War For Oil

[TsarBomba]

Even though it pains me, I have gotta disagree with Brian on his take on this episode. He correctly points out that the vast majority of the U.S. oil supply does not come from the Middle East, and is technically correct in being skeptical of those who claim that the U.S. government has fought two Gulf wars to secure that oil for ourselves. The point he seems to miss in his analysis is that a major disruption in the Gulf's supply of oil would probably cause oil to hit US$150 per barrel, if not much more. That price would apply not only to Middle Eastern oil, but to Canadian Oil, Mexican Oil, and even West Texas Intermediate Crude. Even if we don't need to secure the physical oil supply from the Gulf for our own purposes, our government has a real interest in keeping the price at a level that won't destroy our economy.

 

[Puppycow]

Brian does seem to misunderstand the macroeconomics, as I pointed out here. (Tim is my real name).

Also, the "blood for oil claim" does not seem to be unambiguously defined. I understand it to mean the claim that the Iraq war was started for reasons related to oil, but that is a hard proposition to falsify. Was the war launched to drive the price of oil up or down? Was it to secure cheap oil for America or increase profits for oil companies and other war profiteers?

 

[TsarBomba]

Also, the "blood for oil claim" does not seem to be unambiguously defined. I understand it to mean the claim that the Iraq war was started for reasons related to oil, but that is a hard proposition to falsify. Was the war launched to drive the price of oil up or down? Was it to secure cheap oil for America or increase profits for oil companies and other war profiteers?

Actually the Blood for Oil claim goes way back in history beyond our current war in Iraq, back to the First Gulf War. You could argue that the First Gulf War was much more justified than the present war (i.e. the UN said it was okay in advance, and Saddam had invaded another country to start it off) and at the same time more blatantly about oil.

 

[Michael Redman]

I agree, richorman. The first war was about oil (in addition to sovereignty). Keeping Saddam from controlling too much oil, allowing him to throw the world economy into chaos, causing conflict, suffering, famine . . . A real concern for the whole world. That's why the international community (more or less) approved.

It's hard to justify the claim the current war is about oil, especially the most common understanding of the claim, that the US invaded Iraq to take or otherwise control Iraq's oil. It is this claim that is always implied when someone remarks that the chances of the US getting involved in this or that world conflict turns on whether there's oil there. The fact that Iraq has oil hasn't benefited the US in this war, and, in fact, lifting sanctions and giving Saddam free reign to rebuild his oil industry would he been much more beneficial to the US, as far as oil supply.

 

[briandunning]

Another popular conspiracy theory is that Bush & Cheney created the gulf war specifically to drive the oil price up, thus increasing their own personal net worth. That one is so silly I did not waste time on it.

But since the obvious effect of the war is to increase the price - one of my main points - it's hard to see how the US' secret goal was to secure cheap oil. I'm not exactly clear what you guys are disagreeing with me about.