Should the U.S. be planning to control Iraqi oil?

What do u think this war is all abt ? <BIG SIGH>

<BIGGER SIGH>

HUGE sigh

Longest, saddest SIGH...

No.

What does it mean "to control"? Maybe it implies to secure that the oil revenues will not be spent for acquirement of WMD or sponsoring terror? Even the oil resources of the USA are not controlled by the U.S. government, they belong to the corporations.
U.S. civil administration that may replace regime of Saddam Hussein after the war may, of course, negotiate in favor of the U.S. corporations, providing for the latter better conditions than, for example, to the French or Russian ones, but this does not mean that Iraqi oil will be directly controlled by the U.S. government. It is also possible that the U.S. will press toward increase of oil output of the new Iraq, in order to keep oil prices low.

Ah, the rationalizations of empire...

Well, then, what does it mean to control?

control: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over"

All this movement across the dance floor by the US, Britain, France, Germany, et al, is really about oil -- the Brits recovering a tiny piece of empire, the French teed off about their position in the new world order, the US assuming it "deserves" to take charge of absolutely everything. You thought you'd left this kind of bluff and bully stuff behind in the school yard. But no. Trouble is, these are real people in real governments with real military and real weapons and, above all, real and considerable control over information sources. So we're in trouble, all of us. Another question might be: do they have the right to control all of us?

If not the US who than should control Iraq's oil production at least in the short run. The profits are supposedly destined for the Iraqi government and people. That would seem to be the way to go.

It is clear to anyone who bothers to read the very short, very straightforward article, that Powell is speaking specifically and only of the whatever period of time we had to stay in Iraq after kicking Saddam out.


He is simply speaking to what we will do between ousting Saddam and turning over power to a new government. Nothing more.

Yeah, sure. This is the same government that has periodically been touting as "very real" the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, only to never somehow produce any actual evidence of said connection. The same government who, pre-9/11, whose Vice President produced an energy task force report singing the praises of how beneficial a regime change in Iraq would be (no doubt just an amazing coincidence).

Forgive me if I take their word with a grain of salt about the size of the Great Pyramid.

Please do. I also view what the administration offers with skepticism. I wasn't commenting on the veracity of Powell's statements, but rather clarifying the difference between what he is claiming and what some seemed to think he was claiming (temporary control of Iraqi oil with the money going to Iraqis as opposed to an intent to seize Iraqi oil).

Whether he means what he says, I can only guess, but it is quite clear what he said.

And I'm just saying if the standard by which we judge Iraq is that past patterns point to future conduct, the same should hold true for this administration, IMO. What's good for the goose, and all that.

skepticism runs pretty deep regarding this administration

Iraqi oil is, for all practical purposes, the personal property of Saddam Hussein and his cronies. There can be little doubt that the government of Iraq is shortly going to change, and it would be extremely imprudent not to plan for that event. One of the great, perhaps the most important, question will be how the country's primary resource will be managed.

There are several factors that must be considered in developing contingency plans for oil management in a new Iraq.

* How much damage will have been done to the infrastructure, and how can that best be rectified. It doesn't much matter who did the damage, though the worst scenario would be for Saddam to repeat his behavior during the Gulf War. Hundreds of oil well fires may have to be fought and suppressed quickly to minimize ecological damage and loss of a precious resource. That may be a very expensive proposition and the cost to American taxpayers must be kept to the necessary minimum. The expertise for fighting oil fires is mostly found in American oilmen, and they are entitled to compensation proportionate to the risks. What structure/mechanism can best provide the cash and expertise to repair the damage? Our efforts in the coming battle will be to protect the oil infrastructure to minimize this most expensive contingency of the operation. However, some damage will almost certainly happen. If we are successful and the oil infrastructure is captured relatively intact, these contingency plans will be un-needed. If the cost of restoring the infrastructure and counteracting the damage is large, then there will be impacts on other approaches to managing the resource in the post-conflict period.

* What kind of governmental structure is likely in the new Iraq, and who then will control the nation's oil policies? The Allies will have several options, each of which might result in a different governmental structure. Though I believe that existing Iraqi borders will be retained, there will be some who want to create an independent Kurdistan in the north, and a new Shia kingdom in the oil rich south. Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Jordan to a lesser extent might have territorial ambitions that will have to be addressed. That would compound the problems, and contingency plans need to be formulated for those eventualities now -- even though they are unlikely.

I think there are at least three alternatives for structuring a new Iraqi government. First, we might remove U.S. troops quickly leaving the Iraqi people to pretty much sort out their own affairs. A new designated leader would commit oil revenues to pay for the cost of restoring production, promise to deny terrorists any support or safe haven, and to abandon aggression against all regional neighbors. I don't think this is a likely outcome, but there should be contingency plans and capability studies outlining the key elements necessary for probable success if this option should be chosen later.

The second option is the extreme opposite of the first. This option is to occupy Iraq on a more or less permanent basis. A military governor would in this instance probably administer government. Oil assets might be seized to pay for the occupation, and rebuilding of the country. Reparations have a long history and might be assessed, though I very much doubt it. I think this the least likely option.

The most likely is for the Allies to name a military governor to defend the country against aggression, restore the oil infrastructure, and preside over a locally based effort to write a new Iraqi Constitution. The effort would be modeled on the American occupation of Japan after WWII, and would be for the shortest time possible. The UN would be invited to actively participate and monitor a national plebiscite to ratify a Constitution providing a separation of Church and State, and foreswearing aggressive war. Oil resources would be help offset the cost of restoring production, and thereafter would be held in trust for the Iraqi People. This is the middle-way, and the most likely to achieve our overall goals.

Contingency plans and capability studies for each of these alternatives needs to be carefully thought-out and available to the NCA before any decisions are make regarding our policy in reconstituting any future government of Iraq. The United States does not rely heavily on Iraqi oil, but it is an important source for many European and Asian countries. How Iraq is to be governed will have great impact on future oil supplies for years to come.

Considering the quickness with which so many leap to the conclusion that oil greed motivates the use military force against Saddam Hussein causes me to sigh. There are many factors propelling us toward military action. We want to eliminate the threat to world peace posed by terrible weapons possessed and desired by a man whose willingness to use them against civilians is unquestioned. We want to deny safe haven, and support to terrorist organizations. We want to promote regional stability and a reduction in regional tension. Of those three goals that I discern, only the last has a link to oil. Without regional stability, Gulf oil supply is endangered and the world economy is threatened. Regional instability in Southwest Asia favors terrorist organizations. Sigh.

No deeper than for the last. :wink: It just generally runs among a different group of people than it did then.

No.


It's bad enough that a US invasion of the sovereign country Iraq will be fueling the fires of terrorism exponentially for years to come. If we lay claim to their oil, we will push many of the moderate countries right over the edge.

What ever happened to the notion of balanced respectful diplomacy ?

During the cold war when there were TWO heavily armed superpowers, each one kept the other in check, more or less. Not the worst scheme. Now that we (for the time being) sit alone at the top, we'd better tread very carefully. If we continue to treat the rest of the world with disdain, or worse, dismissiveness, we will be targeted in a way we have not yet begun to imagine.

Respect matters. We cannot unilaterally dictate policy without severe consequences. In the long run, a true and lasting peace must be built upon mutual respect. Those who seek to violate this peace should be dealt with through both long term, public, multilateral diplomacy and strong sustained covert operations.

Forget any moral considerations.
PRACTICALLY speaking, this war will be a disaster for us.