This article in NY Newsday is disturbing on a number of levels.
I have been a consistent defender of the administration's policy regarding the proposed invasion of Iraq for quite some time now. I realize the danger that Sadaam presents. I have stated on countless occasions that our policy vis-a-vis Korea, no matter how stupidly the administration has pursued it, should be different than our policy towards Iraq. I often criticized the Bush administration for not coming out with a post-Sadaam plan for Iraq. When they did come out with a plan, I was willing to suspend judgment, temporarily. And I have, on countless occasions stated that I do not believe the "No Blood For Oil" rhetoric of the Left. Although oil is a part of the reason why we are there.
When I wrote this post I made this comment: "Suffice it to say that Iraq should not be a member of OPEC ever again. Whatever we can do to minimize the power of OPEC will do wonders to bring down the House of Saud or at least render it fair warning. And that is a good thing."
This comment received a lot of happy responses from conservatives but one response, from an irritated Kevin Drum, stood out. In his email he wrote:
"The reason to invade Iraq is to remove a leader who wants WMDs and seems likely to use them if he gets them. At the same time, if we can encourage democratic institutions, I'm all for it.
But if the purpose is to destroy OPEC and take over the Middle East, count me out. That is simply a horrific policy, both morally and practically. I can think of no worse way for America to behave, and I can think of no policy more likely to turn huge chunks of the world against us."
I was a little miffed at first. How could a fellow liberal that supports the war say that to me?
But then I got to thinking, which a lot of people have forgotten how to do lately. I sat in the living room watching CNN's "Showdown with Iraq" and thought to myself, "you know what S-P, he's absolutely right. You promised Kevin you would develop your ideas about OPEC later but why bother, he's right."
It is getting harder and harder every day to support these guys.
Folks, that oil is the property of the Iraqi people. It would be morally repugnant to use it to pay for OUR occupation of Iraq. Reprehensible, actually.
Some of the quotes of senior administration officials are truly enlightening.
"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].”
"[T]he cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil.”
"It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,” he said. "... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.”
The above quotes define the very essence of imperialism. We should be ashamed.
I hope, for the sake of this great country and the future of my son, that the President does not take this advice. The Iraqis may pay for it in the near term. But generations of Americans will pay for it in the long run.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 01/10/2003 12:27 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
"Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil"
Gee, those A-rabs huh? Soooo suspicious.
Posted by: DavidByron on January 10, 2003 01:11 PM
I really don't understand the Agonist's perspective here. What's wrong with stealing the oil in Iraq? After all that was what the Kuwaiti's were doing 12 years ago that provoked Iraq to attack them (with US permission) in the first place. If the Kuwaiti's were wrong to steal Iraq's oil doesn't that legitimise the Iraqi invasion?
Oh whatever.
What I really don't get is how it can be ok to kill a couple of million Iraqis but then when someone suggests that the oil might be stolen -- oooh!!!
Distorted sense of values?
Posted by: DavidByron on January 10, 2003 07:16 PM
The Iraqi oil just isn't ours to take just because we are bigger.
What would be the most morally repugnant is for Bush's oil buddies to get the oil rights. And folks, I guarantee you that is what he is thinking. Now I agree 100% that we must have oil but I believe we can get it in a fair capitalistic manner. Sorry, but taking folks' oil with aircraft carriers and bombers and giant guns isn't capitalism that is out and out bank robbery. And I have read that Bush plans to occupy Iraq like we did Germany and Japan. The first thing that comes to my mind is "how in the hell can I compare German and Japan atrocities and the bombing of Pearl Harbor with this small little backwards country of Iraq that has six missles and maybe one can get out of the country, how do you compare them to Germany, Japan, absurd. ". The second thought is we provided financial aid to these defeated countries. This administration wants to take fiancial resources from Iraq.
Interesting. Perhaps David Byron stop waving his red flag around for a second and tell me... If it was all about oil, why didn't we steal Kuwait's oil in 1991? We could've struck a nice deal with them. Let's say... We free them from Iraq, and they give us oil for 1/2 price? Why didn't we?
Thanks for calling me a communist but these days it's a green flag.
Tell me. What makes you think America did not take oil from Kuwait?
Posted by: DavidByron on January 11, 2003 11:14 AM
It seems clear that North Korea is a serious military threat that has no oil, whereas Iraq has oil but poses no serious military threat. So why risk war with North Korea for nothing, when we can slaughter Iraq, gain control of the oil, install a puppet dictator and so forth as in Afghanistan. It might no be the "right" thing to do; it might even be a tad cowardly, but the rich will get richer at the expnese of the oppressed, and that's what Bush Incorporated is all about.
Interesting post Sean-Paul. I've always been skeptical of an invasion of Iraq, but for a completely different set of reasons:
(1) Working from the principle that the United States should only fight "just wars", the only defensible campaign against Iraq is a preventative one. This requires that Saddam be undeterrable from using WMD once he possesses them (the "Saddam as a madman" view).
(2) Presuming Saddam already possesses some forms of WMD however, the logic of invasion becomes paradoxical. It is rational to attack only if Saddam can be deterred from counterattacking... in which case it fails to follow that his possession of WMD is a threat to regional stability.
The rush to unilateral action by the United States is worrisome if none of above claims hold. Then unilateral aggression becomes justified on questionable grounds -- such as skeptical claims (which often run against the weight of historical evidence) that Great Power interference is a positive force in democratization (for a recent example, look at the former Soviet Republics, where only Mongolia seems to be taking a really clean stab at democratization, or even revisit post-war Japan, with its 50 years of essentially single-party rule by the LDP)....
Stan, did you find yourself any more commies since spotting David Byron and myself? Are you working for John Ashcroft? Is Joe McCarthy your role model? Do you have anything to say of substance?
I assure you Stan, as a legal alien in America its actually against the law for me to be a communist.
I don't have any proof about the oil. Hey -- YOU made the statement and I challenged it. But look at Venezuela for example where the US instigated a coup because the president was about to end an "agreement" whereby Venezuela has to sell oil to the US at discounted prices.
And again there's the oil that the US takes out of the food for oil program in "war reparations" (wink, wink).
No I have no idea whether they are stealing oil from Kuwait too, but I'd say it was a fair bet. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: DavidByron on January 11, 2003 07:49 PM
By the way -- was that watermelon comment original?
Posted by: DavidByron on January 11, 2003 07:50 PM
Then there's that oil pipeline in Afghanistan. We'll liberate Iran like we are liberating Afghanistan, killing more and more innocent Iraqis and Afghans in the process, to say nothing of our own losses. We'll probably install a puppet dictator to look over our oil interests in Iran, as in Afghanistan. We'll get Saddam like we got Bin Laden. But we'll have more oil and more access to more oil.
Posted by: Mike Janosov on January 11, 2003 11:32 PM
Forgot to ask: Stan, where do you think I live?
Posted by: Mike Janosov on January 12, 2003 12:03 AM
the american people are not in control of their government, and if we were, we would be singularly incapable of directing it in world affairs as a nation.
so the best thing america could possibly be is an empire. we have too much money, might and influence to be anything else. so the proper question on iraq is whether or not we can run it as a province until such time as they are appropriately westernized at the critical levels.
american have no praxis of multiculturalism that is sufficient to work at arms distance with a secular islamist nation such as iraq or turkey. this is why we are on a crash course with islamists. we are practically hostile to all islamic nations of any significant size. what has iran done to us lately? nothing. yet we cannot stand them. for what reason? because we don't want to respect their differences...
so let's be pragmatic about this. america is going to need to choose a model minority in the arab world and one in the world of islam, and coopt them both into the empire. why? because we ARE going to war, our marketmakers ARE going to take advantage of whatever that means in the oil market and those with more than two brain cells to rub together are going to connect the dots, whether or not we sensitive bloggers want america to do so.
so long as america is the leader of the free market economies and free market economies rule the world, this will continue to be the case. who's going to stop us? islam or china. period. (no time soon)
In the meantime, there's the North Korean Crisis, the War on Iraq,
the War on Afghanistan, the Palestinean/Israeli embroglio, the war on the poor at home and abroad etc., to keep the Empire occupied.
Posted by: Mike Janosov on January 12, 2003 01:56 PM
David Byron wants to know why some people who regard war, and the casulaties resulting therefrom, as legitimate, regard looting as illegitimate. It's the difference between killing someone who is threatening to kill you and stealing his wallet afterwards. The killing might be justified, if the threat is imminent. The theft is never justified, because the wallet isn't yours, and if you steal the wallet onlookers will have reason to doubt whether you were really defending yourself.
