Oil Strawmen - American Empire Posted by Matt (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 09:30AM EST)

The neo-conservatives have been gifted, or created, convenient strawmen with the ludicrous arguments that buying SUVs supports terrorism. I label these strawmen since they are a convenient target when one is unable to counter the sophisticated "it's about the oil" arguments. Is the pending Iraq War about the oil? It had better be. If it isn't about the oil, then the US government is hopelessly inept at running an Empire. While I don't support plunder through warfare (I prefer markets), plunder and piracy is a motive I can at least identify. If the Iraq War is about creation of an independent Kurdistan, then the US gov't is royally screwing things up. Raimondo's Israel theory is attractive, but I like to think that Rumsfeld and Cheney aren't getting their marching orders directly from Tel Aviv. The problem lies in identifying petro-economic motives as equivalent to those that would result in lower prices at the US pumps so that we can afford more gas guzzling SUVs and Sports Cars [in the interests of identifying potential bias, the author drives a Range Rover and a Cobra Mustang, neither of which are known for fuel efficiency]. No one that matters wants lower prices at the pumps. Middle East oil production has very little to do with prices at US pumps. The US only imports 54% of its oil, and of that, only 24% of the oil comes from the Persian Gulf region. For the math impaired, that amounts to a whopping 13% of US oil coming from the Middle East. So where does all the Middle Eastern oil go? Europe and Japan! So it is about the oil, just not in the strawman version that is easy to tear down. Controlling the Middle Eastern oil means a Europe and Pacific Rim dependent on the US for defense and commerce, because petroleum is the lifeblood of industry and the associated cash is the lifeblood of finance. US hegemony in the Middle East also means oil will continue to be priced in Dollars instead of Euros. So the next time someone says "it is about the oil" make sure they understand how, and if someone mentions SUVs and pump prices, let them know they are working with a strawman. War is incompatible with free markets, and real conservatives shouldn't be willing to abandon their morality in favor of greed.

< Bush the Heretic | Having fun with Ready.Gov >

By funkman (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 10:03AM EST)

Maybe its Saddam is not going along with gloablization and marching to the beat of a different drummer: "Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence." from http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm Or maybe its to avenge Daddy. Or maybe it is the oil. Iraq oil is low and sulfer and easier/cheaper to process and higher quality to appease all the new environmental regulations. Or maybe its a simple way to look left and right to Iran and Saudi Arabia and said - you got a problem with our Christian nation? Or maybe its an easy way for an oil rich administration to pay their oil rich friends with oil rich contracts. Or maybe there are turrists in Iraq. Or maybe Iraq is planning a land war in the Soviet union in the winter.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 12:03PM EST)

The Bush Administration is deperately trying to tie Saddam Hussein to the "War On Terror." Specifically they've cited al-Zarqawi's stint in Baghdad after the demise of the Taliban in nearby Afghanistan. Scrutiny of the "evidence" fails to provide a direct link to the Iraqi government. It is known that al-Zarqawi sought medical treatment in Baghdad for wounds suffered in the fight against American forces in the Afghani mountains. But there exists no evidence that the Iraqi government was aware of his presence. The reason the Bush Aministration are desperately trying to tie Hussein to al Qaeda, I suspect, is due to the fact that war against Iraq is related to the "War On Terror." I like to think that Bush and Co. now realize that the real enemy is Saudi Arabia. Since the attacks on the US were carried out by Saudi citizens not in conjunction with the House of Saud, Washington has no official recourse against an "ally" which has been fueling the anti-Western sentiments that have made the attacks possible. But if Washington were able to place the Iraqi oil fields into the hands of a pro-Western government, then suddenly it has the leverage necessary to play the heavy hand with the House of Saud. As Matt mentioned above, Middle Eastern oil is vital to the economies of Europe and Japan which means it's vital the economy of the United States. Bush cannot isolate the Saudis without first providing a protected supply of Middle Eastern oil to the global economy. Placng the world's second largest oil reserve in Western friendly hands does exactly that. The problem lies in the fact that Bush and Co. are lying through their teeth with regard to their reasons for immediately attacking Iraq. Saddam Hussein does not pose an immediate and direct threat to the United States no matter how you spin it. But if that is the pretext for the argument to invade Iraq, then the logic applied falls apart upon scrutiny.

[ reply | parent ]

By funkman (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 12:14PM EST)

I also find it strangest that the War on Terror really has its roots in the original Gulf War. When Saddam waltzed into Kuwait, OBL was ready with forces to do battle against Saddam, much like Afganistan. The US took the lead, brushed off OBL, and the rest is history. I wonder what would've happened if the US would have sat back (if not so scared sh!tless from fluctuating oil prices and a return to 70's rationing) and let OBL take the lead in ousting Saddam.

[ reply | parent ]

By Matt (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 01:51PM EST) This was what pissed ObL off so badly at the House of Saud: they turned to infidels for protection instead of his Mujahadin. They even allowed a permanent Frank base in the Holy Land! [ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Tuesday February 25 2003 @ 03:45PM EST)

The assertion that Mid-East Oil has little effect on prices at US pumps needs more support than the numbers provided. While the 13.9% of total coming from Persian Gulf seems low, it is actually the highest our dependency has been in 40 years of data (your sources). In the 1973-1974 period the figure was only 6.2 - 7.1%. At the time of the Gulf war it was 11.6%. Clearly there is significant leverage over the US directly and not through the effects on our global dependents. Also of note, Iraq supplies 4% of US total as of 2001 -- also the highest in history. Clearly this dependency is high relative to the past. I am not arguing for oil as the proximate cause of this -- or against -- just for clarity on the numbers.

[ reply | parent ]

By Matt (Wednesday February 26 2003 @ 08:13AM EST) I suppose this depends on what one means by "very little". The current price rises may have as much to do with the general strike in Venezuela as the pending war. Perhaps more - are prices at Hess, a company who imports no Middle Eastern oil, significantly less than those at Exxon? If Middle Eastern oil was completely cut off with a resulting 13% drop in supply, there would be a rise in prices for a short time, but these would quickly stabilize as other sources (Alaska, South America) filled the deficit. [ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Wednesday February 26 2003 @ 08:55AM EST) You are correct to link the current rise in prices to Venezuela. Unfortunately, there is some estimation that the strike has damaged the fields for some time and they will remain at about 66% of their previous production levels. When I say the strike damaged -- I don't mean sabotage -- oil wells have to be run continuously in order to keep optimum levels. Additionally, there have been strikes in Nigeria and safety problems with Japan's nuclear power program -- which has led to Japan importing an add'l 600k barrels a day. The crux with the Mid-East is that they are the swing supply and have a buffer of about 4 million bpd. There is little or no excess capacity outside of OPEC except the US Strategic supply which can supply 2.5 million bpd. More to the point -- a restriction in supply anywhere in the global market leads to higher prices everywhere -- so there is no such thing as a safe source to insulate one from price increases. Some have modeled that a 3.5 mbpd drop from the current global levels of 68 mbpd (a 5.1% decrease) would keep oil prices at $32 / barrel after factoring in the US Strategic Reserve contribution. That is $4-$7 higher than the widely considered optimum range of $25-$28 price and has significant impacts over time on everything from productivity to inflation. (Chapter 3 particularly but all of interest) http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/War_with_Iraq.pdf [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday February 26 2003 @ 01:11PM EST) When it's all said and done, oil gets plunked into a single supply. If Middle Eastern production was suddenly cut, Japan and Europe will find themselves slurping from the same barrel as the United States with all parties sharing the cost of increased competition for limited supply. It's purely for political reasons that we like to say that we buy X from Y and not from Z. [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!