IRAQ and the
Bipartisan Partisan Consensus
Jeff Berg

PEJ News
December 1, 2005

While it is true to say that the Democrats did not receive the same intelligence information in the National Intelligence Estimate as the president and his cabinet did with the raw data at their disposal in every other way the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a fully informed bipartisan effort.  And what informs that bipartisan effort and gives its argument such weight and such extraordinary resoluteness in the face of such compelling dissent and counterarguments is one thing: OIL.  Or what Ari Fleischer in a moment of perfect clarity called Operation Iraqi Liberation. (hands down the early leader in the Freudian slip of the century sweepstakes)

Since the creation of the national security state in 1947 and the build up to over 800 military bases worldwide many have had difficulty understanding how America could make so many "mistakes" abroad in her attempts to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world.  Given the predominance of American media and culture and the effectiveness of America's doctrinal systems, this naivet? was at least in part understandable. Increasingly this is no longer the case. 

Since 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq and the spread of information and analysis via the internet, the myth of America as the well meaning though occasionally bumbling ?ber democracy is a mask that has slipped.  America is now seen very clearly by the rest of the world and increasingly so in North America as a predatory capitalist state that uses the forms of democracy as a means of controlling economic outcomes.  Even such a raucous cheerleader for "Globalization the American Way" as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has let this fact slip: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist ... And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."[i]

Since the late 1940's America has used more oil than she produced.  Heading into the new millennium America imported over 50% of its oil with its domestic production declining yearly. Today as a result of further decline and the damage from Katrina and Rita imports have seen somewhere between two thirds and three quarters for the last few months. 

The great fields of America, the ones that generated so much wealth and power for her over the last century, are now exhausted.  In December 1970 America's fields produced 10.2 MMbpd. (million barrels per day) Today the very same fields that produced that world record river of oil wealth are now producing only just over 2 MMbpd.  New production allowed America to stabilize domestic levels for a time but just as her last great find, Prudhoe, has peaked and begun to decline now so too has American production.

American production in 2002 was 9MMbpd [ii], in December 2004 domestic production was 5,471,000 bpd and in January 2005 it was 5,413,000 bpd.[iii]  This is still very substantial in global terms and only two countries produce more oil than America: Saudi Arabia and Russia.   But it is an increasingly insufficient amount for an economy dependent on 20 MMbpd especially given its appetite for 'more, more, more" as evidenced by the following finding by the American Petroleum Institute: 'U.S. petroleum demand in 2004 grew at its strongest rate in five years." [iv]

When America's oil production decline is combined with the potential social and economic consequences of shortages; and the problems the U.S. is having with natural gas supply and price; and the problems they are having managing their trade and fiscal imbalances; one can readily see that America as hegemon is rolling the dice in Iraq for reasons of its very survival.  Given that retreat from Iraq is certain to spell the end of America as the world's 'sole remaining superpower" America is not leaving Iraq, full stop.  And if the insurgency in Iraq is quelled and America is able to turn the situation from a drain to a gain, America's army and corporate class will not relinquish its control of the region until most of the oil & natural gas has been extracted.

Nota Bene The northern part of the South Pars field-shared by Iran and Qatar- is thought to hold twice the BTU's of Ghawar; making it by far the single greatest economic prize ever discovered.

If on the other hand the insurgency is able to keep the occupation unprofitable long enough for America's creditors to become nervous about the value and safety of their holdings then the equation can be made to change.  We will be able to tell that this is occurring when the arguments about the real costs of losing control of access to Middle Eastern oil begin to be played out in the public forum of America's mainstream media.

In America the wealthiest one half of one percent of the population owns roughly 31 percent of stocks, 32 percent of bonds, and 55 percent of business assets.  These very same people have a great deal of control over the dominant forms of media and they use this control as a means of sending information rich signals as to what they are and are not willing to accept in terms of government actions and policies.  If these decision makers decide that the risks that the invasion poses to their assets outweighs its benefits they will bring enormous pressure to bear on the administration to change course.  Most administrations would accept these marching orders and the occupation would come to a fairly rapid end as a result.  My feeling about this administration however is that it is led by more than the usual number of "true believers" and self-styled philosopher kings.  

Rumsfeld and Cheney have been in positions of considerable importance since the Nixon presidency and I get the sense that nothing short of a 10x8 cell would be capable of deterring them from the path they have embarked upon.  They have been at this for a very long time at the highest levels of government and they are I think quite sure that they have thought of everything, arrived at the best alternatives, and that what they are doing is in the best interests of America.  (How broadly they define their America is a wholly other thing.)  They will not sit idly by no matter who takes against them and their counterattack campaign will most assuredly continue to prey heavily on the fears of the American people. 

This time bringing to bear in their storyline the very real costs to American power and wealth of losing access to Middle Eastern hydrocarbons.  If and when this occurs we will know that there is a genuine opportunity for protest to bring about an end to the occupation. 

We are not today near this point.

There is of course another way for the American government to be made to withdraw from Iraq and that is if its military decides that it can no longer stay.  This to me, as unlikely as it may be, is much more likely to occur than the previous scenario.  Because Iraq is not Vietnam in at least one materially important way, there is a direct and very significant economic point to this occupation. 

The most important decision makers in the financial and resource sectors know the facts on and under the ground of this conflict; if you doubt this read Cheney's 1999 speech to the National Petroleum Council.  http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html   And it will take much more than the death of a few thousand soldiers and the addition of a few hundred billion to the U.S. government debt (200B adds 2.5% to America's debt load) to make them walk away from access to the hundreds of trillions of dollars, at current prices, worth of hydrocarbons that the region will extract over the next 50 years. (likely thousands of trillions at future prices)

Their financial if not moral calculus becomes even more understandable when you consider that even this amount is literally tiny when you compare it to the economic multiplier effect that having oil and gas allows to the industrialized world. The money multiplier is nothing to it.  Consider. By some calculations every barrel of oil carries the equivalent of 23,200 man hours of work in the physics sense of the term.  Oil and natural gas are like air, water or soil, in that they are easy to take for granted until you lack them.*** 

This is the magnitude of the financial, social and political stakes at play in the Middle East and why the governments of the industrialized world have been so muted in their criticism of what America is doing in Iraq.  To a certain extent at least America is playing the role that the world's governments and financial elites wants them to play: the role of watchdog over the resources of the region.  Every last decision maker in these capitals wants the oil of the region to keep flowing to the world market.  And for every one of them the nightmare scenario is a Middle East that is unified in using oil as geopolitical weapon. 

What is being argued about is not the West's "right" to continued access to these resources what is being argued about is whether the occupation is helping or harming this access.  To those who have power either because of their personal wealth or their government position this is the question that matters.  This was as true in 1917 when the British said to the Iraqi people, "We come not as occupiers but as liberators." as it is today.  And of course this is as true for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans, which is why only three Congressmen voted for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq when presented with the opportunity this past week.

It is this consensus that is true sticking point for the people of the Middle East, most especially for the grievously suffering people of Iraq.  It is this consensus that allows America and the Brits to prop up two of the most repressive governments in the world in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  It is this consensus that allowed the Americans to sponsor and enforce a ten-year economic blockade so severe it killed upwards of a million Iraqi's while the leadership of the rest of the world turned a blind eye.  Furthermore it is this consensus that has ensured that economic nationalism and meaningful economic development in the region has taken a backseat to autocracy, brutality and grotesque inequalities of wealth lo these ninety years of our direct involvement in the region. 

In the early days of the M.E. as an oil province the Brits and the French carved up the region to serve their interests. (Interesting historical fact: In 1905 the British Fleet converted from coal to oil despite having no internal supplies)  After the Second World War America became the dominant power in the region and fostered the brutally repressive regime of the Shah of Iran among others.  This was done to assure that the massive profits involved flowed overwhelmingly to America and her allies.  

America like Western Europe before it has done everything in its power to maximize the extraction of resource profit from the region and this was done despite the devastating damage that these policies have had on the social, political and economic development of the region. Furthermore all of this was done when the 'only' thing at stake was profit.  Now that the very economic and social future of the industrialized world is increasingly dependent on the resources of the M.E. what are the chances that we are about to begin now to foster development that promotes their independence?  I for one am not holding my breath.  Especially given the fact that the people of the region now overwhelmingly hate America and by extension her allies.

Within a few years over 75% of the world's oil production will come from OPEC and Russia. The majority of the people of these countries are nurturing a deep and abiding animus for damage real and perceived that America and her allies have done to them.  All of the above stated facts are very well known at the highest echelons of government and in the resource sector.   This is why there is no disagreement between the Dems and the Reps about the need for America's presence in the region.  This is why there has been so little censure by the European powers and why the Brits went along for this Valkyrie ride into Baghdad.  This is why so little furor has arisen at the highest levels about the multiple war crimes that this administration has committed in their attempt to pacify the Iraqi people. 

What the Democrats and much of the world do disagree about with the Bush administration is whether the U.S. should be handling the "problem" of the Middle East by itself. 

The implementation of the Cheney/Wolfowitz doctrine (the penning of which caused them to be referred to as "the crazies" in intelligence circles) has shredded much of the post second world war compact and international order.  It is this High Noon highhandedness and the willingness to use naked aggression in contravention to international law, which has disquieted a significant number of members from the various sectors of power.  What these elements rightly fear is that the U.S. is destabilizing a system that has at least kept the great powers from engaging in the kind of power politics and land grabs that led to the first two world wars.  They are also concerned that if the U.S. gains effective control over the flow of hydrocarbons from the region it will use this power in a way that disproportionately harms their interests. 

But the greatest fear is a fear that is held not only by the sectors of power but also by academics, scientists, social researchers, journalists and activists of all stripes. They fear that the U.S. is creating a climate of distrust that will make global consensus impossible just when the planet's biomass and biodiversity is showing increasing signs of weakness and experiencing various kinds of collapse.   

The leadership of our world is not entirely clueless about how we can avoid smashing the whole fleet of civilization upon the rocky shoals that we have entered.  But in order for them to coordinate effective policy one thing above all others will be necessary: trust.  All or at least most of the players involved must have the belief that at least on some levels the agreements that are being brokered are taking their interests into account.  Furthermore they must believe that the sacrifices that such efforts will entail will be sacrifices that are shared and that the most-wealthy being the most able to afford such sacrifice will be the ones who sacrifice the greatest amount.  In other words there will have to be a massive redistribution of wealth and a narrowing of the gap between the richest and the poorest countries. 

And there is of course no chance that this can happen internationally unless this redistribution is also seen by the people of the rich countries to be happening within their own countries to their benefit as well. 

Such re-orderings of the global village are of course impossible while the U.S. is attempting to create a perpetual hegemony over the world's most important work force, hydrocarbon energy, while simultaneously trying to destroy the world's one global vox populi the United Nations.  And it is also impossible as long as corporate monoliths and the shareholder class are grabbing an ever-increasing percentage of the world's wealth.

'These be perilous times" has ever been the rallying cry of every generation and every generation believes itself uniquely imperiled.  And just as they found ways to move forward so too are there ways out of our current dilemmas.  Verily is it said that 'Our ignorance is not so vast as our inability to use what we know."[v] But as long as the necessities of national interest and shareholder capitalism supersede human needs and local development very little of what we collectively know will ever see the light of day. A light that would appear at this time to this commentator to be dimming in just about every area of our unsubstitutable globe. 

Or to quote a wiser and more poetic friend of mine: "Let us make haste, time is doing terrible things." - Senor Juan G. Carbonel.