Join the Army, See Iraq
by Ian McPherson To base or not to base
Donald Rumsfeld was quick to squash rumours that the US intends to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, stating "I have never heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed". But the rumours just won't die, leaking from US military circles, Iraq survey teams on the ground and the Arab press close to the Iraq Governing Council. This report, from Al-Arab Al-Yawm, indicates that the country was thoroughly surveyed by US intelligence organisations, which eventually decided upon the following locations: - Al-Habbaniyah Airbase, near the city of al-Fallujah, 65km west of Baghdad,
- Ash-Sha'biyah Airbase in Basra, 600km south of Baghdad
- Ali ibn Abi Taleb Airbase on the outskirts of the city of an-Nasiriyah, 400km south of Baghdad,
- Al-Walid Airbase about 330km north west of Baghdad
- Al-Ghazlani Camp in the city of Mosul, 400km north of Baghdad
- The Hamrin mountain range area
Perhaps the most convincing report comes from retired USAF lieutenant colonel, Karen Kwiatkowski, who spent her final four and a half years at the Pentagon. Her statement in a recent article is forthright; "The mission IS accomplished. Neoconservative objectives require a major repositioning of US military forces into Iraq, and we have done that. Four permanent bases are being built to American standards. These bases will be operational whether Iraq is stable and democratic, or just another Somalia replete with warlord rule, religious fundamentalist furor and abject poverty."
Why, then, is there so much debate on an Iraq exit strategy, when the evidence is mounting that the Bush administration is planning to station US troops there permanently? For the answer to that, we'll have to travel back in time a little to the Cheney Energy Task Force in 2001, and meet Matthew Simmons.
Matthew "Bad News" Simmons and the Cheney Energy Task Force
As I reported in my August NetNacs! column, the Cheney Energy Task Force requested maps of the Iraq oil fields in March 2001 (well before Sept. 11), from the US Commerce Department. These maps detailed the known oil deposits in Iraq, the oil fields currently producing, the oil fields under consideration for development, all refineries, pipelines, terminals and more.
What was the Task Force doing with these maps? And why was it so interested in Iraq's oil deposits? Enter Matthew Simmons, their official oil and energy consultant, and key member of The Association for the Study Of Peak Oil & Gas. What could Simmons possibly tell Cheney and his advisers that would make them scramble to source the Iraq oil maps? I believe he told them that the US, and the world, are running out of oil - fast. 
He may also have told them that there is currently no form of energy that can replace oil, in the short and medium term, and that the US will increasingly be dependent upon foreign sources. According to the oil industry experts, US oil reserves will be depleted within 10 years, at current production levels. And the UK is in a worse fix. Its reserves will be depleted within 6 years, again at current production levels.
The bottom line? The US will become heavily reliant on Middle East oil in the medium term as its own oil becomes depleted. Meanwhile US domestic consumption is continuing to grow quickly. In 20 years, most of the non-Middle East oil sources will be depleted, leaving only Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Kuwait and ... you guessed it ... Iraq, to supply the majority of the world's oil.
Crying wolf or sensible puppies?
There are as many opinions on how much oil is under the ground as there are companies exploring for it. Many of these companies have an interest in promoting the idea that oil is virtually limitless (to ensure investment), while others, such as respected oil scientist Colin Campbell and The Association for the Study Of Peak Oil & Gas, have long predicted a coming oil crisis. So, who is right? Is the world running out of oil? Or are the scientists crying wolf?
Firstly, the world is not running out of oil - yet. Rather, world oil production is predicted to "peak" with a few years (2010 at the latest). This means that we have passed the half way point, extracted the best and most easily found reserves, and are now facing a situation where oil will become harder and more expensive to extract from the ground.
This is serious enough, however, to worry us all, as it will bring about a "seller's market" run by a handful of countries, more expensive oil exploration costs, more dry wells - and worst of all - an increasing reliance upon the handful of countries I mentioned earlier. To add to the dilemma, hundreds of billions of dollars will need to be invested in these countries, to boost production enough to meet world demand, if indeed that can be done.
The US is in Iraq to stay
In oil industry terms, Iraq is the last frontier. Only about 10% of the country has been adequately surveyed, yet it still boasts the second largest oil reserves in the world (next to Saudi Arabia). Additionally, the oil from Iraq is almost sulpher-free, making it easy to refine. With its own sea port, the country has the potential to become one of the world's leading oil suppliers. A current pipeline pumps oil to Turkey, and another pipeline planned by the US would pump oil to Israel and then by ship to the US.
I think it is fair to say that if Iraq's main export was dates, the US would not be there now. But if the US is to maintain its superpower status, it requires not only a growing, reliable oil supply, but it needs to be able to control that supply in the face of the economic and strategic threat that is China. The Chinese were getting fairly close to Iraq prior to the war, as they too require a reliable supply of oil. After Gulf War I, the Chinese helped fix the telephone and electricity systems in Iraq, amongst other things.
One of the most important uses for oil in the US is to fuel the military. The military uses an astonishing amount of oil and oil byproducts, and without a military there is no defense - or in this age of preemptive strikes - offense. Converting the US military to another form of energy would be impossible in the short term and largely impossible in the medium term. Currently, there is a push within the military to convert to diesel fuel, which makes sense, but one thing's for sure. You can't be a world superpower without an army, navy and air force running on oil.
When were they going to tell us?
The Bush administration's reasons for the necessity of invading Iraq concentrated upon; - the threat posed by tons of weapons of mass destruction
- human rights violations
- removing a vicious dictator, and
- spreading democracy in the Mideast
These reasons, whilst credible, are clearly not really what this war was about. This is a power-play by the US, up against its competitors from Russia, the EU and China. It was always about oil, as there is nothing else in Iraq worth a bean - unless you count the dates :)
So, while Cheney, Bush and Rice run their secret Task Forces, researching Iraq's oil reserves and planning the future of the world, it is wise to keep in mind that all of them were oil men and women before becoming politicians, and for us to imagine that their core interests have suddenly changed is particularly naive.
It is also no coincidence that the US military has been redesigned to allow it to be more mobile, and more able to strike into those areas of the world where strife and oil dominate the agenda. Professor Michael T. Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, Amherst, has produced an excellent paper that highlights the twin thrusts of US foreign oil policy.
On one hand the US exerts economic and diplomatic pressure on foreign countries to obtain oil imports and open up local markets to US investment. If that doesn't work, the US armed forces are primed and ready to intervene. In most cases, the US uses a combination of the two approaches, in the guise of "economic and military assistance".
This shows, in my opinion, a fair degree of contempt for the public, and a sinister and dangerous direction for government to take. If we're grown up enough to pay the taxes that pay our politicians wages, then we're grown up enough to be told the truth. If the West has a big oil problem, let's hear about it, and let's hear about it from our so-called leaders and what we like to call the "free press". 
Thundering around the world "freeing" nations from evil dictators is one thing, but doing it to secure future oil supplies and establish permanent military bases with the ability to strike anywhere in the immediate region is quite another. Not only have our leaders managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, but they have enraged half the world by insisting that God is on our side. So, instead of a war to secure a vital world resource, which everyone can understand, we now have a "war on Islam", which no-one understands.
Then again, it certainly serves the politician's purposes to have a "war on terror". I can't think of a better way to mask the West's real strategic intentions, than to have an invisible, nation-less enemy to blame every time we need to "free" another oil-producing nation.
Look at Uzbekistan. Here's a country run by a ruthless, ex-KGB dictator, who commits human rights violations daily against his Muslim countrymen and women. The US has military bases in Uzbekistan, but does it do anything about "freeing" the people? No way. Uzbekistan exports oil to the US, accepts "economic and military assistance" from the US, and is a partner in the "war on terror". With partners like this, who needs enemies?
Vested interests, no direction
What should our politicians be doing? First off, they should be honest with the public. This oil depletion problem is bigger than any issues you might have over the health system or the education system, because without a reliable supply of oil and its byproducts neither of these systems are sustainable. Even agriculture and medicine will be seriously impacted by oil depletion. most likely within 10 years.
Oil is important, but not to run your SUV, rage around the local lake in your power cruiser or to go drag racing. Oil is important because we need every last drop to research and develop other, sustainable sources of energy, that do not have the same side effects; global warming, war and human rights violations. And we need to do it now, not in 20 years time. As long as governments hand out subsidies to their buddies in big oil, to help fund their increasingly expensive efforts to find a disappearing resource, the situation will only become worse.
As Matthew Simmons is keen to state, not only to the Cheney Energy Task Force, but to anyone who will listen; “We need a wake up call. We need it desperately. We need basically a new form of energy. I don't know that there is one.”
With these words ringing in Dick Cheney's ears, it's not hard to understand why the Bush administration has been reluctant to honestly and clearly answer the two key questions surrounding the rush to war; "Why Iraq? And why now?".
More reading:
Links: Papers: See you all in the next issue! Ian McPherson
DownUnder Editor |
