Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

[dinarbeleiver]

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm **** Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

“Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.”

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq’s economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” Today it does.

Exclusive: Hans Blix on ‘terrible mistake’ in Iraq

In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush’s first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in 2004, “Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly.”

In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.

Here’s how they did it.

The State Department Future of Iraq Project’s Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.”

Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow

The list of the group’s members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum — who was appointed Iraq’s oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 — was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of “Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq.” Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group’s objectives.

At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney’s staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq’s postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq’s oil ministry and then as “advisers” to the Iraqi government.

Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation’s legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq’s oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.

Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring?

This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ”surge” of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to “promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.”

But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and “ruin the country’s future.”

In 2008, with the likelihood of the law’s passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.

Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide — and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.

Why women are less free after Iraq War

Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad’s company, CMX-Gryphon, “provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq.”

The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq’s oil sector.

But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.

They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq’s oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers.

Iraq’s oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq’s state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq’s other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.

Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.

In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil’s super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.

Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have “taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty” and should “set a timetable for withdrawal.”

Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron’s Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, “Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service” (PDF).

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.

CNN

Link http://peakoil.com/business/why-the-war-in-iraq-was-fought-for-big-oil

[hame55]

Of course. It's all true. (factual statements)

 

I have been following all this closely for ten years - there are new statements I had not heard from generals on the ground concerning an oil war.

 

Now the righties will come in squawking about CNN as the source - the communist news network... LOL

 

They'll wait to hear it on FOX....and wait......and wait....

 

It's about everywhere on Internet news and some TV news, but never on FOX - unless they attempt to discredit the statements.

 

Thanks Dinar Believer!

Edited April 19, 2013 by hame55

[iRaQi_VeT_716]

Greatly spoken!!!

Of course. It's all true. (factual statements)

I have been following all this closely for ten years - there are new statements I had not heard from generals on the ground concerning an oil war.

Now the righties will come in squawking about CNN as the source - the communist news network... LOL

They'll wait to hear it on FOX....and wait......and wait....

It's about everywhere on Internet news and some TV news, but never on FOX - unless they attempt to discredit the statements.

Thanks Dinar Believer!

[Belecosity]

Of course. It's all true. (factual statements)

 

I have been following all this closely for ten years - there are new statements I had not heard from generals on the ground concerning an oil war.

 

Now the righties will come in squawking about CNN as the source - the communist news network... LOL

 

They'll wait to hear it on FOX....and wait......and wait....

 

It's about everywhere on Internet news and some TV news, but never on FOX - unless they attempt to discredit the statements.

 

Thanks Dinar Believer!

Not saying we did not go in their for oil, but why would china own %80 of the oil fields in Iraq if we just went in there to take all their oil??

 

Saddam was a terrible guy, but you're right we did go in for oil, but not to take it all, to protect the petro dollar.

 

There is alot of evil leaders in the world, so why did we go into Iraq and kill saddam vs. every other evil person? -- to protect our dollar.

Saddam was trading his oil for the euro, going against OPEC and the petro dollar system.

 

I'm sure oil companies like exxon have made money from this, but to think we just went in to take all of Iraq's oil is not true. those deals were signed to ensure the private oil companies coming in would trade with the dollar system unlike Saddam who "attempted" to defy it.

 

Neither FOX or CNN will cover that. They're both sheeple networks.

 

yah I'm a  conservative and would prefer fox news over CNN, but I would prefer to have real news, not just surface news that means nothing.

[jim16640]

not bad planning; we now drill the oil, we now got trillions of dinar that buy huge amounts of iraq oil - or offset us debts; and alot of us become millionaires, and alot of millionaire become billionaires. and all the banks use their secret dinar holdings to increase their reserves on their balance sheets.  i like it. 

[umbertino]

Quote

Saddam was a terrible guy,

End Quote

 'course he was but that was never the point  for going there.

[truepatriot]

Quote

Saddam was a terrible guy,

End Quote

 'course he was but that was never the point  for going there.

Saddam might have been a ****** but he was dealt with because he refused to 'play ball'.

Only good little obedient puppet leaders like Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden can thrive in the new world order

[Belecosity]

Quote

Saddam was a terrible guy,

End Quote

 'course he was but that was never the point  for going there.

I think i covered that in my initial post..................

Saddam might have been a ****** but he was dealt with because he refused to 'play ball'.

Only good little obedient puppet leaders like Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden can thrive in the new world order

agreed bro... look at gadaffi came out with the a gold backed dinar.... boom deam.

[stealthwarrior]

Almost all wars are fought over riches.

[truepatriot]

I think i covered that in my initial post..................

agreed bro... look at gadaffi came out with the a gold backed dinar.... boom deam.

 

Ah yes...actually coming out with a fully asset backed currency is a big no no with the globalists.After all without massive debt through fiat currency and derivitives how will they ever finally get their global financial collapse they are wanting so much these days?Gadaffi was a very very naughty boy.

 

Right now Assad and Little Kimmy are the main loners on the block.I expect the bigger kids on the playground to keep bullying and ganging up on them until they give in or their countries are 'liberated for democracy' ( LOL) like Sadaams citizens.Thats code for 'invade,grab assets,and establish new Rothschild bank.' 

Edited April 20, 2013 by truepatriot

[dontlop]

its all clintons fault for signing  the iraqi liberation act into law in 1998 ..after he made the connection of saddam hussien and alkieda ,, his reasonnig for bombing sudan and afganistan .. as well as iraq ..

 

al gore led the way before clintons first election  claiming bush senior was ignoring alkieda connections between bagdad and usama bin ladin ..

 

  <<  gore 

 

Bill Clinton 1998 Iraq Liberation Act  >>> 

 ya big oil .. and diccck cheney from  haliburton

Clinton Orders Missile Attack (1993)

  clinton is bombing iraqs nuclear facilities .. poisen gas ,, and bio weapons ..

Of course. It's all true. (factual statements)

 

I have been following all this closely for ten years - there are new statements I had not heard from generals on the ground concerning an oil war.

 

Now the righties will come in squawking about CNN as the source - the communist news network... LOL

 

They'll wait to hear it on FOX....and wait......and wait....

 

It's about everywhere on Internet news and some TV news, but never on FOX - unless they attempt to discredit the statements.

 

Thanks Dinar Believer!

it really is to bad you missed the first 15 years