View Full Version : Iraq and Afganistan
Zigzagman
2-19-11, 11:22am
My nephew is returning to Austin this week on R&R from Iraq for 2 weeks. As a member of the ARNG Signal Corps they were deployed to assist in determining what equipment would be given to the Iraq government and what would be shipped elsewhere. Like any other soldier he does not get to decide where or for what purpose he is deployed.
Now for my rant - why are we continuing this charade in Iraq? Reading the latest news there is now talk that we will probably extend our stay past the Dec. 2011 time-line and maybe leave as many as 50,000 troops plus contractors indefinitely. What? At a time when we are slashing social services in this country, laying off countless teachers, playing the GOP austerity game - What? It seems these days that no one really care. Not my problem. When I call elected officials I am told that the "Generals" are best left to those decisions - What?
Afghanistan = probably just the first stages of that mess (after over 10 years). I have a neighbor leaving this week as a contractor in Afghanistan. The issues of Afganistan are about as undetermined as anything I could imagine. At what point does this stop. I personally think we are nuts and sadly look at these deployments as "jobs". I just cannot believe that it has anything at all to do with our "security" nor has it ever.
Enough is enough - how can you stop the Military machine?
Peace
ApatheticNoMore
2-19-11, 12:24pm
Now for my rant - why are we continuing this charade in Iraq?
I imagine for the oil and to maintain access to the oil via pipelines etc.. So I was wondering what's the follow up on this, have we gotten much oil out of Iraq yet? Well it seems like there may be quite a lot of oil indeed. Why look what our old friends (sarcasm) BP are up to:
"BASRA, Iraq — On a bleak stretch of desert near the Iraq-Kuwait border — half a world away from the Gulf of Mexico and last year's nightmarish blowout — BP is riding high, rapidly developing one of the world's richest oil fields."
"BP and Iraqi officials hope the Rumaila field soon will become the second most productive in the world — after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar — propelling the country into competition with Saudi Arabia and its other powerful oil-producing neighbor, Iran.
Iraq sits on the world's third largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, with the biggest known fields lying under the windswept sands outside Basra"
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/26/107493/big-reason-for-hope-in-iraq-oil.html#ixzz1EQSYt0bn
So let's put together what we know:
1) Ghawar is running out of oil. Many people have said it may well have much less oil there than we have been told. It seems hard to independently investigate how much oil is left in Ghawar as it seems noone has open access to that data.
2) BP was given the rights to develop the Iraq Basra field through open or not so open bidding I suppose, I don't know.
3) The Obama administration is in bed with the oil industry. I don't really mean to pick on the Obama administration but it hardly needs to be argued oil man Bush was in bed with them. Let's review what we know about the Obama administration and this specific company British Petroleum. The Obama administration was not only lax in regulation and thus in many ways allowed the spill to happen (it's hard to prove intent there, you can just call it oversight). But also with intent the Obama administration went into deep cover up mode after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It circled the wagons around hiding the extent of the spill, going so far as forbidding people to even take pictures of the spill or even take pictures of any BP property etc.. It flashed a fascist face for anyone who was willing to perceive it (our corporate government no longer even hides it, and openly shows you what it's about from time to time, it tends to continually go down the memory hole though). In conclusion: the Obama administration is deeply in bed with BP and maybe the oil industry in general.
Hence the Iraq war.
Keep in mind we built permanent bases in Iraq. There was never any intent to leave. We'll leave when all the oil is gone or the political atmosphere so stable that we can count on corporate giants (heaven forbid it was nationalized) controlling all the oil as long as it lasts.
ApatheticNoMore
2-20-11, 3:12am
By the way speaking of Iraq sitting on the 3rd largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and about the Saudi Ariabian oil field Ghwar having less oil than assumed:
We now have a Wikileak on U.S. diplomats being told by a senior Saudi government oil executive (in the years 2007-2009) that Saudi Arabia has nearly 40% less oil than we have otherwise been told!!! So the biggest oil producing country in the world may have nearly 40% less oil than assumed! Now how important is Iraq?!?
Saudi Arabia unable to stop oil price spikes:
"Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment."
Washington knows, they just don't talk about it. Don't want to scare the "children" (us the citizens):
"The US consul then told Washington: 'While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks
By the way this information that Wikileaks is leaking is critical (I support Wikileaks!). Sure the International Energy Agency has already been talking about this stuff (so you can level the nothing new charge), sure all sorts of rumors also make the round in peak oil circles. But it's not widespread and we don't hear it enough and hearing it from this source is new. We need to hear this information. We need to hear what our diplomats hear on the very oil our lifestyle (sadly) depends on.
Ok so Saudi oil is running out, Iraq oil is a really big deal, not talked much about but just HUGE news. Still why can't we just buy it on the market, why did we have to go to war for it? Frankly, I'm not sure. Would Iraq have developed that oil if we didn't invade? Probably, it's their major source of wealth. Would they have sold it to us? Well with oil transacted in dollars, yes, but that won't last, so with how worthless our currency is becoming maybe not! Of course the cost of all these wars is one of the major causes of our currency going downhill in the first place (and the fact that all that money was not invested instead in other promising things, like solar power). so hmm .... I don't know. Maybe they wanted to preserve profits for oil companies and make sure they were the ones exploiting it?
My nephew is returning to Austin this week on R&R from Iraq for 2 weeks. As a member of the ARNG Signal Corps they were deployed to assist in determining what equipment would be given to the Iraq government and what would be shipped elsewhere. Like any other soldier he does not get to decide where or for what purpose he is deployed.
Now for my rant - why are we continuing this charade in Iraq? Reading the latest news there is now talk that we will probably extend our stay past the Dec. 2011 time-line and maybe leave as many as 50,000 troops plus contractors indefinitely. What? At a time when we are slashing social services in this country, laying off countless teachers, playing the GOP austerity game - What? It seems these days that no one really care. Not my problem. When I call elected officials I am told that the "Generals" are best left to those decisions - What?
Afghanistan = probably just the first stages of that mess (after over 10 years). I have a neighbor leaving this week as a contractor in Afghanistan. The issues of Afganistan are about as undetermined as anything I could imagine. At what point does this stop. I personally think we are nuts and sadly look at these deployments as "jobs". I just cannot believe that it has anything at all to do with our "security" nor has it ever.
Enough is enough - how can you stop the Military machine?
Peace
The same questions were asked post World War II with regard to the ruinous cost of the European and Japanese occupations, and post Korean War with regard to the high costs of the South Korean occupation.
A result was vigorous and stable democracies instead of murderous totalitarian regimes. One may hope the end result will be similar in the case of Iraq, albeit the issue is still in doubt.
Of course, it took ten years before the first shaky democratic governments in German, Italy, and Japan emerged; a fact often forgotten nowadays.
In the case of Afghanistan, we simply desire that al Qaeda and others that wish to kill you and your family not have training grounds there to further their murderous intent.
Best,
Rodger Morris
Unitarian Jihad Name - Brother Rail Gun of Quiet Reflection
Interesting comments.
I do think that much of our foreign policy is about oil - for better or worse, and I definitely think for the worse.
I also think the idea that we are occupying a country under the guise of war for "stability" seems absurd. If we didn't have our tentacles of "democracy", financed by our national debt, so outstreached them maybe, just maybe, we might realize that war is not peace.
Bring'em home - - this Vietnam guilt trip has gone far enough. :0!
Support the Troops!!
Peace
I think another question that needs to be answered is have we become an Imperial Power and don't want to lose that status. Why do we still have troops in Europe, Japan and all over the world. The cold war is over and world war 11 ended over 60 years ago.
I think many of our politician like leading an Imperial Power.
IshbelRobertson
2-21-11, 4:38am
May I just correct using the term BRITISH Petroleum? They stopped using that a number of years ago, in order to reflect that they were an international company.
And, like ALL oil companies, they go where the oil is, get the contracts (by whatever means, I have no knowledge of the bidding process) and then drill. SEEMPLES, as my friend Alexsandr the meerkat would say! See the 'seemples' ads here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0AKC3wZdw4
Eggs and Shrubs
2-21-11, 8:40am
The same questions were asked post World War II with regard to the ruinous cost of the European and Japanese occupations, and post Korean War with regard to the high costs of the South Korean occupation.
A result was vigorous and stable democracies instead of murderous totalitarian regimes. One may hope the end result will be similar in the case of Iraq, albeit the issue is still in doubt.
Of course, it took ten years before the first shaky democratic governments in German, Italy, and Japan emerged; a fact often forgotten nowadays.
In the case of Afghanistan, we simply desire that al Qaeda and others that wish to kill you and your family not have training grounds there to further their murderous intent.
Best,
Rodger Morris
Unitarian Jihad Name - Brother Rail Gun of Quiet Reflection
Strong democratic Governments emerged in both West Germany and Italy in the late 1940s.
Strong democratic Governments emerged in both West Germany and Italy in the late 1940s.
While it is true that the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was formed on 23 MAY 1949, it was hardly a "Strong democratic government" at that point in time. I believe the watershed point might reasonably be placed at 09 MAY 1955, when the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was admitted into NATO as a member in full standing. Thus the ten years I cited.
As to Italy, it is true that it legally became a republic on 02 JUN 1946. It is also true that the standing joke in Europe at that time was that the Italians changed their government about as often as they changed their shirts. This is hardly consistent with "Strong democratic government". I believe that the watershed point might be reasonably placed in the 1950s when Italy became a founding member of the European Economic Union.
I believe this is a matter about which reasonable individuals may reasonably disagree.
Best,
Rodger Morris
Unitarian Jihad Name - Brother Rail Gun of Quiet Reflection
We are in Iraq for more than the oil. Don't get me wrong, the oil is important really important to power the U.S. and the global economy but it's only one reason why we went in there and why we continue to be there. At the beginning of our intervention in Iraq, President and his advisors really thought we would march into Iraq, blast the Iraqi army and government with an air bombardment and once they collapsed, drive into Baghdad amidst cheers and flowers and all would be well.
An invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would be quick, easy and cerate a great opportunity to introduce the Middle East to American style democracy. Even 9-11 seemed to be no deterrent to this plan. A former Bush cabinet member related how an invasion of Iraq was discussed at a cabinet meeting before the planes crashed into the World Trade Towers. Bush had become personally convinced that an invasion would be a brilliant answer for several issues; the threat Saddam Hussein posed to our access to the oil in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, the threat he posed to Israel were he to get weapsons of mass destruction (we found out later that Iraq had no weapons and no way to deliver them to Israel or us) and the threat he posed to us as an arab nationalist figure thumbing his nose at the U.S.
We did not count on further resistance after we toppled Saddam and we did not count on the resurgance of the Shiites as a political force as well as a military force. We found ourselves having to live with a political situation that we had given little if any thought to beforehand. And we are still looking for a way to put the best face on it. Years after Bush annnounced "Mission accomplished' from the back of a fighter plane, the U.S. is still trying to scrape together a credible government that ressembles a western democracy.
The Military itself does not want to be the ones who lost Iraq. All the while, it is trying to define a mission of stabilizing the Gulf to ensure the safe transport of the oil. The Obama Administration is trying to make the best of a policy that would be difficult to make work under any circumstances (say like Europe after World War II).
The difference is that the U.S. can't easily afford to rebuild the Middle East in the way that it rebuilt Europe with loans and investments. The people in the Middle East seem to be voting with their feet anyway. They are no longer willing to accept the lack of freedom or grinding poverty that most of them have been living in despite the oil wealth that belongs to their countries.
What can we do about the squandering of our national resources when essential needs of the peole are being neglected here? I have tried to learn more about the people and countries of the Middle East and advocate for us to approach the region in a different way. Remember there have been some successes for the U.S. there like Jimmy Carter's successful negotiation of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. It is 30 years ago but the treaty still stands and the Egyptians have said they will respect it.
I suggest that reading or listening to some alternative sources of information about the region like Al-Jazera or even the BBC may give one more perspective about events there. The one thing that you can say is that no one will have the last word about a part of the world which has been around for thousands of years!
We the U.S. can't dictate to the people of the region so it might be good to learn more about how we can truly have a dialogue with them. Some years ago, I took part in a discussion group of arab and jewish people about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. We did not solve the conflict of course but just speaking and listening to people face to face was very enlightening.
Sincerely, Bicyclist
It's pretty obvious that very few Americans really give a crap if our Armed Forces are in Iraq or Afghanistan. We seem to celebrate the "sacrifice" of our soldiers, we love to "Support the Troops" and we most love to think that "we are safer". Most people don;t seem to have a problem with the budget deficits that are created by these actions, after all, we support the troops.
In short it seems that the common attitude is that if the military is voluntary, and if our leaders say we need to be in conflict, then who the hell cares.
We live in a wacky world, but mark my words these conflicts will not produce a outcome that is good for anyone. As a Vietnam combat veteran, I look at the service these days as just another form of "corporate greed". "If you pay me enough money, give me a job, then there is no limit to what you can ask of me" - now let's all go pray for our troops!!
Peace
I think the best way we can "support the troops" is to bring them home.
I agree, bring 'em home. I'm all for doing away with a standing army. Let the Navy protect our shores and then gather an defensive army when needed.
It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.
ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.
It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.
ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.
Not really. If you look at it in terms of those with a lot of money are much more concerned with making a lot more money than with the welfare of peoples or countries (including their own), it makes a lot of sense.
It is a wacky world. We, the USA, are funding BOTH sides of the war(s). Writing checks for military conflict on one side and doing absolutely nothing to curb our insatiable thirst for oil on the other. Much of the oil we buy is found under the feet of the people we are fighting with. How hard is it to see that at least some of the money we pay out for oil gets used against us. The only word that comes to mind is, well...stupid. Time to bring 'em home and spend the money on a rational mix of domestic and renewable energy sources.
ETA: Just to be clear on Iraq proper, the US doesn't even end up with most of the oil produced there. China does. Stupid.
+1
So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?
So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?
Depends on the definition of "the other side"!
If you mean the oil oligarchy, the private mercenaries, the arms dealers, the war contractors - yes these wars are funding the other side and in a big way.
If you mean the terrorists - I think that is about the US occupation versus oil.
If you mean a religious war against Islam - for many that appears to be the case.
These wars were both an example of bad foreign policy influenced by emotion, greed, and empire. As much as I dislike "black gold" I don't believe it has much to do with Iraq or Afganistan. That doesn't mean that we would not go to war over natural resources but at least for now I don;t think that is the case.
Peace
Depends on the definition of "the other side"!
If you mean the oil oligarchy, the private mercenaries, the arms dealers, the war contractors - yes these wars are funding the other side and in a big way.
Exactly so :-)
So, if we don't actually get oil from Iraq, and we don't get oil from Afghanistan, how exactly is "the money we pay for oil" funding "the other side"?
Zig hit the nail on the head, but in terms of simple production and usage numbers here's the current stats. The US imports an average of 414,000 bbl/day of crude oil from Iraq or about 1/6 of their production and around 2% of our roughly 20 mbd usage (late 2010 - from the US Energy Information Administration). It's not that we don't get any oil from Iraq, we just don't get much.
An interesting idea to me is the cost to subsidize Iraqi oil. IF we were to consider the Iraq war a resource war and use a round number of $1.5 trillion spent so far over 8 years and an average import of 300,000 bbl/day (it was nearly zero at the start of the war, up to 414,000 bbl/day now) that would mean we have imported about 1.2 billion barrels of oil from Iraq since the war started. Since we don't get much other than oil from Iraq and since it doesn't appear to be a humanitarian action we are involved in there I just divide the war cost by the amount of oil we get and come up with a "military surcharge" of somewhere around $1,240 per barrel that we in the US are paying for Iraqi oil. Over simplified? Of course, but it does shed a little light for me to look at things this way.
These wars were both an example of bad foreign policy influenced by emotion, greed, and empire. As much as I dislike "black gold" I don't believe it has much to do with Iraq or Afganistan. That doesn't mean that we would not go to war over natural resources but at least for now I don;t think that is the case.
Peace
Won't argue for a minute regarding your assessment of foreign policy, Zig. And Afghanistan is just about as worthless a chunk of rock as there is when you're talking about resources that are viable to be exploited by western corporations. Iraq is a little different story though. Current estimates have Iraq holding around 11% of the global oil reserves, but because of wars, corruption, under-investment, etc. most of the country's oil fields have not been tapped. They produced a high of nearly 3.5 mbd from only 1,600 wells (2,187.5 bbl/day average). The US has about 530,000 producing wells from which we get a little less than 7 mbd (<13.2 bbl/day average). That means the average Iraqi well is at least 165 times more productive than the average US well. Remember, the US figures include Alaska, deep water Gulf, West Texas...everything. What that really means is that, aside from waging war, Iraqi oil is CHEAP to produce. There are also geologists that believe the 115 billion barrels of proven reserves in Iraq could increase anywhere from 40 to 100 billion more barrels when the southern desert fields are mapped. At the high end of that range, and with the general assumption that the Saudis have overstated their reserves, Iraq could be holding almost 20% of the global reserves and nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia. That leads me to the conclusion that the Iraqi war IS a resource war.
The US imports an average of 414,000 bbl/day of crude oil from Iraq
Well, that sounds like a bargain. Today's spot price is $115/barrel, so that's $47.6 million of oil per day. And we're only spending $720 million a day on the Iraq war.... Plus however many people will die this week.
Great return-on-investment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.