"the American lifestyle is not negotiable."
Daniel J. Lavigne
Blood, Oil, and Tears - and the 2004 Bush Campaign Strategy
by Thom Hartmann
The two words we never hear in the corporate media's discussion of
Iraq are "oil" and "nationalism." Yet these are the keys to
understanding why we got into Iraq, why we only want "limited"
involvement from the U.N., why we won't succeed in stopping attacks
against us in Iraq, and why George W. Bush's crony capitalism and
aircraft-carrier-landing phony-warrior drama have so terribly harmed
our nation and set up a disaster for our children's generation.
If we stay, we'll continue to control ten percent of the world's oil
(and perhaps as much as twenty percent - Iraq still has vast
unexplored areas that Cheney was dividing up in his pre-9/11 Energy
Task Force meetings with Halliburton and Enron). Maintaining control
of Iraq's oil will keep OPEC off balance, and will keep faith with
Rupert Murdoch's advice to George W. Bush before the war that cheap
oil resulting from seizing Iraq's oil fields would help the American
economy more than any tax cuts.
(Actually, we should stop calling our invasion of Iraq a "war" - we'd
already crippled the nation with 12 years of attacks and sanctions,
and then sent the UN in to verify that they were helpless. It's like
beating somebody senseless on the street, breaking both their legs
with a baseball bat, blindfolding them, and then challenging them to
fight. This was an invasion, not a war.)
Thus, keeping control of Iraq's oil will help us keep our SUVs and
keep faith with Poppy Bush's famous dictum that "the American
lifestyle is not negotiable." And transferring the money from Iraq's
oil to large corporations that heavily support Republican candidates
has obvious benefits to those currently in control of the White
House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court.
But let's consider the future. Our occupation troops are mostly
European-, Hispanic-, and African-American-ancestry Christians in an
Arab Muslim land that suffered during the Crusades. Thus, we will
continue to draw thousands of Jehadists who find it infinitely easier
to travel to Iraq than New York, and our presence will continue to
inflame nationalists passions just as the British did in their failed
venture in Iraq nearly a century ago. And George W. Bush will
probably lose the 2004 election, unless he can divert our attention
by ginning up a war somewhere else within 13 months.
On the other hand, if we declare victory and leave Iraq to its
warlords and zealots (as we've done in almost all of Afghanistan
except the city of Kabul), we'll lose access to all that oil, re-
empower OPEC, further drive up domestic gasoline prices, and leave
Iraq either as a warlord-dominated state like Afghanistan, a cleric-
dominated state like Iran, or a strongman-dominated state
like...well...Iraq was before we arrived. And it'll cost Arnold more
to run his Hummer.
Adding insult to injury, every tinpot dictator in the world will
figure there's little downside in thumbing his nose at the United
States, and, unless he can gin up a war somewhere else within 13
months (or once again fail to prevent another 9/11-type attack, God
forbid), George W. Bush will probably lose the 2004 election.
August of 2003 brought two milestones that flow directly from the
invasion: the U.S. national deficit reached an all time high,
surpassing for the first time in history the previous all-time record
held by President G.H.W. Bush; and the price of gasoline hit an all-
time high, surpassing the previous record held by President G.W.
Bush.
A small part of the deficit is related to the cost of the Iraq
invasion and occupation, and roughly 70 percent of the positive
uptick in the last quarter's economic activity was from payments to
defense contractors for the invasion itself (private for-profit
Republican-supporting companies get about a third of all the money
we're spending every month in Iraq). Profits from the occupation help
Halliburton, but don't create many jobs in Peoria.
Similarly, while the price of gasoline is high in part because we've
been slow to pump Iraq's oil (mostly because of looting and
sabotage), it'll go even higher if we turn the administration of the
oil over to a UN consortium. Every other industrialized nation in the
world is aggressively working to cut reliance on oil and is ready for
higher crude oil prices; the US under the Bush administration and
their corporate cronies has put forth, instead, an energy policy that
requires increasing amounts of foreign oil imports and will be a
disaster to our nation in the face of sustained high oil prices or
oil shortages.
At least Bush/Cheney knew where they'd get the oil to fuel their
National Energy Policy. Documents pried by a Judicial Watch lawsuit
against the Cheney energy task force meetings (at
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml) show that Cheney and
his buddies from Enron and other energy companies had drawn up maps
of Iraq's oil fields and made lists of potential corporate purchasers
of Iraqi oil - all months before 9/11/01.
These former oil industry executives know their priorities. When
George W. Bush spoke on national television to announce the start
of "war" against Iraq, he looked into the camera and asked to speak
directly to the Iraqi people. He could have appealed to their
nationalism, and asked them to join our soldiers (or at least not
shoot at them) in toppling Saddam. He could have appealed to their
knowledge of the peaceful side of Islam and asked them to go to their
mosques, which we would protect from bombing, and pray for a quick
resolution of the conflict. He could have apologized in advance for
the death and destruction he was about to unleash on their land, that
would kill many times more innocent civilians than died in the World
Trade Center, and promise that the US would do our best to make it
good after the war.
But these were not the things on Bush's mind. Instead, he said, "And
all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to
this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action.
Do not destroy oil wells..."
Corporations that contribute heavily to Republican campaign coffers
are now firmly in control of Iraq's oil and have started taking
payment for reconstruction and supply that will amount to billions of
US tax dollars.
It's unlikely these multinational corporations (many of them allowed
by the Republicans in Congress to reincorporate in Bermuda to avoid
US taxes) will look kindly on efforts to turn control of Iraq and its
oil over to the United Nations or an Arab-led consortium, even if it
will mean stability in the region and will save the lives of U.S.
servicemen and servicewomen, and Iraqi civilians caught in the
crossfire.
If Bush turns the oil and the reconstruction bonanza over to the UN,
he could lose millions in campaign contributions, and Cheney's
company Halliburton, which lost $498 million last year but just
reported (July 31) a $26 million profit, may go back to losing so
much money it can't continue the million-dollar-a-year payoff he's
still receiving.
George W. Bush confronts one of the most difficult choices of his
life: Should he turn Iraq over to the UN and thus save the lives of
our men and women in uniform, but lose the oil, the campaign cash,
and probably the election? Or should he keep our troops in Iraq to
protect Halliburton, Bechtel, and his other Republican corporate
campaign donors, skim millions in campaign cash out of the billions
these friendly corporations are being paid by American taxpayers, and
hope all that money can buy enough commercials to make Americans
forget about the price of gasoline, growing Iraqi nationalism, and
the resulting coffins returning to America on a daily basis.
Or maybe there's a third option. If the American media keep ignoring
the oil, don't report on Bush's unwillingness to attend GI funerals
(he'd rather take a month-long vacation and play golf), and continue
to overlook the obvious connections between Iraqi nationalism and
dead Americans, Bush could repeat his very successful political
strategy from the middle of the fall 2002 election campaign that
threw the Senate into Republican hands. He could simply declare his
intention to start another war mid-2004, stimulating anti-war
protests and dividing Americans, and then again use that division to
paint Democrats with a yellow brush.
Which will it be? Only Karl Rove knows for sure. But whichever way it
goes, you can bet American taxpayers and soldiers will pay the bill
in cash and blood, and democracy will be the weaker for it.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the bestselling author of
over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last
Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and the host of a nationally syndicated
daily talk show, "The Thom Hartmann Program," that runs opposite Rush
Limbaugh. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom
Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email,
blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and the title
is unchanged.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0904-11.htm
***********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
ACT ON YOUR DUTY TO REFUSE TO SUPPORT ANY SOCIETY
that would be party to Mass Murder.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Daniel J. Lavigne
I don't see how maintaining our presense in Iraq is sustainable. The
politically expedient method, would be to increase troop's strength as
resistance rises. This is akin to building a levee higher to meet
rising water levels, as they rise. Eventually a failure in the levee
or a surge in water levels is likely to cause a disaster.
As I've written before, the only way to 'win', would be using
overwhelming force of numbers. We need so many soldiers on the ground,
protecting infrastructure and borders, that no Iraqi will dare
challenge the US at any location. Maybe half a million men would be
enough to accomplish this. A million would probably be plenty.
If Bush wants to redirect focus, then he needs a new war. It needs to
be in a Muslim coutnry, and it needs to be a place where oil doesn't
play such an important role. A good strong firefight in such a nation,
lasting years, would divert public and Middle East attention from Iraq
and allow US contractors to get the oil flowing.
The trick would be to one-up the war on Iraq. The next war needs a lot
more body bags coming home, in order to drive home the point to
Americans, that Iraq wasn't so bad after all. The more body bags that
Bush and Cheny produce in the next war, the more money they can get
out of the Iraqi adventure without complaints from the American mothers.
I think Iran would be an ideal battleground and if the invasion of
Iran is handled as well as the invasion of Iraq, then Bush should be
able to get the GI body count into the tens or hundreds a day. This
would divert attention from Iraq and keep those checks coming to Bush,
Cheney and friends. It might even get him re-elected.
If Bush decides to stop with Iraq, then that's where his defeat will
be measured. He will also likely lose the next election. Profits for
him and his friends will be in contention, with no sitting president
looking to directly protect them.
If he moves on to Iran, then defeat will be counted later and will be
more dramatic. but in the meantime, profits will be higher for himself
and his friends. Haliburton's and Bechtel's short term survival may
just depend on an increase in casualties. Peace in the region, or a
fallback, leading to jihad, would likely lead to bankruptcy of both
corporations.
Jack Dingler
ronin
"Daniel J. Lavigne" <tax...@taxrefusal.com> wrote in message
news:3F5D02D9...@taxrefusal.com...
It's been done.
Remember Afghanistan?
If president doofus moves into Iran, his soldiers won't go with him.
Or worse, the troops will have Shia that hate them on both sides.
More american bodies.
beber
<tax...@taxrefusal.com> wrote:
>Or maybe there's a third option. If the American media keep ignoring
>the oil, don't report on Bush's unwillingness to attend GI funerals
>(he'd rather take a month-long vacation and play golf), and continue
>to overlook the obvious connections between Iraqi nationalism and
>dead Americans, Bush could repeat his very successful political
>strategy from the middle of the fall 2002 election campaign that
>threw the Senate into Republican hands. He could simply declare his
>intention to start another war mid-2004, stimulating anti-war
>protests and dividing Americans, and then again use that division to
>paint Democrats with a yellow brush.
They'll spend a half billion on advertising about partial birth
abortions, the ten commandments and prayer in the school, and the
bozos will re-elect him. We deserve what is coming.
>