It’s about oil, stupid
: David Isenberg points out, quite rightly, that the debate left out a very important and central word to a proper discussion of foreign affairs today: oil.
8 responses to “It’s about oil, stupid”
-
I suppose I’m curious as to what way oil should have been mentioned in the foreign policy debate. Is that an implication regarding beliefs by various people that we are invading for their oil? Or a comment on the effect that disruptions in Iraqi oil production affect supply and prices? Or…?
I’m no fan of the Bush administration, but even I don’t think they are there for the oil. The blogger’s other comment about the second largest reserve, also… isn’t that Argentina? Or am I “misremembering” again, as our Commander in Chief might say? -
Oil was skipped because at this time it is more of a hot topic with regards to Domestic Policy, ie ever higher prices, alternate sources, etc.
As regards speaking of “oil reserves”, one needs be very careful about the terminology and source of the information. Oil reserves vs “proven” oil reserves, oil industry vs USGS, etc. -
Of course it’s about oil. They have diamonds, gold, platinum, jewels in Africa and nobody cares about the slaughter.
The Black Muslims in Darfur sit on top of the oil concessions owned by China and France. The Arab Muslims kill them. The UN cannot find the words to condemn the killing.
Russia’s reserves are improving by the use of Western technology. The estimated reserves (even with extreme conservative forecasts prompted by Shell) place Russia in the top five if not top three.
Oil and water don’t mix, except in determining foreign policy. What is to discuss? If the flow of oil is disrupted then Western economies if not civilization fail. The old joke about “He who has the gold makes the rules” is more properly translated into “He who controls the oil controls all”.
What would NYC do without gasoline or heating oil?
Double, triple quintuple the price of heat and everything carried by truck and what will be the political outcry?
We lack the infrastructure to return to horse drawn and coal fired economy.
We have not built a nuclear reactor in over 25 years. We have no alternatives in the short term.
Yes, it is about oil. Just as life itself is about breath and water. -
Jeff:
I made a needlessly vituperative comment in response to Isenberg raising this question at Jay Rosen’s place. I should have phrased it better, but I still agree with this substance of what I said there.
I’m sincerely shocked that you (Jeff Jarvis), with all of your smart takedowns of Michael Moore would support the injection of this Michael Moore “It’s all abot the OILLLL!!!” talking point into a presidential debate.
I don’t know who David Isenberg is and I’m sure he’s a nice enough fella if you get to know him, but the tendentious way his post is written makes it clear that he thinks that Iraq was invaded because of its oil reserves.
First of all, as people have pointed out above, I don’t think it’s even factually correct that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves. (Isn’t it Venezuela or Argentina or something?) But, even if it is true, so what? Just saying that they had a lot of oil, and therefore [huge leap] “it can’t be a coincidence” that we invaded Iraq is not an argument. It’s speculation based on weak, circumstancial evidence. Which is to say, it’s a conspiracy theory.
If you (or Mr. Isenberg) really think that oil drives our foreign policy, then why aren’t there plans to invade Venezuela, Argentina, China, or Russia? How can oil simultaneously be the cause of our invading Iraq and our not taking military action against Saudi Arabia?
Keep in mind that an invasion followed by a lengthy and expensive occupation in which people are sabotaging the oil pipelines every day is not in any way a positive thing from the perspective of the big oil companies. I believe (I’ll google for links) that they were against not only the invasion, but the sanctions, no-fly zones, etc. as well. From the oil industry’s perspective the most profitable thing to do would be to simply do business with Saddam Hussein, which is exactly what Russia, France, China, and the UN (oil-for-food) were doing, which is what accounts for their opposition to the war.
I suppose there might be some argument for having the question asked in order to help debunk these conspiracy theories, but I think it would just legitimize a conspiratorial viewpoint. The true “No Blood for Oil” believers wouldn’t be satisfied no matter what was said. -
Eric:
I did not say that it is all about oil (though you’re right to recognize the loaded nature of that phrase).
But oil is a factor and an issue. I don’t say that from the Moore perspective but instead from the perspective of energy policy: We do need to reduce our dependence on oil — not just foreign oil! — so as to not be held hostage (and not to base our relationship with people in that part of the world based on oil vs. commerce that would pay the people instead of their corrupt leaders). -
But oil is a factor and an issue.
Exactly. The “nothing is about oil” crowd have become as nutty as the “it’s all about oil” crowd. Clearly oil is a significant factor in driving US foreign policy. After all, when Presidents speak of protecting America’s interests abroad, it’s not cocoa plantations or herds of domestic animals they are referring to. -
Eric,
Why doesn’t the US take action against Saudi Arabia? Well it’s home to a place called Mecca which is the holiest place in Islam. The Saud family are also lifelong US allies. There is a theory that any military action against Saudi Arabia would require the country to be divided in two. One part with the oil and one part with the religious sites. It would however be an extremely high risk move.
As Robert points out protecting America’s interests abroad is primarily about protecting access to oil and gas.
A more persuasive conspiracy theory than “it’s all about oil” is that Saddam was switching to pricing oil exports from dollars to euros and there was a risk of the rest of OPEC following. Therefore Iraq was at least partly about protecting the value of the US dollar. -
Fictitious Bush Response> Thank you, Mr. Lehrer, I’m glad you brought oil up, because the this Iraq War DID start because of oil, but not for the reasons you think.
It turns out that billions of dollars of French oil contracts were in jeopardy if the United Nations stood up to Saddam Hussein obstructing the search for WMD. It’s about oil because the war could have been avoided if the French had dared call Iraq on explicitly violated provisions of Resolution 1441.
Instead, because we told the UN, “If you don’t we will”, we were obliged to follow through when they blinked. Since it was a French induced failure at the U.N., it makes it all the more astounding that my opponent can’t see that the U.N. is not yet the answer. My opponent does not appreciate that part of the job of the next President will be to help restore the United Nations to the honorable organization it was meant to be.
Yes, this is about oil — to clean up the United Nations after the Oil-for-Food Scandal that the French also seem to have participated in that funnelled billions into Saddam’s abuse.
Yes, this is about oil — to give the Iraqi people control over their own natural resource to rebuild a country that is, independent of us, a model for others in the neighborhood.
A number of very vocal critics have mistakenly assumed that the coalition removed Saddam Hussein to preserve Iraqi oil for ourselves. In fact, Iraqis are in charge of iraqi oil they sell. If they sell it to us, it will be on the open market, as it should be.
Yes, this war was about oil, but not for some selfish interest — just for a better world for us all.
Thank you, Mr. Lehrer, I relinquish the rest of my time to give my opponent even more time to try to rationalize his position.
