Engelhardt: "Blood For No Oil" <-- "slogan for a sad, brainless war"

[understandinglife]

The title is derived from a sentence in Tom Engelhardt's introduction to a very important essay by Michael T Klare:

More Blood, Less Oil: The Failed U.S. Mission to Capture Iraqi Petroleum

By Michael T. Klare

September 21, 2005

It has long been 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. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to embrace this view, in February 1945, when he promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United States would establish a military protectorate over his country in return for privileged access to Saudi oil -- a promise that continues to govern U.S. policy today. Every president since Roosevelt has endorsed this basic proposition, and has contributed in one way or another to the buildup of American military power in the greater Persian Gulf region.

American presidents have never hesitated to use this power when deemed necessary to protect U.S. oil interests in the Gulf. When, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the first President Bush sent hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990, he did so with absolute confidence that the application of American military power would eventually result in the safe delivery of ever-increasing quantities of Middle Eastern oil to the United States. This presumption was clearly a critical factor in the younger Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Now, more than two years after that invasion, the growing Iraqi quagmire has demonstrated that the application of military force can have the very opposite effect: It can diminish -- rather than enhance -- America's access to foreign oil.

<clip>

Despite the debacle of Iraq, most senior policymakers appear to retain their blind faith in the efficacy of military force as a tool for securing access to foreign sources of petroleum. This, as Iraq makes painfully clear, is delusional. Yet they persist in risking the lives of young Americans and others in their continued adherence to a failed and immoral strategy. Any attempt to reconstruct American foreign policy on a more rational and ethical basis must, therefore, begin with the repudiation of the use of force in procuring foreign oil and the adoption of a forward-looking energy strategy based on increased conservation and the rapid development of alternative fuels.

Much more at the link:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=22859

As Simon Jenkins urges his fellow British citizens to recognize "To say we must stay in Iraq to save it from chaos is a lie", we must also confront the reality that our best hope of having stable access to oil and natural gas is to participate in the market place as a responsible client.

No "Noble cause" ever existed for our actions in Iraq. We all know that. We are now going to pay the price for not holding our government accountable. And, it appears Rita, is going to raise that price, measurably.

Simon Jenkins words are apropos to what we must force our government to do:

The alleged reason for occupying Iraq was to build security and democracy. We have dismantled the first and failed to construct the second. Iraq is a fiasco without parallel in recent British policy. Now we are told that we must "stay the course" or worse will befall. This is code for ministers refusing to admit a mistake and hoping someone else will after they are gone. By then the Kurds will be more detached, the Sunnis more enraged and the Shias more fundamentalist. A hundred British soldiers will have died.

America left Vietnam and Lebanon to their fate. They survived. We left Aden and other colonies. Some, such as Malaya and Cyprus, saw bloodshed and partition. We said rightly that this was their business. So too is Iraq for the Iraqis. We have made enough mess there already.

Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5290367-103677,00.html

The course of action is obvious.

1. Bush and Blair announce their commitment to withdraw in an orderly and secure manner -- meaning protecting their troops and their gear. They also announce that no British or American citizen will remain in Iraq and will only be allowed to return if the Iraq government approves their visa and the purpose of their visit.

2. British and American logistics experts devise a secure, rapid withdrawal protocol.

3. They present the protocol to Bush and Blair and Bush and Blair order the process to begin.

4. Bush and Blair go to the UN and negotiate the creation of a multi-national "stability corps" that does not have a single American or British citizen in its ranks. Members of the UN Security Council, other than American and Britain, form a negotiating team to work with the various factions in Iraq on the steps necessary to establish an Iraqi Constitution and stabilize governance and restoration of the Country.

5. All of this is done in the open so that Iraqi's know, from the moment the USA and Britain begin step # 1 that the intention is to withdraw not just militarily, but from any form of manipulation of either the government or the economy of Iraq.


Peace.

[bonito]

1. And use diplomacy with wisdom

Instead of threat and might.

[understandinglife]

3. Precisely. The rest of the world is waiting for us to do just that.

Peace.

[understandinglife]

2. "either Mr. Bush does a Nixon-to-China or his next three years are going

... to be a Bush-to-Nowhere.

And imagine if he tied this to an appeal to young people to go into science, math and engineering for the great national purpose of making us the greenest nation on the planet, to help liberate us from dependence on the worst regimes in the world for our oil and to help ease the global warming that is heating up the oceans, making our hurricanes more intense and our lowlands more vulnerable. America's kids are hungry to be challenged for some larger purpose, which has been utterly absent in this presidency.

Americans will change their long-term energy habits, and companies will develop green products, only if they are certain the price of gasoline will not go back down. A gasoline tax (Americans have already shown they'll tolerate higher prices) and stronger regulation would force U.S. companies to innovate in what is going to be one of the most important global industries in the 21st century: green technologies. By coddling our auto and industrial companies when it comes to mileage standards and the environment, all the Bush team is doing is ensuring that they will be dinosaurs and that Chinese, Japanese and Indian companies will take the lead in green technologies - because they have to and ours don't.

Look what Jeff Immelt, the C.E.O. of G.E., said: "America should strive to make energy and environmental practices a national core competency and by doing so, create exports in jobs. ... America is the leading consumer of energy. However, we are not the technical leader. Europe today is the major force for environmental innovation. European governments have encouraged their companies to invest and produce clean power technologies. The same is true for nuclear power. ... And government policy that encourages this with subsidies and other incentives is giving European companies a leg up. While Europe has been a driver for innovation, China promises to be its market."

Setting the goal of energy independence, along with a gasoline tax, could help to solve so many of our problems today - from the deficit to climate change and national security. And Americans would pay it if they thought the extra money was going to renew America, not Iran, and not just New Orleans. And if the Texas-oilman president became the energy-independence president - now, that would snap heads and make this a truly relevant presidency. No way, you say. Probably right.

From Bush's Waterlogged Halo By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN on September 21, 2005

Link:

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/opinion/21friedman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Of course, Bush is will not do it.

However, a leader like Congressman Conyers could and would.

Draft Congressman Conyers for President of the United States of America.


Peace.

[bonito]

4. I agree conyers is a good man

He's rational and objective and I think he would have sufficient support among intelligent people (the majority) to become president.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. del

[understandinglife]

5. Schell: ""If the Bush administration is not supposed to be interested in

... oil in Iraq, why are they so interested in it in Alaska?"

In the prewar period, the President simply swore that we were religiously ready to respect and preserve what he referred to as Iraq's "patrimony" -- and, when it came to serious coverage, that was about that.

On the other hand, you had an antiwar movement, one part of which was focused almost solely on the issue of Iraqi oil. The iconic oil sign of the prewar protest period (sure to be found again at the big demonstration in Washington this Saturday) was: "NO BLOOD FOR OIL." But, with two years-plus of Iraqi experience under our belts, it should now be clear that this slogan was misconceived in at least one crucial way. It should have read: "BLOOD FOR NO OIL."

As Michael Klare, author of the indispensable Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum indicates, this is perhaps the strangest, most instructive, and least written about aspect of the Iraqi invasion, occupation, and present chaos. We can be assured that, in the next few years, we're going to be hearing far more about "resource wars," tight energy supplies, and the need to nail down raw materials militarily. It may not be long before administration officials start telling us that we can't withdraw from Iraq exactly because of the world energy situation. Already, two days after Katrina hit, there was the President standing in front of the USS Ronald Reagan -- this administration's advance men have never seen an aircraft carrier they didn't want to turn into a photo op -- offering a new explanation for the war in Iraq: "If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions..."

We're guaranteed to see more Pentagon planning and war gaming based on the control of world energy supplies, not to speak of more and ever better military bases planted in far-flung, oil-rich areas of the world. So it's important, as Klare does, to take stock of what actually happened to Iraqi oil and the dreams of global dominance that went with it.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=22859

Thus Tom Engelhardt introduced the essay by Michael Klare that is the basis of the OP.

As we watch Rita strengthen, we should be collectively determine how we are going to establish the most comprehensive conservation and 'green technology' based nation on the planet. The destruction will be whatever it is going to be, of that we have no control. Now, it is necessary for our government to strive tirelessly to save people's and animal's lives.

But, when Rita is done, so should be the administration of Bush and Cheney.

And, during the time it takes us to install a new legislative and executive branch, we should be doing so with the joint objectives of halting our illegal military and economic occupation of Iraq, and forming a national and foreign policy based on resource conservation and alternative energy creation. NOT MORE RESOURCE WARS.

We should be focused on how we most effectively conserve the use of petroleum and natural gas as we rapidly use our intellects to create new alternative fuels, create new energy efficient devices, and make use of all the alternatives we already have.

We will find ourselves much less worried about terrorists because the biggest terrorists of all will have been removed -- Bush and the neoconsters and their corporate partners. And, we will find we are giving others very little motivation to hate us because we will not constantly be killing them and stealing their stuff.

It is Simple. Only greedy murderers make it otherwise.


Peace.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

6. kick.

[I Have A Dream]

7. Recommended & kicked.

:kick:

[senseandsensibility]

8. Yes it's blood for no oil

It's blood for Haliburton's coffers. This is beyond imagining. If someone made this up, no one would believe it.:grr: :cry:

[I Have A Dream]

10. You're exactly right. If it were a book or a movie, it would...

be beyond the reader's/viewer's ability to suspend disbelief.

[senseandsensibility]

12. It's mind boggling how sad and stupid

and evil this war is. And out of everyone involved in this hideous endeavor, I blame the lapdog press the most.

[I Have A Dream]

14. Yes, the average American seems to be on the lookout for...

liberal leanings in the press, but they never seem to notice the many times the B* regime has been helped by how the press handled something.

[I Have A Dream]

17. Kick

:kick:

[Imalittleteapot]

9. kick.Don't miss this story.

[orwell]

11. Americans...

...have no concept of their oil dependency as a crack addict or an alcoholic has no concept of how they destroy themselves and those around them to feed their addiction.

If it were put is stark terms what oil dependency truly means, a huge majority of Americans would endorse whatever means necessary to secure "the fix." The American ruling class understands this, so they (rightly) assume tacit acceptance of the blood for oil directive.

Face it...we are all co-conspirators every time we turn the ignition key.

[I Have A Dream]

13. I just don't understand why more people aren't screaming for...

our government to be looking more seriously into alternative fuel sources, especially now that gas/oil prices have gone up so much. And when I say "looking", I really mean "urgently looking". We really are going to be in dire straits soon. I'm an American, but I'll never understand Americans.

It gets so tiring being a Cassandra. Why will the "average" American listen so easily to the right's lies and refuse to believe the left's truths? I guess that it's because some sacrifice would be required on their parts, and that's not something that Americans are willing to do for more than a short period of time, in my opinion.

[bonito]

15. When looking for truth

And knowing, the truth will set you free, we come face to face with truth and ourselves, it is the greatest challenge of all, few can face it, but all will be lead there, some deny it, others look away, and some linger around it pointing the way, and those who face it are never heard from again. I guessing I'm lingering. Peace

[roseBudd]

16. IRAQ WAR: What is it good for?

to download:
http://bushcheated04.com/war2.pdf

Print, copy and distribute

[understandinglife]

18. Michael Schwartz: Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense

American withdrawal is therefore the cornerstone of any strategy that wants to maximize the hope of avoiding civil war. It would, at one and the same moment, remove the major source of Iraqi civilian deaths -- and remove the primary flash point that leads to the car bombings. It would certainly mean as well the withdrawal of Shia and Kurdish troops from Sunni cities -- the key to Zarqawi's ability to convince (some) Sunnis that the Shia are willing pawns of the occupation and so their eternal enemies.

The clock is ticking however. With each new American attack, more Sunnis are convinced that their hope for liberation lies with Zarqawi's strategy. And with each new terrorist attack, Shia anger -- already at a high level, given the degrading nature of the American occupation and two years of American-style "reconstruction" -- is likely to become ever more focused on the Sunni community that appears to be harboring the terrorists. Recently there have been growing signs of violent Shia retaliation. If the terrorist attacks continue unabated, then increasing numbers of Shia may adopt an attitude complementary to Zarqawi's -- blaming the entire Sunni community for the terrorist attacks. If this occurs, Zarqawi will have succeeded in his personal goal of "dragging them into the arena of sectarian war," and a raging civil war may truly develop.

Zarqawi's plan will be in danger of collapsing, however, if the U.S. withdraws.

American withdrawal would undoubtedly leave a riven, impoverished Iraq, awash in a sea of weaponry, with problems galore, and numerous possibilities for future violence. The either/or of this situation may not be pretty, but on a grim landscape, a single reality stands out clearly: Not only is the American presence the main source of civilian casualties, it is also the primary contributor to the threat of civil war in Iraq. The longer we wait to withdraw, the worse the situation is likely to get -- for the U.S. and for the Iraqis.

From Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense by Michael Schwartz
on September 22, 2005

Link:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=23549

As Tom Engelhardt notes:

Of course, as is now notoriously well known, the Bush administration helped such predictions along their un-merry course in a particularly heavy-handed way. At least three crucial aspects of Bush policy created a fatal brew, insuring that the complex situation in Iraq in 2003 would devolve in quick-time into today's catastrophic tinderbox:

First, there was the emphasis the President and his top officials put on the use of force as a primary response to global problems. (On this matter, they were fundamentalists.) Such an approach (when combined with the stripped-down, lean and mean U.S. military-lite Donald Rumsfeld was creating) acted as a recruiting agent for the insurgency that soon followed.

Second, there was the deep-seated urge of Bush's nearest and dearest to plunder the world, which meant, in the case of Iraq, those no-bid, cost-plus contracts to crony corporations which led to an Iraqi "reconstruction" that, in its essential corruption, deconstructed the country.

Finally, let's not forget their deepest urge of all, which was to occupy a key country smack in the middle of the oil heartlands of our planet and not depart. This guaranteed, as certainly as night follows day, both the insurgency that arose in Sunni areas and the angry feelings of Shiites toward their own "liberation."

As noted in the OP, the course of action is obvious and an immediate announcement of the intention to completely withdraw ALL American and British citizens, military or otherwise, followed by a logistically sound extraction and other internationally supported measures represent the actions most likely to dampen civil war.

The sooner Iraqi citizens have only themselves to confront and the sooner they know the international community is willing to assist them in having that confrontation be at the negotiation table, all parties represented, the sooner a sense of hope can begin to replace the daily doses of death and despair inflicted on them by Bush, Blair and the neoconsters.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

21. "Just when it didn’t seem like Iraq could get any worse—it gets worse."

Just when it didn’t seem like Iraq could get any worse—it gets worse.

This time, it’s the simmering battle between two Shiite paramilitary armies: the forces of the Badr Brigade, the 20,000-strong force controlled by the Iranian-supported Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and the Mahdi Army, the thousands-strong force that worships the fanatical Muqtada Al Sadr. The battle, which might flare into a Shiite-Shiite civil war in advance of the October 15 referendum on Iraq’s divisive, rigged constitution, could put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

<clip>

In any case, what it all means is that the relative stability that has been present in Basra and others towns in southern Iraq may be coming to an end. For the first time, there are insurgent attacks reported in Basra. And the British, who had responsibility for Basra, suddenly find themselves sitting atop a powder keg. My guess is that in the general Shiite population there is no great love for SCIRI. On one hand, many Iraqi Shiites are secular and non-religious, and they don’t like SCIRI’s brand of theocracy. On the other hand, many religious Shiites are undoubtedly attracted to Sadr’s flare for anti-U.S. rabble-rousing, which presents a serious threat to SCIRI’s (and Al Dawa’s) ability to hold the allegiance of the Shiites. (In the election in January, the Sadrs and Hakims held their noses and joined together in the Sistani-backed electoral alliance that garnered the most votes at the polls.

Since 2003, the Bush administration’s one hope has been that it can contain the Sunni-led resistance by betting on the Kurdish-Shiite alliance. But if the Shiites shatter, it’s curtains for the Anglo-American occupation. That is the other exit strategy: not the one in which U.S. forces declare victory and withdraw in orderly fashion, but the one in which we get our butts kicked out of Iraq forthwith.

From Badr vs. Sadr by Robert Dreyfuss on September 22, 2005

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050922/badr_vs_sadr.php

Those arguing for our continued presence in Iraq are merely prolonging the inevitable at the cost of our people's lives.


Peace.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Comic strip version:

http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/050905.htm

[hiley]

22. kicking

hoping more will see this..