Whatever Happened to the Neocons’ Grand Schemes to Control Iraq’s Oil?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Americans have largely stopped thinking about Iraq, even though we still have approximately 110,000 troops there, as well as the largest "embassy" on the planet (and still growing). We've generally chalked up our war in Iraq to the failed past, and some Americans, after the surge of 2007, even think of it as, if not a success, at least no longer a debacle. Few care to spend much time considering the catastrophe we actually brought down on the Iraqis in "liberating" them. Remember when we used to talk about Saddam Hussein's "killing fields"? The world of mayhem and horror that followed the U.S. invasion and occupation delivered new, even larger "killing fields" that we don't care to discuss, or that we prefer to consider the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves. Even with violence far lower today, Baghdad certainly remains one of the more dangerous cities on the planet. The bombs continue to go off there regularly and devastatingly, while the killing, even if not of American troops who rarely patrol any longer and are largely confined to their mega-bases, has not ended, not by a long shot; nor has the anger, suspicion, and depression that go with all of this.

A striking recent article in the British Guardian by reporter Martin Chulov seemed to catch something of what the U.S. actually accomplished in Iraq in a nutshell. It describes a country in "environmental ruin" (and, let's not forget, taxed with an ongoing drought of monumental proportions). The headline tells the story: "Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds." The contamination from depleted uranium weapons, bombed pipelines, and other disasters of the years of war, civil war, and chaos seems centered around Iraq's population centers and, perhaps not surprisingly, coincides with a massive rise in birth defects. Worse yet, in all those years of occupation, the U.S., despite billions of dollars spent (or rather squandered) on "reconstruction," never managed to deliver electricity, jobs, potable water, health care, or much else. And despite many attempts, as Michael Schwartz, returning TomDispatch regular and the author of War Without End, makes clear, Washington never even got the oil out of the ground in a country that is little short of a giant oil field waiting to be developed. A remarkable record when you think about it. TomDispatch editor Tom Engelhardt

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The oil is there. Once the dust settles, it'll come out of the ground. This is long term chit, Steven, not flash in the pan ####### like green jobs.

[Ali G. 37]

Is this a joke?

It was the liberal yanks and anyone anti-American from around the world (notice the similarities) that screamed it was a war about oil for years. Now that barely a dollar of oil has been extracted by the US for its own gain, the tune has changed.

Hold on, now they are complaining that we left. #######.. What a bunch of bloody morons. Hence, one should never listen to a generation who either they themselves or their parents were evidently 'damaged' by the drug binge of the 60s.

This has to be from the onion, as no one can be that stupid and hypocritical.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Booyah

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is this a joke?

It was the liberal yanks and anyone anti-American from around the world (notice the similarities) that screamed it was a war about oil for years. Now that barely a dollar of oil has been extracted by the US for its own gain, the tune has changed.

Hold on, now they are complaining that we left. #######.. What a bunch of bloody morons. Hence, one should never listen to a generation who either they themselves or their parents were evidently 'damaged' by the drug binge of the 60s.

This has to be from the onion, as no one can be that stupid and hypocritical.

So where's the reconstruction of Iraq?

[Ali G. 37]

So where's the reconstruction of Iraq?

I thought you guys wanted out at any cost? So they are doing that.

Unfortunately for some groups, unlike Vietnam where we cut and run, this time round the international media is going to be on the United States like a hawk. So it's the liberal yanks who are going to have to answer for the country's mess, once we leave.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I thought you guys wanted out at any cost? So they are doing that.

Unfortunately for some groups, unlike Vietnam where we cut and run, this time round the international media is going to be on the United States like a hawk. So it's the liberal yanks who are going to have to answer for the country's mess, once we leave.

What's the answer after billions of dollars spent on reconstruction? Where did it go?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The oil is there. Once the dust settles, it'll come out of the ground. This is long term chit, Steven, not flash in the pan ####### like green jobs.

Steve can't wait for the Iraqis to go back to herding goats.

What's the answer after billions of dollars spent on reconstruction? Where did it go?

Lots and lots of coke whores.

[Ali G. 37]

What's the answer after billions of dollars spent on reconstruction? Where did it go?

I see your point there. I would say in the pockets of US and foreign contractors.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I see your point there. I would say in the pockets of US and foreign contractors.

Steve can't wait for the Iraqis to go back to herding goats.

Is that what the Iraqis did before the invasion? Interesting.

[alienlovechild 75]

Whatever Happened to the Neocons’ Grand Schemes to Control Iraq’s Oil?

No war for oil or no oil for war? Glad we finally got past that myth.

Countries with an ongoing war don't tend to be in good shape economically. Iraq is no different and its hard to build any infrastructure when it's far easier to blow it all up. South Korea was one the poorest nations on the planet after the Korean War yet it is now a huge economy. The Iraqis are sitting on a fortune of oil and they we rebuild the country.

[Dan J 277]

No war for oil or no oil for war? Glad we finally got past that myth.

Countries with an ongoing war don't tend to be in good shape economically. Iraq is no different and its hard to build any infrastructure when it's far easier to blow it all up. South Korea was one the poorest nations on the planet after the Korean War yet it is now a huge economy. The Iraqis are sitting on a fortune of oil and they we rebuild the country.

Its not a myth. Its just proved way harder than the neocons assumed. This thing was originally suppose to last 6 months, now going on 8 years later.

[Ali G. 37]

Its not a myth. Its just proved way harder than the neocons assumed. This thing was originally suppose to last 6 months, now going on 8 years later.

Interesting point of view. So it's not that libs and those against the US around the world were wrong, it's a case of the necons underestimated the complexity. Would a similar argument stand in the court of law that yank libs foam at the mouth over?

The whole 6 months mission accomplished rhetoric is also silly. The target was the estimated time to needed to take over and topple Saddam, it was not a start to finish end date. As pointed out by myself before, this fill in the gap approach from those with yank lib views is getting old. Another example of this is the rhetoric that anyone against illegal aliens, is against all immigrants. Same illogical ###### (approach), different smell.

Saying the Iraq war was wrong because we simply did not have the money or support for it is one thing. Whereas, still lying that it's a war for oil is just idiotic. No one wastes $1 trillion dollars to extract $50 billion worth of oil.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Booyah

[Dan J 277]

Interesting point of view. So it's not that libs and those against the US around the world were wrong, it's a case of the necons underestimated the complexity. Would a similar argument stand in the court of law that yank libs foam at the mouth over?

The whole 6 months mission accomplished rhetoric is also silly. The target was the estimated time to needed to take over and topple Saddam, it was not a start to finish end date. As pointed out by myself before, this fill in the gap approach from those with yank lib views is getting old. Another example of this is the rhetoric that anyone against illegal aliens, is against all immigrants. Same illogical ###### (approach), different smell.

Saying the Iraq war was wrong because we simply did not have the money or support for it is one thing. Whereas, still lying that it's a war for oil is just idiotic. No one wastes $1 trillion dollars to extract $50 billion worth of oil.

If this war was about WMD/National Security North Korea has remained the highest threat. But they don't have any oil.

If its about spreading democracy, there are a lot of easier places to do that. Although democracy imposed on by an outside force usually won't last.

There is the possibility of war for the sake of war, the US has a lot of private companies with a vested interest in warfare.

American politicians can't justify a war for oil, the American people wont support it. But they can just a war for national security. Find a country with a paper tiger, and lots of oil and its a win win. Sort of. Its always been about oil, there is no other justification for going to Iraq.

[Darnell 8,479]

Where's the oil, anyway? hmmmm.

[alienlovechild 75]

If its about spreading democracy, there are a lot of easier places to do that. Although democracy imposed on by an outside force usually won't last.

There is the possibility of war for the sake of war, the US has a lot of private companies with a vested interest in warfare.

The U.S. doesn't "own" the oil in Iraq nor is the U.S. getting free oil. Going to war from a country that wanted to sell oil doesn't make sense. It's far easier to get oil from other corrupt governments like Mexico, Nigeria or Venezuela or non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia.

There aren't any lasting democracies imposed by outside forces? Ask the Germans or Japanese about that one.

The U.S. spends plenty on defense in peacetime or wartime so it doesn't make much difference to them.