Iraqi Oil

[animal magic]

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming

Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

[Neil Young]

I hope all those who said that the war was fought purely on the grounds of installing democracy in Iraq and because of WMD will now accept that they were wrong, were duped (possibly willingly) by their governments and that the anti-war lobby got it broadly right.

[animal magic]

I hope all those who said that the war was fought purely on the grounds of installing democracy in Iraq and because of WMD will now accept that they were wrong, were duped (possibly willingly) by their governments and that the anti-war lobby got it broadly right.

:handshake:

[Neil Young]

:handshake:

I see they're not rushing to admit their mistake. :sigh:

By the way, what happened to smphotog?

[Hollowman]

So, am I right to assume that the logical conclusion for the Americans going to war for oil would be that they now secure more oil from Iraq than they did previously? Or is this plan going to take a while to bear fruit? Coz war is a shit load more expensive than buying oil on the open market.

[Red Chilli]

I thought it was more a case of them propping up the American dollar from a potential crash which it might never recover from.

[Hollowman]

You mean by starting any random war, or because Hussein was threatening to conclude all oil business in Euros rather than the Dollar?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Iran too

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5EsYUqL5LLs

Their euro-based bourse still hasn't opened, but the move away from the dollar for oil trading appears to be ineviatble

[Hollowman]

That to me is a more convincing excuse for the Americans to start a war, rather than the usually unexplained "they did it for oil". Especially when they're plundering a third less oil from Iraq now than they were in 2001.

[Red Chilli]

Yeah, the petro-dollar changing into euro-dollars is what I meant.

[Neil Young]

They invaded for a lot of reasons probably including protecting their long-term oil supply and/or the petrodollar as well as believing they could effect geopolitical change in the Middle East and to give themselves a new base in case it all turns to shit in Saudi Arabia...

It's hard to say right now exactly what the main reasons were and to a certain extent that's beside the point. What the Baby Boomers like to think is that intentions are what matters but they're wrong. Even if they had been doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (which I don't believe for a moment in this case) then they have still done the wrong thing.

It was an illegal war. It was morally unjustifiable. It has been a terrible failure on most of the possible grounds for war. That failure has been paid for largely by Iraqi blood.

As for why they did it, we can all speculate and I'm not saying we shouldn't - I just am keen that we don't get bogged down in trying to work out the labyrinthine internal politics of the Bush Administration and miss the fact that crimes have been committed here: the invaders concocted false evidence to back up their pretext for war, oversaw the butchering of a country's resources in the post-invasion fire sale and are now preparing to suck the bones clean and leave the mass of the population to the wolves.

[Hollowman]

As for why they did it, we can all speculate and I'm not saying we shouldn't - I just am keen that we don't get bogged down in trying to work out the labyrinthine internal politics...


And yet you'd quite like the other side to admit they wrong...

[Neil Young]

Yup.

It would be nice of them to admit their mistakes. :D

[Hollowman]

It has been a terrible failure on most of the possible grounds for war.



Let's face it, the idea of a 'moral war' is fanciful at best, and fucking stupid at worst. There are two grounds for war. Defence of interests and plunder. I'm not sure it fails on both, or even either, of those grounds. It just comes packaged with the rather unpalattable scenario that civilian Iraq is a bit of a mess and a fuck load of people are dead.

[Neil Young]

I agree about the moral war. My problem is that some people accepted that load of bullshit.

As for it failing, well, it's at least arguable. For instance, if the strategic interest was to make Britain safer then it's failed.

[marcgerard]

It was a moral war though, as stupid and poorly thought through the whole operation was. Clearly there were other thoughts too, partially trying to secure further oil sources away from Saudia Arabia, but without being beholden to Russia. The points that most of you have made about a movement away from the petro-dollar as being the standard currency toward the euro were also a consideration.

Globally the currency best able to take advantage of investment opportunities is the dollar, it is also due to institutions such as the World Bank the first to be converted once problems begin, the dollar's that are left just fuel the black economy. A change towards the euro would weaken aspects of the strategy that has underpinned American policy since the end of World War II. It would also concede power to the European Union, which despite its economic strength has not been able to convert that strength politically due to the divergence of the member countries on virtually any issue. The war, although not its immeadiate aim, was a massive indication of the power of America should it be threatened. In this it actually succeded, in virtually all others it failed.


In 1973 speaking about further oil price increases Kissenger made it clear that it would consider any more increases as an act of war. OPEC even though there were major increases in the price of oil in 1990-91 were careful not to increase too highly both then and in 2002-03. The Kissenger 'warning' worked.

Specifically the war, and the failure to secure Iraqi oil was due to poor planning and mistakes in phase one and two of the war. The US completely mistook the potential for insurgency in a region where it is a historical given when there is any occupation. Within both Defense and State Departments there were problems understanding the problems of not having an overarching power in a society in which Shiite Muslims and Kurds had been brutalized by Sunni's. More importantly the US did not undertand at all that within Iraq as stong as their religious bonds are, tribal bonds are stronger. These tribes not only set upon other groups but made American occupation in their tribal areas as uncomfortable as possible; and still do.

The reasons why the Bush administration has not admitted mistakes is due to a belief that the war can still be won, the imminent troop increases are a means to do this. Even if this fails, and it will, the Republicans are in an uncomfortable position of maybe having to turn on the President in order to secure election for whom ever the future candidate is. The 2008 campaign has already started and the Iraqi policy between now and the important primaries will have an important say in just how likely it is that the Republicans can secure a third term in succession.

[Red_Polo]

It was a moral war though, as stupid and poorly thought through the whole operation was.

How do you figure that? :eyebrow:

[marcgerard]

Bush's motivation was partially moral caused by God's country being threatened. The point I was making was that although geopolitical and realpolitik reasons are evident in the decision to invade Iraq, Bush himself felt that Iraq was a test of American moral fortitude. Bob Woodward chronicles this very well. Bush felt that the European powers not only did not only have the will to go into Iraq but that Germany and France lacked the moral conviction to do it because of secularization. One of the famous quotes that came out of the dispute over UN SC Resolution was 'How can you expect the Germans and French to do the right thing, they do not even go to church'.

Morality, albeit from a Christian Right-absolutist position was part of the reasons why the US went into Iraq, it also partially explains some of the massive failings in the initial phase of the war.

[Hollowman]

Okay, but that doesn't make it a moral war anymore than it makes 9/11 an act of morality because Islamic fundamentalists believed that Allah wanted them to do it. My point wasn't based on what some halfwit knee-bender might or might not think is going on in God's head, it was based on the fact that a 'moral war' is essentially an oxymoron for anyone who isn't insane, whether the outcomes of a war are desirable or not, on humanitarian grounds or otherwise.

[Red_Polo]

Bush's motivation was partially moral caused by God's country being threatened. The point I was making was that although geopolitical and realpolitik reasons are evident in the decision to invade Iraq, Bush himself felt that Iraq was a test of American moral fortitude. Bob Woodward chronicles this very well. Bush felt that the European powers not only did not only have the will to go into Iraq but that Germany and France lacked the moral conviction to do it because of secularization. One of the famous quotes that came out of the dispute over UN SC Resolution was 'How can you expect the Germans and French to do the right thing, they do not even go to church'.

Morality, albeit from a Christian Right-absolutist position was part of the reasons why the US went into Iraq, it also partially explains some of the massive failings in the initial phase of the war.

I think rather than being actual motivations for going to war, the moral arguments are excuses people make for themselves as to why despite the death and suffering it would cause, they should use war to protect their interests and/or plunder. As is the case for all wars. Any moral justification are incidental.

[marcgerard]

I think rather than being actual motivations for going to war, the moral arguments are excuses people make for themselves as to why despite the death and suffering it would cause, they should protect their economic and military interests as well as plunder. As is the case for all wars. Any moral justification are incidental.


I would nt disagree with either of the above posts as a rule and I do not believe that the war in any way justfied what the US was trying to do. I think the moral aspects of what the US were trying to achieve was undermined by a White House and Defense Department that were unable to see the weakness' of their strategic plan and a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq regarding religion and tribal allegiances. If either of those Depatments were as hard faced in their calculations as is supposed then much of the mess that is Iraq would have been averted.

[marcgerard]

I think rather than being actual motivations for going to war, the moral arguments are excuses people make for themselves as to why despite the death and suffering it would cause, they should protect their economic and military interests as well as plunder. As is the case for all wars. Any moral justification are incidental.


I would nt disagree with either of the above posts as a rule and I do not believe that the war in any way justfied what the US was trying to do. I think the moral aspects of what the US were trying to achieve was undermined by a White House and Defense Department that were unable to see the weakness' of their strategic plan and a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq regarding religion and tribal allegiances. If either of those Depatments were as hard faced in their calculations as is supposed then much of the mess that is Iraq would have been averted.

[coakes]

Although I'd agree that the anti-war lobby was broadly right in terms of the justifications presented at the time, I don't think that article adds anything at all - it just seems rather confused to me. I assume the source is the BBC site?

Its from March 2005 - nothing new at all.

[animal magic]

Although I'd agree that the anti-war lobby was broadly right in terms of the justifications presented at the time, I don't think that article adds anything at all - it just seems rather confused to me. I assume the source is the BBC site?

yes it from a newsnight investigation to be shown in march

[Rosco]

So, am I right to assume that the logical conclusion for the Americans going to war for oil would be that they now secure more oil from Iraq than they did previously? Or is this plan going to take a while to bear fruit? Coz war is a shit load more expensive than buying oil on the open market.

The plan changed, Greg Palast's latest book "Armed Madhouse" explains all this in detail.

As everyone knows all of the Bush Administration have worked or been involved with big oil at some stage. There's an oil tanker named after Condelleza Rice !

Oil bosses were pissed off at the price of oil fluctuating and wanted to do something to stabilise prices (i.e keep them high). The reason why prices were fluctuating was because Saddam on a whim used to decide whether to produce to Iraq's quota, or whether to produce no oil at all.

So they decided they wanted rid of him, this is all documented in Greg Palast's book btw. Since Saddam was removed profits for US Oil companies has trebled.

Now Iraq produces half as much as it's quota allows but has the ninth largest proven oil reserves. It's capable of producing much more. But the Americans have put the squeeze on it.

Incidentally it looks like Venezuela will be next, they want Chavez out bad. Why ? Because he stopped American oil companies ripping off his country, they play ball on his terms now. And guess what ..... Venezuela has huge "heavy" oil reserves which are worth drilling for if the price stays over 35 dollars a barrell. So the Americans have a dillema, if they keep prices high to keep their Oil buddies in hugh profit they risk a shift in power in OPEC from the Saudi's to Chavez, who isn't a friend of the Americans at all.

[Neil Young]

I would nt disagree with either of the above posts as a rule and I do not believe that the war in any way justfied what the US was trying to do. I think the moral aspects of what the US were trying to achieve was undermined by a White House and Defense Department that were unable to see the weakness' of their strategic plan and a complete misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq regarding religion and tribal allegiances. If either of those Depatments were as hard faced in their calculations as is supposed then much of the mess that is Iraq would have been averted.
As I said, I don't ultimately care what their motivations were. Frankly to go to war in order to impose your version of morality is itself IMO of dubiuous morality anyway as well as being breathtakingly arrogant. Furthermore, to go to war blinded by your moral zeal to the consequences of your actions is immoral too.

Then we get into the arguments about whether actually it was about oil or anything else.

Fact is the war was immoral. The road to Hell etc.

[Nicey]

That to me is a more convincing excuse for the Americans to start a war, rather than the usually unexplained "they did it for oil". Especially when they're plundering a third less oil from Iraq now than they were in 2001.


I've been saying this for years ..the more rational of us have long know this in fact is a currency war and one of the reasons America is looking for complete control of the Middle east is to stop China dumping its Trillions of US dollar reserves :source:

[Nicey]

It was a moral war though, as stupid and poorly thought through the whole operation was. Clearly there were other thoughts too, partially trying to secure further oil sources away from Saudia Arabia, but without being beholden to Russia. The points that most of you have made about a movement away from the petro-dollar as being the standard currency toward the euro were also a consideration.

Globally the currency best able to take advantage of investment opportunities is the dollar, it is also due to institutions such as the World Bank the first to be converted once problems begin, the dollar's that are left just fuel the black economy. A change towards the euro would weaken aspects of the strategy that has underpinned American policy since the end of World War II. It would also concede power to the European Union, which despite its economic strength has not been able to convert that strength politically due to the divergence of the member countries on virtually any issue. The war, although not its immeadiate aim, was a massive indication of the power of America should it be threatened. In this it actually succeded, in virtually all others it failed.


In 1973 speaking about further oil price increases Kissenger made it clear that it would consider any more increases as an act of war. OPEC even though there were major increases in the price of oil in 1990-91 were careful not to increase too highly both then and in 2002-03. The Kissenger 'warning' worked.

Specifically the war, and the failure to secure Iraqi oil was due to poor planning and mistakes in phase one and two of the war. The US completely mistook the potential for insurgency in a region where it is a historical given when there is any occupation. Within both Defense and State Departments there were problems understanding the problems of not having an overarching power in a society in which Shiite Muslims and Kurds had been brutalized by Sunni's. More importantly the US did not undertand at all that within Iraq as stong as their religious bonds are, tribal bonds are stronger. These tribes not only set upon other groups but made American occupation in their tribal areas as uncomfortable as possible; and still do.

The reasons why the Bush administration has not admitted mistakes is due to a belief that the war can still be won, the imminent troop increases are a means to do this. Even if this fails, and it will, the Republicans are in an uncomfortable position of maybe having to turn on the President in order to secure election for whom ever the future candidate is. The 2008 campaign has already started and the Iraqi policy between now and the important primaries will have an important say in just how likely it is that the Republicans can secure a third term in succession.

Mate I am enjoying reading this thread and enjoyed your post, only half way through the thread. But if you believe as you mentioned "The US completely mistook the potential for insurgency in a region " then I feel you may be a tad naive. They knew exactly what they were getting into. They were not expecting American flag waving Iraqis lining the streets singing god bless America, although they tried to have us believe this with their 1984 style "Embedded" Journalists.

Nothing on this scale happens by accident, Iraq is burning to the ground right now because someone somewhere wanted it, planned it and have executed it just like that. It was like the Execution of good old Saddam Global Villan extraordinare Hussein, someone somehow smuggled in a mobile phone with a camera ... Did they fuck. The American Army would have that process on serious lock down, nobody would be able to fart without level 5 clearance and yet someone can get a mobile in a Picture the once leader being abused and hanged. Why ? because they wanted it like that, poking the stick into the bees nest.

Watch Israel or as I like to call it the 51 st State of America launch a preemptive strike on Iran most likely summer this year, most likely with nuclear weapons. Then watch America "come to Israels aid" and help defeat the nasty evil Iranians. It will happen have no doubts.

Right back to reading the rest of this excellent thread :handshake:

[Nicey]

Ok so I have ploughed through the above posts, all excellent well thought out posts, bravo. My take on the situation in Iraq well from what I have read there seems to have been no shortage of very good reasons for this administration to go to war with Iraq none of them incidentally connected to 9/11 whatsoever.

First off someone mentioned the Saudis and oil earlier in this thread, the Saudis and America specially the Bush family are very cozy indeed, if I am not mistaken American has a permanent military base there, all of the oil work in Saudi Arabia goes the US firms, all of the plum jobs goes to westerns and the profits, well the Puppet Royal family get their share too. Bush Snr and the Saudi Royal Family are old good friends as is the US government. The Saudis play nice, they can stay. The same way the Iranians use to play nice until that Evil crazy man came along with dangerous notions of kicking out western companies and giving the oil profits to the Iran people ….cue dodgy revolution.

But alas I digress, Iraq well there is the American New Century folk who quite simply do not believe it is in Americas long medium or short term interests to have a world other than democracies. Democracies do not attack out democracies is their rallying call. They and by they I mean the conservation far right who have been in power one way or another for 30 years straight have been planning this shit fight for a long time.

The most believable reason for me was the whole petrodollar saga. It is my understandind Saddam want to drop the dollar for the Euro, forget the human atrocities in the north as soon as those in power became aware of this Saddam might as well put the rope around his neck then,

Then there was the super oil pipline running through that country which America wanted control of

Another very valid reason one which does not get discuss much is there is a Currency War going on behind the scenes right now, one of the reasons I am lead to believe why the Euro is so strong right now, is the EEC is buying up gold at a ferocious rate, The American Dollar is balancing on a razor edge, there is literally not enough money in the system right now and countries holding Dollar reserves are all looking at each other nervously wondering who is going to make a move to dump first. The Chinese by far have the biggest share of Dollar reserves and also US Debt. They have been making noises of dumping a large chunk of this recently by paying of some trillion dollar Gold invoice which gets pass from bank to bank everyday.

Some believe the Americans knowing how precarious a situation they are in right now, there economy could tank any day are trying to get control of the middle easts Oil mainly to keep china in check, China needs Oil, lots of Oil, a lot of it comes from the Countries America is currently “Liberating”

There is also the theory that after every major war or conflict, consolidation of power creeps in every more closer to complete centralization of global power.

WW11 gave us the Euro and the EEC, dodgy butter Mts and Brussel lead madness, WW111 perhaps the collapse of the US dollar, the creation of a new currency the Americano say which you can use in Mexico and Canada. Hell lets get rid of them pesky boarders and trade laws, cue Norad

The most worrying reason of all for me anyways is the amount of political traction the bible belt Baptist end of timers have in the US. Book burning sessions getting rid of the Evil Harry Potter, Darwinism not been thought in schools, the highest internship not only in the White House but amongst Senators are all Fundamentalist Christians. They want War in the Middle east and they want it as fast as possible. Worrying enough they have the Presidents Ear right now, he spends more time with Christian Talk show hosts eack week than some of his senior staff gauging his “bases” opinion on matters.. These scary people believe in Biblical prophecy to the world, they believe we are now in the End times and they want to see Holy War in Israel as quickly as possible so we can all be up to our wastes in blood in order to see that nice bloke Jesus, you know Gods lad the one with the beard and slippers.

Fuck me I could go on and on. What gets on my tits is this, a lot of the reasons I have outlined above I can understand and appreciate excluding the biblical stuff. It’s the bare face lies and deceit, it shows a complete and utter lack of respect for the general level of intelligence around the world at best at worse its like we really do not give a shit what you think we are doing this because fuck you we want to. As spidey says With Great Power comes great Responsibility, well to the untrained eye it may seem like America has shot its self in the foot but I would suggest all is not quite what it seems and what is happening in Iraq is just the opening gambit in something much much bigger.


Off the top of my head folks so apologies for any inaccuracies

One Planet One People :handshake:

[Neil Young]

I've just realized how to say what I wanted to say to marcgerard's comment about it being a 'moral war'. If we're going to look at it analytically and objectively then calling it that would not be appropriate I think. It may be how the likes of Blair and Bush like to see it but I think a better and certainly less confusing (although I think we all knew you weren't saying it was morally justified) term might be 'ideological war', i.e. a war in pursuit of ideological aims.

[marcgerard]

Mate I am enjoying reading this thread and enjoyed your post, only half way through the thread. But if you believe as you mentioned "The US completely mistook the potential for insurgency in a region " then I feel you may be a tad naive. They knew exactly what they were getting into. They were not expecting American flag waving Iraqis lining the streets singing god bless America, although they tried to have us believe this with their 1984 style "Embedded" Journalists.

Nothing on this scale happens by accident, Iraq is burning to the ground right now because someone somewhere wanted it, planned it and have executed it just like that. It was like the Execution of good old Saddam Global Villan extraordinare Hussein, someone somehow smuggled in a mobile phone with a camera ... Did they fuck. The American Army would have that process on serious lock down, nobody would be able to fart without level 5 clearance and yet someone can get a mobile in a Picture the once leader being abused and hanged. Why ? because they wanted it like that, poking the stick into the bees nest.

Watch Israel or as I like to call it the 51 st State of America launch a preemptive strike on Iran most likely summer this year, most likely with nuclear weapons. Then watch America "come to Israels aid" and help defeat the nasty evil Iranians. It will happen have no doubts.

Right back to reading the rest of this excellent thread :handshake:


There is an instance before the war in which a State Department aide brought in books on Iraqi history because the Defense Department had not taken into consideration the differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. They saw the biggest problem being keeping Kurds and Sunni muslims apart, more than that they feared Turkey intervening in the region. There was always contingencies in plae for security measures around Tikrit but the rest of the country they felt would fall into place. Samuel Huntingdon, whose book The Clash of Civilisations said that the institutions that must be kept in place are the civil service (until security is assured) and the Armed Service because it is the most Western insituition in any state. The US ignored this advice and with the failure of the transitional administration they created a situation in which the security of Iraq was compromised critically in the first six weeks of Phase Two.

Again the religious differences were manageable if the US were able to keep the different tribes from waring with each other and with the US. The Defense Department did not take this into consideration; it was a massive mistake.

[marcgerard]

I've just realized how to say what I wanted to say to marcgerard's comment about it being a 'moral war'. If we're going to look at it analytically and objectively then calling it that would not be appropriate I think. It may be how the likes of Blair and Bush like to see it but I think a better and certainly less confusing (although I think we all knew you weren't saying it was morally justified) term might be 'ideological war', i.e. a war in pursuit of ideological aims.

:handshake:


I appreciate what you are saying, and you are right I do not believe under any circumstances this war was moral, but Bush has no ideology as such. He is/was driven by a religious conviction which even in a state such as the US is unprecedented. However you are right that he will have been advised by those around him that did have ideological reasons for the war based upon the need for preventative action, this allows a state preempt future security issues by striking first. This is one of the reasons why the neo-cons hate the UN, as the UN Charter does not allow this.

Blair's reasons are personal and based around his conviction from about 1997 that attacks threatening the west were inevitable. The Septermber 2001 attacks just played into a paradigm he had already created about future world politics. His reasons were ideological in that sense, he believed it was through intervention in Iraq that the means for a new world order could be established; based around peace in the Middle East.

Both are critical because they created the impetus domestically and diplomatically for the war. Blair carried out his war plan despite overwhelming domestic unease, something Bush did not have.


The morality of what they were doing shaped their plans and blinded them and the people around them from some of the massive mistakes they were making. In some senses it was worse for Blair because he had an enormous amount of advice telling him that going to war under the US plan was reckless and would not lead to a new world order. He did not listen.

Such was the power of both a PM with a majority over 160 and a President with Senate support that the unease many felt and expressed did not matter. Both feel history will show that they were right, that both countries now feeling that the war was misguided has vindicated the difficult choices they felt they had to make. They were blinded right from the start and they are blinded now.

[Neil Young]

:handshake:

Personally I'd describe religious beliefs as an ideology (at least when it moves from being a purely private matter of belief into having an effect on how someone acts in the world). Also Blair's "paradigm" inevitably suggests an ideology to me. However, that's just quibbling on my part - if my suggestion of "ideological war" isn't helpful then let's dump it.

More interesting than definitions, what happened in '97 to lead Blair to adopt this strange, dystopian conviction? It sounds like he saw himself as a "man of destiny".

[marcgerard]

:handshake:

Personally I'd describe religious beliefs as an ideology (at least when it moves from being a purely private matter of belief into having an effect on how someone acts in the world). Also Blair's "paradigm" inevitably suggests an ideology to me. However, that's just quibbling on my part - if my suggestion of "ideological war" isn't helpful then let's dump it.

More interesting than definitions, what happened in '97 to lead Blair to adopt this strange, dystopian conviction? It sounds like he saw himself as a "man of destiny".

Your points are valid, the points I made over Blair were meant to suggest that there were ideological considerations, although he is far from an ideological politician, and you are correct Bush's religious beliefs do constitute an ideology; and strong identity too. I just do not think regarding foreign affairs Bush's beliefs constitute a strong ideology because effectively the acts of September 11th reversed US foreign policy under his administration.

He was an isolationist, the US in the first 10 months of his administration had signalled that it would no longer be the world's policeman and that in his first term he would nt interfere in the Middle East. His initial confusion over what to do reflected, for me, a man who suddenly had to act in a world he saw as sinister and that he did nt understand. His initial policy regarding Afghanistan he saw as a 'crusade' and he relied on something he had total faith in, American military power. But to me he moved from being an isolationist to warrior in the space of a few days, initially looking for revenge in Afghanistan and then regime change in Iraq. You could say that events changed him and you would be right, but the swiftness between his positions before and after Septmeber 11th suggested that he had no clearly held ideological beliefs in the way he did over, say, the way he felt he should act domestically. In domestic affairs he has very ideological approach to politics.


Regarding Blair, the easy answer is that the intelligence reports he saw after his becoming Prime Minister made him believe that WMD and Iraq would be major issues in the coming years. The commonly held view of Blair as a poodle is unfair in this respect, he was tougher regarding Hussain than Clinton and had given the issue far more thought than Bush prior to September 11th. For the period between his becoming PM and the Septmeber 11th attacks Blair did more to highlight the perceived threat of Saddam Hussain than any other leader and actively promoted regime change, this also explains his increasingly frought relationship with Chirac, who favoured a purely diplomatic response. The book Hug Them Close by Peter Riddell has a very good chapter on this.

[SouthAfricaRed]

I think an interesting side to it all was that most of the remaining Sumerian artifacts vanished within days of the take over. It was almost an organized plundering.

Maybe they contained sensitive information?

But then I'm :rash: