Operation Iraqi Liberation

[zefrendylia]

Published on Sunday, May 6, 2007 by the Independent/UK
We Soldiers Once Assumed Our Political Bosses Would Not Lie to Us. That is Over.We realized the actual issue was about long-term access to oil
by Leo Docherty

Four years ago, I watched, with other young officers, the invasion of Iraq on TV in the mess. We were sick with envy. Our brother officers were having the most exciting time of their lives, at the center of history, while we, on ceremonial duties in London, marched about in red tunics and bearskin hats.

The invasion, it seemed, was a necessary evil to be redeemed by the creation of a free, democratic Iraq. The WMD issue was a pretext, we all concurred, an honorable white lie to knock an evil dictator off his perch and breathe new hope into the lives of a brutally repressed people.

Our turn soon came, and the ground truth in Basra and Maysan provinces was a shock. The statue-toppling euphoria had been replaced by the horrific chaos of a state in collapse, exacerbated by a rising insurgency and sectarian bloodshed. The truth gradually emerged. The police and army we were training were corrupt and probably loyal to the insurgency. The first supposedly democratic elections for half a century were a façade, dependent on the presence of our Warrior fighting vehicles at polling stations.

Then we realized the issue was not replacing tyranny with democracy, but gaining long-term access to oil. Blair, in bowing to American oil-mad energy hunger, had deployed the British Army on a lie, a much bigger lie than the one about WMDs. Today, the appalling sectarian violence killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week is the direct result of our invasion and botched occupation. As Blair prepares to leave office, Iraq is descending into deeper human tragedy, and British troops are still dying.

Those in the forces who, like me, were frustrated and disillusioned after Iraq, took new optimism from British intervention in Afghanistan. It looked like being everything Iraq should have been: reconstructive nation-building to improve the lives of poverty-stricken Afghans.

Sadly, political ill-preparation and haste dropped the military, again, into lethally hot water. Last year, British forces were sent into volatile Helmand, ill-equipped and inadequately supported. Scattered across the north of the province (the size of Wales), small teams occupied “platoon houses” in remote towns.

I was in Sangin where, as in everywhere else, we had no means of starting developmental reconstruction and stood no chance of winning Afghan hearts and minds. To the locals, the presence of British soldiers seemed to presage destruction of their poppy crop and their livelihoods.

Helmand produces 40 per cent of Afghanistan’s opium crop, the source of 90 per cent of global heroin. And the people there are tribesmen, infamous for their ferocious hostility to foreign interference. The savage backlash rages still; more than 50 British servicemen are dead in this sub-campaign, countless Afghan civilians have been killed, and opium production is at an all-time high.

The Taliban are thriving on this: every Afghan civilian killed by the British artillery round or helicopter gunship has a dozen brothers, cousins, and friends seeking British blood for vengeance. Today, our troops are risking their lives in a pointless conflict, a nightmare scenario of counter-insurgency gone wrong.

There is the mismatch between Blair’s huge military ambition overseas and the scarce resources the forces get to fulfill it. The Army has lost four infantry battalions. Soldiers serving a fourth tour struggle to maintain relationships at home. Half the Navy’s fleet is threatened with mothballing.

When you join the Army, you swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and, by extension, the Prime Minister. We commit ourselves, with unquestioning loyalty, to the State. This is founded on trust in our political masters, and the belief that they are honorable people who will not lie to us, will resource us correctly and deploy us with sound judgment, after thorough strategic planning. This bond is unique, set in stone regardless of party politics. Today, this bond is broken. Catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan and years of resource-starvation have taken their toll; this is Blair’s legacy.

Late last year, the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannat, publicly called for our withdrawal from Iraq. Other senior officers voiced concern. Such public statements, unthinkable before Blair, are a glimpse of the military’s anger and frustration.

Of those officers I sat with in the mess four years ago, many, like me, have left the Army. Those who remain have no trust in the Government. One told me: “We won’t be fooled again.”

[Psychoblues]

Do you have an opinion on the article, zefrendylia? I certainly do.




Published on Sunday, May 6, 2007 by the Independent/UK
We Soldiers Once Assumed Our Political Bosses Would Not Lie to Us. That is Over.We realized the actual issue was about long-term access to oil
by Leo Docherty

Four years ago, I watched, with other young officers, the invasion of Iraq on TV in the mess. We were sick with envy. Our brother officers were having the most exciting time of their lives, at the center of history, while we, on ceremonial duties in London, marched about in red tunics and bearskin hats.

The invasion, it seemed, was a necessary evil to be redeemed by the creation of a free, democratic Iraq. The WMD issue was a pretext, we all concurred, an honorable white lie to knock an evil dictator off his perch and breathe new hope into the lives of a brutally repressed people.

Our turn soon came, and the ground truth in Basra and Maysan provinces was a shock. The statue-toppling euphoria had been replaced by the horrific chaos of a state in collapse, exacerbated by a rising insurgency and sectarian bloodshed. The truth gradually emerged. The police and army we were training were corrupt and probably loyal to the insurgency. The first supposedly democratic elections for half a century were a façade, dependent on the presence of our Warrior fighting vehicles at polling stations.

Then we realized the issue was not replacing tyranny with democracy, but gaining long-term access to oil. Blair, in bowing to American oil-mad energy hunger, had deployed the British Army on a lie, a much bigger lie than the one about WMDs. Today, the appalling sectarian violence killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week is the direct result of our invasion and botched occupation. As Blair prepares to leave office, Iraq is descending into deeper human tragedy, and British troops are still dying.

Those in the forces who, like me, were frustrated and disillusioned after Iraq, took new optimism from British intervention in Afghanistan. It looked like being everything Iraq should have been: reconstructive nation-building to improve the lives of poverty-stricken Afghans.

Sadly, political ill-preparation and haste dropped the military, again, into lethally hot water. Last year, British forces were sent into volatile Helmand, ill-equipped and inadequately supported. Scattered across the north of the province (the size of Wales), small teams occupied “platoon houses” in remote towns.

I was in Sangin where, as in everywhere else, we had no means of starting developmental reconstruction and stood no chance of winning Afghan hearts and minds. To the locals, the presence of British soldiers seemed to presage destruction of their poppy crop and their livelihoods.

Helmand produces 40 per cent of Afghanistan’s opium crop, the source of 90 per cent of global heroin. And the people there are tribesmen, infamous for their ferocious hostility to foreign interference. The savage backlash rages still; more than 50 British servicemen are dead in this sub-campaign, countless Afghan civilians have been killed, and opium production is at an all-time high.

The Taliban are thriving on this: every Afghan civilian killed by the British artillery round or helicopter gunship has a dozen brothers, cousins, and friends seeking British blood for vengeance. Today, our troops are risking their lives in a pointless conflict, a nightmare scenario of counter-insurgency gone wrong.

There is the mismatch between Blair’s huge military ambition overseas and the scarce resources the forces get to fulfill it. The Army has lost four infantry battalions. Soldiers serving a fourth tour struggle to maintain relationships at home. Half the Navy’s fleet is threatened with mothballing.

When you join the Army, you swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and, by extension, the Prime Minister. We commit ourselves, with unquestioning loyalty, to the State. This is founded on trust in our political masters, and the belief that they are honorable people who will not lie to us, will resource us correctly and deploy us with sound judgment, after thorough strategic planning. This bond is unique, set in stone regardless of party politics. Today, this bond is broken. Catastrophes in Iraq and Afghanistan and years of resource-starvation have taken their toll; this is Blair’s legacy.

Late last year, the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannat, publicly called for our withdrawal from Iraq. Other senior officers voiced concern. Such public statements, unthinkable before Blair, are a glimpse of the military’s anger and frustration.

Of those officers I sat with in the mess four years ago, many, like me, have left the Army. Those who remain have no trust in the Government. One told me: “We won’t be fooled again.”

Those soldiers commented as best as they could.

[avatar4321]

If all we wanted was access to the oil all we had to do is remove the sanctions from Saddam and he would have given it to us all we wanted. Then he would have taken our money and constructed weapons of mass destruction with it to give to his terrorist allies. And we would be seriously screwed.

[diuretic]

If all we wanted was access to the oil all we had to do is remove the sanctions from Saddam and he would have given it to us all we wanted. Then he would have taken our money and constructed weapons of mass destruction with it to give to his terrorist allies. And we would be seriously screwed.

Wasn't it the UN that had the sanctions on? And aren't Russia and China in the UN Security Council? I don't think it would have worked out the way you think.

[Psychoblues]

It's all bait and switch with this bunch, diruretic.



Wasn't it the UN that had the sanctions on? And aren't Russia and China in the UN Security Council? I don't think it would have worked out the way you think.

Get your game on and dig the action!!!!!!!

[zefrendylia]

If all we wanted was access to the oil all we had to do is remove the sanctions from Saddam and he would have given it to us all we wanted. Then he would have taken our money and constructed weapons of mass destruction with it to give to his terrorist allies. And we would be seriously screwed.

You couldn't be more wrong. It wasn't simply access to the oil it was control that was ultimately the motivating factor. He who controls the world's energy supply, controls the world. This is the neoconservative doctrine expressed so eloquently by the Project for a New American Century, whose signers include such hopefuls as Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush. It also helps to spread these ideas far and wide thanks to the Weekly Standard and American Enterprise Institute. You see, it isn't simply access, it is control. The only way to do this is for massive military intervention, overt and covert, to remove the regimes who control these vast oil reserves and establish a "western-friendly" government that can be easily manipulated. Don't forget to construct massive military bases to protect the ebb and flow of troops in case the "natives get restless."

But since the majority of Americans and British don't want their governments hop-skipping around the globe in the name of imperialism how do you accomplish this? Well, you can do it secretly like we did in 1950's Iran or all throughout Central and South America in the 1970's and 80's. But those pesky Senate oversight committees always get in the way. Well, I guess we can use the power of the media, talking points, and spin to fool the people into giving their OK. Afterall, when you have the people behind you, any detractors can easily be shouted down. So we invented fake WMD claims, and fake ties to the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda who ironically was the ideological enemy of the secular Saddam. No, it's not simply about oil, it's about control, power, and greed.

[darin]

should this be in the conspiracy theory forum? :)

:tinfoil:

[Hagbard Celine]

Do you have an opinion on the article, zefrendylia? I certainly do.





Those soldiers commented as best as they could.

There's a problem with the war for oil hypothesis so I will pose it in the form of a question: Why, if we ousted Saddam and occupied Iraq for oil, haven't we done anything to rebuild and update the drilling infrastructure and generally jump start the Iraqi oil industry? From what I've heard, the Iraqi oil fields are still operating below 50 percent capacity with outdated, 1970s equipment. wtf are we waiting for?

[Hagbard Celine]

Another problem with the war for oil hypothesis is that it assumes that there is some ulterior motive for going to war--other than what the administration originally told us. This leads to another assumption--that the administration is competent enough to have devised and executed an intricate plan to seize an asset while keeping it under wraps, disguising it as something else. Well, taking into account the administration's history of bungling everything it touches, does it really seem plausible? Isn't it more realistic to assume that the administration's original intentions were sincere and that the situation we find ourselves in regarding Iraq today is just another incompetent bungle on the list?

[avatar4321]

Wasn't it the UN that had the sanctions on? And aren't Russia and China in the UN Security Council? I don't think it would have worked out the way you think.

why not? they were already making deals with Iraq for oil under the table. They would have benefited much like anyone else from making the deals legitimate.

[avatar4321]

You couldn't be more wrong. It wasn't simply access to the oil it was control that was ultimately the motivating factor. He who controls the world's energy supply, controls the world. This is the neoconservative doctrine expressed so eloquently by the Project for a New American Century, whose signers include such hopefuls as Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush. It also helps to spread these ideas far and wide thanks to the Weekly Standard and American Enterprise Institute. You see, it isn't simply access, it is control. The only way to do this is for massive military intervention, overt and covert, to remove the regimes who control these vast oil reserves and establish a "western-friendly" government that can be easily manipulated. Don't forget to construct massive military bases to protect the ebb and flow of troops in case the "natives get restless."

But since the majority of Americans and British don't want their governments hop-skipping around the globe in the name of imperialism how do you accomplish this? Well, you can do it secretly like we did in 1950's Iran or all throughout Central and South America in the 1970's and 80's. But those pesky Senate oversight committees always get in the way. Well, I guess we can use the power of the media, talking points, and spin to fool the people into giving their OK. Afterall, when you have the people behind you, any detractors can easily be shouted down. So we invented fake WMD claims, and fake ties to the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda who ironically was the ideological enemy of the secular Saddam. No, it's not simply about oil, it's about control, power, and greed.

So why havent we simply declared victory in Kuwait? or moved into Saudi Arabia and Iran? Why havet we invaded Venezuela and Russia and more importantly, Canada?

If we are so desperate to control the worlds Oil why arent we drilling everywhere we can in the United States? Why arente we drilling off the gulf coast?

Your arguments have so much flaws in it its not funny.

[Dilloduck]

Another problem with the war for oil hypothesis is that it assumes that there is some ulterior motive for going to war--other than what the administration originally told us. This leads to another assumption--that the administration is competent enough to have devised and executed an intricate plan to seize an asset while keeping it under wraps, disguising it as something else. Well, taking into account the administration's history of bungling everything it touches, does it really seem plausible? Isn't it more realistic to assume that the administration's original intentions were sincere and that the situation we find ourselves in regarding Iraq today is just another incompetent bungle on the list?

I don't think that everyone that was invloved in planning, selling and conducting the war was on the same page regarding preferred outcomes and ultimate goals. Different group of "strategists" are hoping to direct the war to reach different goals. Too many cooks and too many recipes. The invasion had them all licking thier chops .

[zefrendylia]

So why havent we simply declared victory in Kuwait? or moved into Saudi Arabia and Iran? Why havet we invaded Venezuela and Russia and more importantly, Canada?

If we are so desperate to control the worlds Oil why arent we drilling everywhere we can in the United States? Why arente we drilling off the gulf coast?

Your arguments have so much flaws in it its not funny.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are willing allies in the consolidated control of oil. It is easier for the U.S. to control dictatorships than it is to control a democracy. Think of how many connections the Saudi ruling family has with the Bush Carlyle Group. Why haven't we invaded Venezeula? Like I said, overt and covert. We in fact did institute a coup on Hugo Chavez but it failed when an overwhelming majority of the people brought him back into power. Why haven't we invaded Russia? Are you purposely being obtuse? Why haven't we invaded Iran? Don't worry the Administration is actively working on that even at the covert level. Millions of dollars have been siphoned off of defense bills to support Al Qaeda terrorists in southern Iran in the hopes that it will foment and overthrow the regime. Ironic isn't it? We are fighting a war against Al Qaeda in Iraq while secretly funding Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran. Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean its flawed.

[zefrendylia]

There's a problem with the war for oil hypothesis so I will pose it in the form of a question: Why, if we ousted Saddam and occupied Iraq for oil, haven't we done anything to rebuild and update the drilling infrastructure and generally jump start the Iraqi oil industry? From what I've heard, the Iraqi oil fields are still operating below 50 percent capacity with outdated, 1970s equipment. wtf are we waiting for?

Another problem with the war for oil hypothesis is that it assumes that there is some ulterior motive for going to war--other than what the administration originally told us. This leads to another assumption--that the administration is competent enough to have devised and executed an intricate plan to seize an asset while keeping it under wraps, disguising it as something else. Well, taking into account the administration's history of bungling everything it touches, does it really seem plausible? Isn't it more realistic to assume that the administration's original intentions were sincere and that the situation we find ourselves in regarding Iraq today is just another incompetent bungle on the list?



Oh incompetency is a huge part of the problem don't get me wrong. But in order to facilitate control of the oil all you have to do is have military dominance in the region--that we have accomplished (sort of). Next, oil production in Iraq is vastly more important at this point in time to Iraqis than it is to the world's oil supply. Remember, even with the problems in Iraq--crude oil prices are dropping. To get domestic oil production up and running you first need peace and stability. Obviously, that is lacking in the majority of the country. The insurgents know this, which is why they are kidnapping and killing oil workers and blowing pipelines. Then, whatever oil is actually produced is then usually stolen or through corruption--sold on the black market. All in all this creates general resentment toward those in power--the occupying forces.

Iraq still has vast amounts of untapped oil fields. Some speculate that the oil reserves might even be greater than Saudi Arabia. As far as those who want to control oil is concerned, its okay if it stays in the ground. As long as oil is drained elsewhere, and the U.S. controls at least one huge supply of "black gold" including our own domestic supply, we will be able to sell it for exorbitant prices when the worldwide supply eventually declines.

Ulterior motive? Sure. There were a lot of ulterior motives to going to war--none of which had anything to do with WMD or terrorism. Political capital, defense industry spending, Halliburton/Bechtel/KBR stock, private security firms, spreading democracy and neocon ideology, establishing a military beachhead in the mid-east, Israeli interests, control of oil reserves, to intimidate Iran and Syria--you name it. There was a bunch of motives--but no plan. All they saw was the $$$ in terms of political and monetary gain--riding the coattails of 9/11 was the opportune way to do it. They thought that all they had to do was set up a puppet government in Iraq, keep 40K troops in garrison and the people would follow along. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

[zefrendylia]

why not? they were already making deals with Iraq for oil under the table. They would have benefited much like anyone else from making the deals legitimate.

Don't just blame it on the UN. Blame it on Chevron and other oil conglomerates (Texaco, Mobil, etc.) who were in on the scheme. In fact, ask Condi Rice who happened to be on the board of directors and head of the public policy programme for Chevron. Oh wait, that would make the truth inconvenient.

Chevron to concede it fell short
Investigators say deal in works over Oil-for-Food

By CLAUDIO GATTI and JAD MOUAWAD
New York Times

Chevron is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct U.N. program, according to investigators.

The admission is part of a settlement being negotiated with U.S. prosecutors and includes fines totaling $25 million to $30 million, according to the investigators, who declined to be identified because the settlement was not yet public.

The penalty, which is still being negotiated, would be the largest so far in the United States in connection with investigations of companies involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal.

The $64 billion program was set up in 1996 by the U.N. Security Council to help ease the effects of U.N. sanctions on Iraqi civilians after the Persian Gulf War. Until the American invasion in 2003, the program allowed Saddam's government to export oil to pay for food, medicine and humanitarian goods.

However, the Iraqi regime received at least $1.8 billion in kickbacks from companies in the program, according to an inquiry completed in 2005 by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

By imposing surcharges on the sale of crude oil, the Iraqi regime skimmed about $228 million from its oil exports.

A report released in 2004 by an investigator at the CIA listed five U.S. companies that bought oil through the program: Coastal Corp., a subsidiary of Houston-based El Paso Corp.; Chevron; Texaco; BayOil; and Mobil, now part of Exxon Mobil. They have denied any wrongdoing and said they were cooperating with the inquiries.

As part of the deal under negotiation, Chevron, which now owns Texaco, is not expected to admit to violating the U.N. sanctions. But Chevron is expected to acknowledge that it should have been aware that illegal kickbacks were being paid to Iraq, the investigators said.

The fine is connected to the payment of about $20 million in surcharges on tens of millions of barrels of Iraqi oil bought by Chevron from 2000 to 2002, investigators said.

These payments were made by small oil traders that sold oil to Chevron. But records found by U.N., American and Italian officials showed that they were financed by Chevron.

The negotiations follow an agreement reached in February by El Paso to pay the U.S. government $7.7 million to settle allegations that it was involved in illegal payments under the Oil-for-Food program.

The settlement discussions are a result of months of work by a joint task force of the U.S. attorneys of the Southern District of New York and the Manhattan district attorney, Robert Morgenthau, with help from Italian authorities. Kent Robertson, a spokesman for San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron, said "regarding the Oil-for-Food program generally, Chevron purchased Iraqi crude oil principally for use in its U.S. refineries and the United Nations approved the initial sale of all cargos ultimately purchased by Chevron."

He said Chevron has cooperated with inquiries into the program "and we will continue to do so."