I've been reluctant to post this fanciful idea, but the Board seems really slow these last few days. so...

Again, let me pound the idea of War For Oil.  

Critics of the US war in Iraq have condemned it as a War For Oil, and they often use the slogans "No Blood For Oil"  and "No War for Oil" [makes sense to me].  An annoying co-worker, frequently given to parroting whatever liberal platitudes he can latch onto and remember, made this arguement with me.  My honest reaction was to throttle the vile little enunciation-impaired immigrant ingrate, but he's not worth an asault and battery charge so I argued this little notion.

My idea was that IF the US goal in the Near East was to sieze a large and relatively secure supply of petroleum, fighting Iraq was the wrong way to go about it.  Besides the lost of life, the  billions of $$$$$$$ it's going to cost, dealing with a large civilian population not exactly overjoyed at our prsence, there was a much easier route to obtain far better results.

Take over Saudi Arabia.

Think about it.  It's got some real points in it's favor:

1. much smaller military to deal with, and we've trained them and know them intimately, including which ones would be willing to be co-opted or bought or rented out for this purpose.  Their cooperation would not have to be permanent, just temporary and timely, after which...

2. if you listen to some of the critics of the House of Saud, the royal family enjoys no sentiments of widespread or deep loyalty or legitimacy from the mass of the Saudi population, which is still primarily  the bedouin [spelling?]tribesmen;

3. elements of the US military are ALREADY in place there ;

4. the Saudi government, such as it is, is centralized in a relatively small number of the royal family.  So replacing them with some group more compatible with a long-term and obvious US military and economic "overseership"  might be easier than trying to create and graft onto Iraqi society and polity institutions and procedures of liberal democracy.

5. with the US encamped in Saudi Arabia and running it with the assistance of whatever Saudi quisling [oops! i meant democratic friends of the US and stalwart opponents of IslamoFacist terror]we could scrounge up and plausibly present to the it'l community,  there would be no reason to invade Iraq and Saddam could have been left alone, possibly to be overthrown by a military junta somewhat more to the liking of US national interests [but not necessarily to the likng of the NeoCons].

6. the US would control the world's largest supply of petroleum, much larger than Iraq's, and as such could maximize production output to lever downward the price of oil.  This might NOT sit well with the many US-based petroleum multinational corporations, but they at least would make up in volume what they lose in price levels. And ain't it time THEY finally made some sacrifice for the US national interest?

7. controlling Saudi Arabia puts us right next to Kuwait [more oil] and Iraq [still more oil] and all the various sheikdoms and emirates of the Persian/Arabian Gulf [yet still more oil].  And within spitting distance of Iran [for the Neocons and their Israel-first, Likud-loving soulmates].

Fanciful?  You betcha!  BUT this is akin to how the one-time independent Kingdom of Hawaii came to be a US territory and later the 50th state.

What are the downsides?

1. the US would engender increased hatred in the Arab/Moslem world, as we would be occupying the land which contains the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.  True, but they already hate us quite intensely [IF you buy the logic of the NeoCons] so what more or how much more would we lose?

2. It would inspire increased terrorist activity against the US.  True, but, see the counterargument in poinr one above.  Again, how much worse can it get?

3. The US would look like a giant miserable hypocrite.  As oppossed to how we look like now?

4. we would lose the political support, which tends to be muted, of the small oil sheikdoms and emirates which are friendly [or at least not openly hostile] to US policies in the Near East. True, but as we finally have what we want - oil - who needs them?  And anyway, IF you believe the NeoCons and their allies, all the Arabs ever respect is force and strength, and if this doesn't shock and awe them little else will.

So, there it is.  I'm sending off my resume to the depatments of State and Defense on Monday.




-- Modified on 11/13/2005 12:38:12 AM

commercial operators are MUCH better at this sort of thing than military.

IOW, they (Muslim Theme Parks Inc) go to the Saudis and offer to maintain and operate the shrines of Mecca & Medina as subcontractors.  Hell, the Saudis already subcontract everything else.   And we already have enough muslim Americans that you don't have to worry about that.  Detroit is full of them.

So Osama will scream that being muslim isn't enough, you have to be a Saudi, which reminds the rest of the muslim world that the Saudis were originally conquerors and now these marginally literate fat cat flea-infested camel jockeys want to monopolize Islam from Zamboanga to Algiers and Detroit and back again, and some Paki wog is gonna turn Osama and his buddies in, and sign up to work for Muslim Theme Parks, a Delaware corporation.

[BSEG]  You may be onto something.  At least it's worth a laff.

If that's your plan why go all the way to the Middle East? Why not just invade Canada, Mexico and Venezuela and steal their oil since they're 3 of our top 4 suppliers anyway?  A lot closer to home and a lot less expensive to launch invasions.

1. The reaction of the Chinese, Japan, Russians, Europe, etc., to our blatant grab for the world's oil. Remember, our military is the strongest only because we can destroy the world over a few times. It might get a bit hard for us to breathe, though, if we actually had to carry that out.

2. We do not live in an authoritarian dictatorship quite yet. A few voting Americans might not go along with our transformation into the Soviet Union. After all, it's not like the common citizen would get rich by this adventure--just the powers that be.

3. The Bush family are honorary members of the Saudi Royal Family. That would make Thanksgiving very awkward indeed.

1.  Xcellent point.  But if the US was willing to act as an "guarantor" of those other countries' access to petroleum, their opposition might be manageable.  After all, they're stuck along with us when/if Near Eastern oil supplies are severely interrupted.  They might, grudgingly and however low-key, prefer a position of US dominance or at least preponderance to potential chaos and anarchy.  Besides, they know that the US is open for biz 24/7/365, so as long as they have the $$$$$...

And think of the impact this would have on the US balance of trade and balance of payment accounts.  China, Japan and others wouldn't have to feel they're being bamboozled into buying US gov't debt that might prove worthless in the medium or distant future. Which means new life for the US dollar as the reserve currency of the global economy. BUT, in the very long term, this might spur those other countries to research energy alternatives to petroleum.  We've got no monoploy on genius - that answer might come from some other country.  Of course, this would ultimately disadvantage the US in the long run, but politics is a notoriously short term time horizon business.

2. No argument there - but if the US public HAS ALREADY bought the untruths that brought us to war in Iraq, do you really think Bush and the NeoCons and the Likud-lovers and the fundamentalist Christian right would be any less able to sell those shoody political goods?  I think not.

3.  I think this is true but very overrated. Each would 86 the other in a billionth of a nanosecond if it ever came down to cases.  If you want an equally pernicious partnership in the Near East, take a  look at the NeoCons and the Likud Party in Israel, who for the most part have escaped deserved condemnation for their intellectual contributions to the cause of US war in the Near East.

Peace and good health to you.

No, please, relax!  In NO WAY do I advocate this.

I just wanted to try to use it, absurd as it is, as a rebuttal of sorts to the War For Oil hypothesis which so many feel explains the US war in Iraq.  Just like that silly post of a few weeks ago where I argued the [admittedly fanciful] case that the war in Iraq is a war for oil - for the UK.  The small handful of my regular antagonists [sorry, can't think of a better word right now]  on the Board saw this for what it was, a heavy and ham-handed attempt at satire [inspired by the Swift's "A Modest Proposal..." perhaps the most celebrated bit of satire in the English language] and stayed away in droves from posting replies.  If you can stand to reread it, you'll see that I make it clear that this is in no way meant to be taken seriously.

Canada, Mexico and Venezuela do not fire the public imagination the way the perfidious princes of The House of Saud do.  Can't imagine any plausible case that could be made for invading them on a pretext to appropriate wrongly their petroleum resources.

Peace and good health to you.

-- Modified on 11/14/2005 6:39:15 PM

1. In the current climate, it would be doubtful that any country would trust a "position of US dominance" over anything let alone the world's oil supply. Also, you are describing a scenario of the breakdown of the fossil fuel energy based global economy. Since the world is currently unprepared for such a development, I don't bother to speculate who may come out on top after the ensuing mad scramble.

2. A scenario like this would entail the draft of most likely every male aged 40 or less. Sorry, but that would change the politics in this country in a hurry.

3. The Bush family gets its bread and butter from the Saudis. My educated guess is that they are mostly in it for the money. Sorry but I have never heard anyone 86 that kind of cash for any reason. Remember, Bush is not a neocon. He's an opportunist.

1. I wonder if others [political leaders of other countries] would view it as negatively as you do,as again remember when all is said and done the US is open for bissiness 24/7/365, but you're right that Bush II has done nothing to increase the perception within the int'l community of its evenhandedness and trustworthiness. [Is/has there been a situation where the US controlled the world majority share of a vital resource that we can use as a histiorical reference?]. We'll never know, and I guess that's a relief.

2. Yes, Bush is an opportunist, and as such I repeat my belief that he'd 86 the House of Saud in a billionth of a nanosecond if circumstances so dictated.  But he's also an opportunist, intellectually [if that doesn't make you chuckle and grin wryly] in thrall to the Likud-loving NeoCons. [Many of whom would LOVE to see the House of Saud 86ed, yesterday if possible]. Not a good combo.