Bill Sykes' - In Retrospect
VII.
(June 2007)
Bill Sykes
looks back in retrospect at material which has been published
in previous editions of "View from America",
in an attempt to determine whether the subject matter
written then is still applicable in today’s world.
Article 7B
A Readers Letter.
Here is what one UK reader, William, had to say on the matter of why America
went to war with Iraq.
Note: This article was written in September of 2002 and published in the October
2005 edition of "View from America"
Introduction:
William recently sent me a copy of an article that he
wrote nearly three years ago on the 24th September
2002.
This letter gives a very educated, eloquent, and brilliantly
philosophical rhetorical summary of his thoughts at the
time of the United States determination to go to war
with Iraq with their intent of preserving Middle East
oil supplies, in order to "Make the world safe
for America’s gas guzzling SUVs". He
also comments upon potential before and after results
of a war with Iraqi and goes on to describe very succinctly
why America chose to go to war and the possible downstream
economic effects of such a war. This
letter is quoted verbatim in its entirety.
It’s the oil, stupid:
As official Washington grinds inexorably forward towards war---and 'regime
change' - with Iraq, UN resolutions or not, it seems increasingly clear
that the so-called war on terrorism has become a convenient cover for a much
wider agenda on the part of certain influential thinkers and policy makers.
Top of that agenda is oil, and the sure access to it at a reasonable price.
But the agenda spreads well beyond Iraq into the arena
of nation building and recasting the old orders and even
boundaries of the Middle East.
Washington’s attitude towards Middle East oil reminds
us of the quote of an eccentric Japanese-Canadian member
of the US Senate Senator Hayakawa who, when asked his
view on the Panama Canal and the prospect of returning
it to the locals, quipped "Why, it’s ours,
we stole it fair and square". The Arabs are allowed
to enjoy the fruits of their oil sales, just as long
as they make it available on demand and are nice to Israel.
Otherwise, they can look out.
Oil is presently selling for around $30 a barrel, a price
that is believed to contain a war premium of $5—10
a barrel.
If there were a short war with a quick result then a
combination of Iraqi oil becoming available and a collapse
of the war premium could drive oil below $20 a barrel.
This would act as a tax reduction and stimulation to
the beleaguered Western economies. But if the war is
messy and protracted, or President Hussein decides to
pollute his oil fields, and possibly those of his neighbours,
with nuclear or other materials, then oil could conceivably
spike in the $50 to $100 range. This would well and truly
seal the fate of the Western economies to a renewed recession.
The assumption amongst think tanks advising Bush is that
a regime change can be effected reasonably easily using
disgruntled elements in the military and society to turn
on Saddam. At least, they are selling it to the American
public that way. There are echoes of the Spanish American
War of 1898 and America’s "manifest destiny" here.
The Murdoch media empire is playing the role of the Hearst
yellow press of that earlier time as cheerleader in chief
for war.
The overwhelming military power enjoyed by the US at
this time is allowing these policy wonks to dream wider
dreams of restructuring the Middle East to make it safe
for all time for Israel and US oil interests.
Whilst Iraq may be the first "‘beneficiary"
of this new American destiny, Iran, Saudi Arabia and
even Egypt are close behind. Saudi Arabia is presently
unsettled by the internal fights to succeed the ailing
King Fahd. The chief protagonists are the Crown Prince
Abdullah (the King’s half brother) and the King’s
seven full brothers (known as the Sudheiri seven). Abdullah
and Washington are not close; he is seen as unhelpful
to the US and helpful to Al-Qaeda. Washington would prefer
a more malleable puppet. But the think tanks, taking
a longer view, dream of a democratised Saudi Arabia and
propagate plans to redraw its boundaries, leaving the
religious and oil-poor areas in a separate state.
These ideas have been given greater credibility this
last week with the announcement of a new Bush doctrine
of pre-emptive intervention when US interest is threatened.
Conspiracy theorists will also look to the influence
of large US oil interests, who are prominent supporters
of the Republicans. They see a unique opportunity to
gain at the expense of Russian and French oil interests
in Iraq, later Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia.
So to rephrase the Clinton campaign slogan, we can forget
the useful fool, Al-Qaeda, it’s the oil stupid!
It’s ours we stole it fair and square. The world
must be made safe for gas guzzling SUVs (sport utility
vehicles).
History however, is rarely that simple. Only simpletons
believe it is. The Middle East has been a quagmire for
outsiders bent on changes throughout the ages. The new
Crusaders should examine this record before plunging
everyone into this new adventure to make the world safe
for Exxon and GM.
My comments on reader William’s
letter:
I obviously could not have said it better myself - William
has put forward an excellent appraisal of the conditions
that existed in the Washington political and military
establishments three years ago and in doing so provided
an insight into the future of a world clamouring for
oil products at any price.
If the objective of the President of the United States, and some senior
members of his administration’s agenda of going to war with Iraq was,
as the reader states, to "ensure a secure access to oil at a reasonable
price" and, "make the world safe for America’s gas
guzzling SUVs", then this President and his cohorts have failed
miserably on all counts, as the world price of a barrel of oil has more than
doubled since the war started and consequently the price of a gallon of gasoline
has soared to astronomical levels worldwide.
Reports, not rumours, (true or false), have circulated
for some time, suggesting that oil companies worldwide
have opted to lower production and refining quotas in
order to increase gasoline prices. Would they do
that? Of course they would, why should they stop doing
what they have always done - that is to charge the highest
price per gallon that the market will bear - and blame
it upon supply and demand. Of course there is the hidden
cost in each gallon of gasoline of the iniquitous tax
that is generally added by governments, states, countries,
etc.
Surely the time is long overdue that American oil companies,
and their associates, be investigated for fraudulent
practices in order to determine to what extent alleged
price gouging, etc, has elevated oil company profits,
and at the same time, if realistic, a law could be introduced
limiting the amount of tax, (as a percentage of the market
price), that can be added.
This investigation should be
conducted by a committee of unbiased independent accountants
who would be given complete authority to examine oil
company financial records, including prices, profits,
and oil company revenues as compared to their overall
transportation, refining, and associated costs, calculated
during the period from the current day - retroactive
to the eleventh of September 2001 - in order to establish
if any corrupt pricing practices have been introduced during
that period.
To view the complete October 2005 edition, please click HERE.
Disclaimer:
Some of the information gathered for this newsletter is gleaned from American
and International media sources, (including the Internet), and as such is quoted
as accurately as possible. I try to obtain confirmation n on each subject from
several outlets, so the text is a mixture of composite news items and personal
comments and therefore the reader must make his/her own judgement as to the
reliability and degree of accuracy of the subjects discussed.
We
welcome feedback about any of the contents of these articles.
Please send all correspondence to bill_sykes@huddersfield1.co.uk
|
