comprehensive strategy to counter this threat in all of its dimensions. (Bush Administration) The British Joint Intelligence Committee made an argument in favor of stopping the threat as well.

"In recent months, I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq that despite sanctions, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the UN Security Council Resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction - The Assessment of the British Government) Documents such as the one that suggested Hussein had the weapons of mass destruction were purposely released to the public yet the methodology behind acquiring the information was left secret.

It was also unprecedented that governments like the United Sates and the Britain would release such secretive information to the public. It actually sounded more like a well rehearsed media and advertising campaign used in corporate America. The Bush administration did intend to do whatever was necessary to rectify the issue of weapons of mass destruction. "We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces, and our friends and allies from the existing and growing weapons of mass destruction threat. (Bush Administration) The weapons were never found! Another problem with the war in Iraq was the fact that the United States had just suffered its most horrific attack in the nation's history. The perpetrators were not from Iraq and they certainly were not funded by Hussein.

Al Qaeda was doing some evil things but that was not relevant to the Iraq situation. "Al Qaeda members "provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia..

On October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by Al Qaeda (and trainers who had been trained by Al Qaeda) participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel." (Al Qaeda) There was no known tie between the oil rich nation of Iraq and the Saudi funded Al Qaeda.

Where was the link? The President's administration is still fending off accusations of wrong doing and covering up the fact that they had a predisposed plan for Iraq in spite of September 11th. The administration has recently found themselves having to explain how and why they tied the war in Iraq to the 9/11 situation.

Where did the information on ties to Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction come from? The process of gathering such classified intelligence regarding Iraq must have been very difficult to come by because Saddam Hussein was known to be one of the most secretive and dictatorial regimes in the world with only North Korea as a comparable example. Maybe that was why the governmental agencies could not be specific about their sources even though the final data was released as accurate.

The Bush Administration was very clear about not being able to divulge their sources. So, could the Bush administration have been wrong about the Iraqi people having such weapons? "More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs) The key point to be made here is that this assertion suggested that Hussein had an 'interest' in developing such programs.

Every dictator in the African nation has an interest in developing a nuclear arsenal but that surely does not entail the resources to get a program started. Did the United States have proof of a program in the making? Governmental reports sited Saddam's efforts to search out specialists. "Iraq retains its cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, its program documentation, and sufficient dual-use manufacturing capabilities to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

Iraqi media have reported numerous meetings between Saddam and nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling Baghdad's continued interest in reviving a nuclear program." (Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs) But those same reports never mention a successful implementation of Iraq's nuclear program.

If the recent war was not about weapons of mass destruction, then what other motivation could there have been for the United States to bring down the Iraqi dictator? "Is the coming war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure. Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am.

Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time -- claims cannot be proven or disproven. (Blood for Oil?) During the first war with Iraq in the 1990's, the Bush Sr. administration was quite open in regard the role oil played in the attacks on Iraq. The moves seemed quite imperialistic. The United States has shown signs of recent imperialistic expansion when in the early 1980's Ronald Reagan promised an economic revival. He claimed his plans would affect that would affect the entire population.

Cutting taxes could not be used because it would reduce government revenues. The approach waws to retool the military. But a retooled military needed endmies. "Two days after the Beirut barracks bombing, the U.S. conducted Operation Urgent Fury - the invasion of Grenada. The administration's pretext was the protection of 500 U.S. And Western medical students from a pro-Cuban socialist government. U.S. forces ousted the government, in the process diverting media coverage from the barracks bombing.

Grenada would serve as a model for later "low intensity conflicts." (History of United States Imperialism) But, the United States as a nation has policies that deter it from being imperialistic. Ironically, this was not the case and the same tactics used to initiate the Iraq wars in the 1990's and the most recent war could be compare to the Reagan administration's expansion policies.

Oil was used to justify the first war and weapons of mass destruction the latter were each great catalysts to gather support just like the Grenada bombing in the 1980's. The American people responded favorably to the arguments via polls and media hype. The recent war with Iraq helped to eliminate numerous legitimate contracts with some of the world's most oil thirsty nations.

"Companies from several countries - Russia, France, Italy and China, among others - already hold contracts, but because of UN sanctions they are not operational." (Yergin) The United States and their eventual free Iraqi government will be able to renegotiate all of these deals. There must be some incentive in all new oil contracts even if production is down.

"Production capacity has dropped from its peak of 3.5m barrels a day in 1980, before the Iran-Iraq War, to about 2.8m barrels per day and continues to fall." (Yergin) If one was to think about it, Fidel Castro is still in power and although he did not possess a nuclear program, we know for a fact that he recruited the Soviet Union into using Cuba as a launching pad within ninety miles of our boarders.

"The Soviet government determined in 1959 that any future war would be largely nuclear, and in that same year the Strategic Roclket Forces were founded. The Soviet government became increasingly militaristic in the face of Kennedy's rearmament program. In response, the Soviets decided to install nuclear weapons in Cuba, a Caribbean nation off the coast of Florida which whose government had fallen as a result of the Cuban Revelotion that brought Fidel Castro to power; Cuba's government sought Soviet support after the collapse of its relations with the U.S.

due to the expropriation of U.S. properties in Cuba and a subsequent CIA backed attempt of invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs." (History of United States imperialism) There have been very few efforts equivalent to the Iraqi wars to oust Castro from power. There is no way the world will ever believe that a nation with the military might of the United States sincerely believe that a well-armed Iraq could ever pose an intolerable danger to our modern civilized world.

"Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?