I am having trouble figuring out why we really went into Iraq in the
first place.  Possibilies include Oil, the military-industrial
complex, Israel, flexing our muscles, and/or some kind of long term
secret strategy I may never figure out.
My question relates to oil:  How much, economically speaking, did the
United States have to gain with regards to guaranteeing themselves a
future supply of oil in Iraq?  More specifically, was the United
States getting oil from Iraq right before we invaded them?  Could the
U.S. have gained more oil from the invasion of Iraq?  Could the U.S.
have lowered the price of oil in the long run as a result of the
invasion?  To sum it up in one question:
What is the best case scenario of invading Iraq if my goal is more/cheaper oil?
Round to the nearest billion please.

War aims of the United States

  I will start with a quote from a history book:

"The American conviction that it was our mission to redeem the world
had been considerably modified by the course of history....
conviction of most Americans that rest of the world was sunk in sin and evil
and that the United States was the social vessel of the Almighty.."

had practical consequences in the foreign policy:
" Any effort (of the European powers) to extend their system to any
portion of this hemisphere would be considered ' as  dangerous to our
peace and safety'  ..

What was promptly called the Monroe Doctrine enjoyed instant success ..
United States  had put herself forward as the friend of all those who
struggled for peace and Independence ..

        page 715-717 pf vol 3, Peoples History of the young republic [
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0070590176/qid=1136500907/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7594500-8510243?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
]

  The Bush doctrine is an extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the rest
of the world.

After seeing the "Motorcycle Diaries"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318462/

recently , I looked up Che's biography and was a bit surprised that
coup in Guatemala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#Guatemala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

was not mostly about bananas and United_Fruit Company as I thought,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

but more an expression of Monroe doctrine, which was modulated by the Cold War,
as were later interventions in the Latin America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

as described here:
 "internal CIA documents released during the CIA's brief "openness"
initiative in the 1990's after the fall of Soviet Union, revealed that
the United Fruit Company actually played much less of a role in the
coup than previously thought, and with McCarthy-era Communist paranoia
being the main factor influencing the decision to overthrow Arbenz.
Nevertheless, despite most Guatemalans' attachment to the original
ideals of the 1944 uprising, some private sector leaders and the
military began to believe that Arbenz represented a Communist threat
and supported his overthrow..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

Similarly, Iraq is not mostly about oil. If you read Kagan's brilliant
expose of the neocon philosophy, a philosophical basis of Bush's
doctrine
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=50&ItemID=4955
http://flakmag.com/books/powerparadise.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_6_55/ai_98954248#continue
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/871

you will notice it is not about Middle East and oil.
 Well, it is not only about that,
like Guatemala coup was not only about bananas.

So, what is it about?  It is about power, and safety, and right
principles for the world.
Think about nuclear proliferation: Does it represent a danger? Danger
to US - indeed to the whole world? Is Iran developing nuclear weapons?
 Some people think that nothing can be done, but neocons are more optimistic:
" The Bush administration therefore has implemented a radically new
nonproliferation approach. Previous U.S. presidents treated the
weapons themselves as the problem and sought their elimination through
treaties. President Bill Clinton, for example, warned in November 1998
of the threat ?posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons and the means of delivering such weapons? (italics
added). President Bush framed the issue differently in his 2003 State
of the Union  address: ?The gravest danger facing America and the
world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons? (italics added). The Bush  administration thus
changed the focus from ?what? to ?who.? This corresponds to a strategy
that seeks the elimination of regimes rather than weapons .."
 http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/Rome_Conference_Paper.pdf.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-06.htm


Now, as public opinion is turning against the war and decision to
invade Iraq without the UN mandate, let's not make president Bush a
scapegoat.
This is a good time to look at our history in wider historical perspective:
Since we do not have all the facts,  we will employ the method used to
solve a mystery novels and ask

                "Why did Hussein invaded Kuwait"?

  Was he insane? Did he though that he can resist US policy in the
region?  Everyone knew that Middle east was covered by the Bush-Monroe
doctrine.

Answer is  fairly clear: He was not insane, only gullible and perhaps
a bit stupid.  He followed US lead to invade Iran after the US client,
the Shah was kicked out, and he believed that he has US consent to
invade Kuwait. Here is a quote from a relevant  discussion:

"HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a
reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a
disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I
admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you
need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have
the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the
Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

US ambassador: " I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the
late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America. James Baker has directed our official
spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this
problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak.
All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard
to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?"
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
and other links from SEARCH TERMS: Hussein Kuwait ambassador

   In other words: Sherlock Holmes method indicates that Hussein was
doomed even before he invaded Kuwait. US people and politicians do
notrespect the foreign politicians they employ, from Somoza, Pahlavi,
Noriega, to ...  (well, let's stick to the past) and conclude:

 Dr. Rice recently visited Europe to explain and defend the 'renditions'

 "Secretary Rice made extra-legal rendition sound like just another form of ...
from prisons in eastern Europe to a new facility in North Africa last month. ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4501948.stm
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/ international/0,1518,388805,00.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ library/news/2005/intell-051206-rferl03.htm

she  was asked by a journalist about location of the 'secret prisons'
which US was accused to operate in Romania and perhaps Poland. Gondi
declined the question, since answer would 'endanger intelligence
sources'.  This was reported in the East European press, and
immediately understood by the local population, which normally, or
until recently, was rather naive about the Monroe-Bush doctrine: The
location of prison operated by a secret police, the people which were
'disappeared' and their fate is never disclosed. that is why this kind
of police is called secret. Makes sense.


Sherlock Holmes method indicates that extended Monroe doctrine is not
limited to the Middle East.  It now covers the whole world. The 
territory of the US is (mostly) excluded. Human rights and civil
liberties are  (mostly) respected in the US, but may be temporarily
suspended in the rest of the world. There are benefits to the plan:
Global government means that eternal dream of mankind is now at hand.

"This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the
United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing,
one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren?t
European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to
use the UN to implement their own brand of world government." ..
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm
http://www.greaterthings.com/WorldGov/


  So, that's why we are in Iraq.
 
 People of the Iraq, people of the world, need to accept the fact that
we know what is good for them better then they do.

 Certainly, any government which will be established under our
auspices will be better than what they had under their old dictators
(which were also on our payroll anyway - but got too big  for their
breeches).
 It is only question of time.  The New World Order is an aristocracy -
 a natural aristocracy (as Jefferson used to say) which will fulfill
the manifest of this great nation, of this blue planet.
 The founding fathers knew about this when they wrote 

"New Age Now Begins".
 
 It took mere 220 years to beocme manifest.


Any other questions?

Hedgie

---

Request for Answer Clarification by nietzcheisdead-ga on 06 Jan 2006 09:57 PST

I must admit, I am very impressed by your answer (not the one I asked,
but the one I wanted answered).  I never thought of it in such a wider
historical viewpoint.  I knew we have had a history of occupying other
nations, but I never thought that same "idealistic impulse" would
apply today.
The media I listen to (bbc, cnn, etc.) has never put the war in a
historical context in the shadow of the Monroe Doctrine.

"The New World Order is an aristocracy -
 a natural aristocracy (as Jefferson used to say) which will fulfill
the manifest of this great nation, of this blue planet."
Fascinating! I love it. I think I might just get it.  We are better. 
Why not become the ruler?  Hmmm.

Does this mean that there are some really smart people in power who
are just planning this whole thing out?  Will I get to be an
aristocrat?

---

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 06 Jan 2006 17:04 PST

Nietche dead ?

   Thank you for the tip and rating.  This is something we are all 
 (allmost all?) are thinking about. Your question helped me to put on
  paper (I mean screen) what I was mulling about.

" Will I get to be an aristocrat?"
   
   As an american citizen you already are priviledged and it is heriditary.
   It can evolve to democracy or it can end like in the french revolution
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/french_revolution.asp 

Hedgie

I hope you get a full answer to your questions. In the meantime, there
is one comment I should like to make. Had the main aim of the US been
to get more oil on stream, and thereby keep the price down, then the
easiest strategy would have been not to invade Iraq, but to support
those countries (notably France and Russia) which wanted to end the
sanctions on Iraq.

Incidentally, there is another question you might have included - how
much of the oil now flowing from Iraq is actually going to the US?

Geof-- 

Easy answer to the question you raised. 80% of Iraq's output goes to
the US. Output for December 2005 was 1.1 million barrels per day.
Anybody know what the prewar output was? Go look it up. I'll wait...

*humming*

Fascinating, isn't it? Iraq relies on petroleum for some 90% of its economy. 

Just an aside, as Iraq's refining facilities are in a shambles and
transports are under threat of attack, they are importing over
three-fourths of their gasoline now.

On the Thursday before the Iraq invasion I was having lunch in London
with some very old friends of mine who are well plugged in with their
contemporaries.

They said: 'We need to establish a base in the area from which we can
reach out and get those terrorists'

I pointed out to them that Bin Laden would have a short and unpleasant
life as a guest of Saddam, also that the 'terrorists' are Saudi
malcontents
- the Saudis would not welcome foreign incursions to scoop up their
domestic problems.

As we saw, the Saudis kicked out the US bases, which will destabilize the regime.

I find it hard to believe that the US advisors could have been thick
enough to believe that a Ba'athist regime would be in cohorts with
Islamisist nihilists.

For a start the British Foreign Office would have told the US what the
political layout looked like.

I find it rather incredible that the US should believe that it could
dominate the Middle East (thereby ensuring oil supplies) by invading a
Middle Eastern state.

Enemies unite in the face of a common threat.

Using Reducto Ad Absurdum, if the Middle East had no oil (or other
resources) then nobody would be interested in it - even if the whole
place were a training ground for Al Qaeda, the simplest and cheapest
option is a few bombs and a spot of de-stabilization.

My take is that it was a gross miscalculation
- an extrapolation on the fact that some rather unstable regimes
welcomed discreet US bases for population control
- resulting in the daft idea that one could take over an entire country

People don't mind foreign troops (too much), but they hate invaders
- especially incompetent invaders

The sad thing is that it could have worked, if the US had recruited
and supported the Ba'athists, then retreated, it would have looked
like a coup d'etat.

Now the USA seems to be trying to shaft Syria (who sorted out The Lebanon)
- of course it could be a plot by the British Foreign Office to lead
the USA into bear traps ... which is not that unlikely

Don't trust us ( the British ) there are memories of how you screwed
us a long time ago - the new boy on the block ... gets a kicking.

All,

As time goes by, I am beginning to agree with geof more and more that
oil may not be a major factor in the war.  My initial reaction before
the war was that it must be about oil.  But over the years I have been
wondering if there was a better explanation (obviously it's not
promoting democracy).
If I had some basic data...  Does Iraq pumping out more oil mean
cheaper oil? I don't know.  Is cheaper oil good for the economy?  Yes.
 Is it good for energy/oil companies?  I don't know.
Markvmd- how do you know 80% of the output goes to the U.S.?  Do we
help Iraq pump it and just buy it from them (aka us)?  Doesn't it have
to go through OPEC or something?  Are you implying nobody knows what
the pre-war output was?

Frde, you argument make sense in that if there were no oil all, we
wouldn't be there.  I can believe that.  But it's not good enough.  If
Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait we may not be there right now.  This
doesn't imply that we are there because he invaded Kuwait.  If only I
could talk to Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfwoitz...

Nietzcheisdead--

I'll address yuor statements and make a few other comments.

Prewar production was 2.5 million barrels. Current production is 1.1
to 1.2 million barrels and has been falling for the past six months.

According to Baghdad press reports, Mohammed al-Abudi (Oil Ministry?s
Director General for Drilling) stated ?We do not know the exact
quantity of oil being exported; we do not exactly know the prices
(sic) it is sold for, and we do not know where the revenue is going
to.?

Jamie Tarabay, an AP reporter in Baghdad, interviewed Zalmay
Khalilzad, US ambassador to Iraq, where he stated, "Seventy percent of
Iraq's petroleum production was exported to the US in 2005." As he
made this statement in late December 2005, he may have been
extrapolating a bit.

I apologize for incorrectly quoting this as 80 percent.

Under the May 2003 U.N. Security Council resolution 1483, the
Coalition Provisional Authority is required to deposit all the
proceeds of Iraqi oil exports into the Development Fund for Iraq. The
Coalition Provisional Authority is the administrator of the Fund,
which is on deposit with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The
Fund appears to be handled in a transparent manner.

White House economic adviser Larry Lindsay told the Wall Street
Journal in September 2002 that after a regime change in Iraq, three to
five million barrels per day could be added to the world oil supply
and that Iraqi oil would bring in over US$50 billion.

Michael T. Klare, a professor at Hampshire College and author of the
book ?Blood and Oil?, wrote that it is ?an article of faith among
America's senior policymakers ? Democrats and Republicans alike ? that
military force is an effective tool for ensuring control over foreign
sources of oil.?

If you really want to know why we went there, look no further than the
money. The US invested around US$1.3 billion in the rehabilitation of
oil plants supposedly so badly damaged during the 12 years of
sanctions as to be unusable. After this expenditure, Iraq's production
has been less than half the pre-invasion production.

And who did all that work? Halliburton.

Okay, I'm being cynical. I must admit, Hedgie's analysis is very good!

Are the Americans there for the oil or for political purposes. We can
surmise until we are blue in the face but might I leave you with this
thought directly from the Bibles book of Revelation. Rev. 17;17 For
God put [it] into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry
out [their] one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast,
until the words of God will have been accomplished.
UNTIL THE WORDS OF GOD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. It says it all.

It is clear that words were not acomplished as yet.

But we are getting closer.

I see that label 'theocon' is accepted by the right-center press:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110008203
Theocon Moment
Needed: More Sam Brownbacks, fewer Pat Robertsons.
"  limping years of the Bush administration ..
 find religious conservatives in a position of unusual strength-
 .... moved from a seat at the GOP table to a place near its head .."


and so I believe it is OK to use it.
I also believe that we have many more such moments to come,
 before the Words shall be fully accomplished.