Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

[viraljimmy]

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

From BBC.co.uk
By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight


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.

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


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 Ahmed 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."

Privatisation blocked by industry

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."


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."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

[destroy_erase_improve]

"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." "

i loved this line

im not very policitcal. but does anyone know the reason why gas rates are rising recently?

[I_am_me]

Because the gas which is being produced now and sold is being refined from that crude oil that was $55 a barrell a while back.

[Soliver1]

I don't see how any of this is "secret."
Bush has been pretty forthright in his attacks in Iraq -
granted, he's made up a bunch of bullshit to make the American public feel better
about invading a foreign country for their natural resources, but it seems pretty clear
to me, or anyone looking at the facts of the Iraq war, that we're not there to simply
bring peace.

If you look beyond American or British news sources, you'll find that there are many
parts of the world in need of help. Unfortunately there's no oil in Korea and little in
South America. What ever happened to Afghanistan? Funny how we grabbed Saddam
pretty quick, while the planner of the 9/11 attacks is still sitting in a "spider hole" of his
own, making videos and wondering if anyone here gives two shits whether or not he's
still alive...

The fact is that our country needs huge oil resources to maintain our American lifestyles.
I don't mind the huge oil-grab / AKA the Iraq war, but I wish they'd at least be up
front about what's really happening and why. It's time for Americans to have a big
naked lunch so we can see what's really pushing foreign oil policy... our disposable lifestyle / economy.

soliver

[taoistshredder]

"I don't see how any of this is "secret." "

Absolutely - I've said this for a while - every war that's ever been, between the ME
and the West or the ME with the ME is about resources, whether it's water or oil.
Well, we got plenty of water (although they don't), and considering how many
live in the world in far more fucked up conditions than Iraq, it's obvious we aren't
there to liberate people or save souls or whatever the agenda is today.
Anyone that really knows what's going on knows this - they don't have to broadcast it;
I see mainstream news as weeding out the fools.
People that watch the news and take what they're given are fools, but
those that see the news and know there's more going on and go find out about it
are not fools.
But even those that aren't fools get fooled every now and then.

"What ever happened to Afghanistan?"

I don't know...we switched our war slightly in that area of the world;
I somehow got the impression that they went from a "Terror Warzone"
to a "Drug Warzone."
Then again, I think all this shit is getting combined together in a big file in the Oval Office
that reads, "Shit We Have Little/No/Bad Excuse(s) For."

"The fact is that our country needs huge oil resources to maintain our American lifestyles.
I don't mind the huge oil-grab / AKA the Iraq war, but I wish they'd at least be up
front about what's really happening and why. It's time for Americans to have a big
naked lunch so we can see what's really pushing foreign oil policy... our disposable lifestyle / economy."

Absolutely - our pice here is less than half what anyone else in the world pays for oil;
that's crazy! How do we do that? Is it really just from bombing brown people?
Do we think that when the oil runs out we will end this lifestyle
or will we just find a new resource?
I've got to bet on the latter;
if I know humans we're just tapping this ass until it's drained
and then moving onto the next resource,
which more-than-likely we already have lined up,
and it's probably all owned by the oil companies.
I know I wouldn't be sick of making all this money.
Wouldn't it be funny if in 30 years every oil company turns into a cold fusion company?
Well, I thought it was cool...

[Hippie3]

it's silly to talk as if there was just one single 'reason'
for a very complex situation like the war .
it's not just about oil,
nor is it just about democracy,
nor is it just about terrorism,
it is a intermixture of all those
and several more factors as well.
why must folks try to boil such complexities
down to a single sentence ?
such a statement
like 'this war is about oil'
can only at best be partially true,
which also means
that it is partially wrong.
it's not just about oil.
oil is just one part of a much bigger picture.
to look for a singular cause
is to blind oneself to that bigger picture.
but i know why folks do it,
because it makes it easier to argue
their pre-existing point of view.
it's just a shoddy debate tactic.
there's even a latin term for the tactic,
but in essence by reducing the real complexity
to a singularity one can often portray the
cause as 'absurd', as our friend is doing here.
if oil were the only reason
then of course the government's 'cause'
is made to look bad,
which is the real intent here.
but anyone with enough of a mind to
understand/grasp the real complexities
will be un-impressed and un-swayed by
such flawed arguments.
and btw,
we have war plans for just about every nation on earth,
have had for decades,
bush did not create the iraq war plan.
the pentagon did, just like it does for
all possible problems we might face.

[taoistshredder]

"but i know why folks do it,
because it makes it easier to argue
their pre-existing point of view."

Yeah, I'm actually studying this at the moment
for my rhetoric class;
defintely does fall into the catagory of circular reasoning.
I'm trying to find the Latin...
shit, it falls into about ten catagories of logical fallacies.
lol
I do find it interesting how this is used by both sides;
in Iraq it fuels the insurgency and in America it fuels the anti-war sentiment.
I am forced to believe that a large part of this war is based in oil,
whether this is a hasty generalization or some other fallacy, I don't know,
it probably is.
But if it is I would be interested in seeing the actual reasoning for the war
since other reasons given are also laden with the same kinds of rhetoric.
I should see if I can find some interesting Chomsky;
he tends to explain stuff well.

[l33t]

Its true that there are a lot of reasons for the war. And its correct that the pentagon truly holds the reigns in this country. Its simple though, force and violence is the one area that the United States has comparative advantage on the world stage.

I don't think any war can be put into a vacuum and have defined clear cut reasons. But I also think the same for economic and political systems, not any one model can be applied. And that is what we seem to be trying to do.

But honestly it is somewhat humorous to bring up Saddam. We supported some of his most brutal actions as a dictator until he was no longer useful to us.

[Hippie3]

We supported some of his most brutal actions as a dictator until he was no longer useful to us.

times change.
using one's enemy to fight another enemy
is wise by most standards.
saddam did for us
what america itself could not,
i.e. punish iran for overthrowing our puppet, the shah,
seizing our embassy and
in general humiliating us before the entire world.
in doing our bidding
he bankrupted both nations,
which served our purposes nicely.
why would you criticize the CIA/Pentagon
for getting the job done
without loss of american soldiers ?
isn't that why we pay them ?
our support for saddam bought us time,
and weakened both of our enemies in the process.
i call that a win-win.
after the war
he outlived his usefulness
and turned on his masters,
an unforgiveable offense in a stooge/puppet.
and then saddam made his fatal mistake,
he tried to kill g. bush sr.
and failed.
it is the worst of all mistakes
to try to kill the king
and to fail.
he should have killed the king and his sons too.
then he might still be ruling in baghdad.
but he did not,
and as they say
payback is a real bitch.

[l33t]

I agree with all of that actually. I just think that too many people have no idea about the stooge / puppet relationship we have with iraq because of the picture painted by the media and all of the recent presidential administrations. If more people knew the real story and its significance we'd be closer to getting rid of the hatred between the east / west.

Yeah I see the logic behind governments having a "survival of the fittest" policy. A government is just as much an organic entity as a human being. Why would it not behave like one? I just think there is a better way, and I don't think its too late to find it.

[Hippie3]

If more people knew the real story and its significance we'd be closer to getting rid of the hatred between the east / west.

i have great doubt about that.
the old saying
about how truth sets one free
is just another fallacy.
why ?
because when it comes to politics
truth is a meaningless concept.
political correctness,
like art,
is in the mind of the beholder.
it's a value judgement, not an absolute.
the whole 'truth' in its' entirety
is far too large and complex for any
human minds to fully assimilate and judge.
we only are able to hold on to small tibits of truth,
a bit like the situation of the blind man
trying to figure out what animal he's touching
just by feel.
if he touches the trunk, he might guess a snake, a python perhaps.
but if he touches a leg instead then he might think it's a rhino or a hippo.
likewise how we interpret this conflict in large part
depends on where we turn our focus.
if we choose to focus on the immediate suffering of those
in harm's way then our view will quite naturally reflect our
horror at the waste of life.
but if we choose to focus instead on the harm wrought by saddam
upon his own people, if we look at the killing fields and the torture chambers
our viewpoint changes, and we now feel horror and outrage
not against those who came to stop saddam but instead against saddam himself.
did the 'truth' suddenly change ?
or merely our perception of one small piece of truth ?
so much of what we believe about this war is determined
not by truth
but by where the cameras are pointed any given day.

[l33t]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

so much of what we believe about this war is determined
not by truth
but by where the cameras are pointed any given day.

Correct. Neither you nor I know the real truth.

[viraljimmy]

I think the point is -
people over there are being
played just like the people
over here.

[Hippie3]

played ?
maybe.
but folks are responsible for educating themselves.

[nomoreusmc]

there are two sides to this story, and untill you know both sides you'll never get an answer. What's truth anyway. With corrupt governments controlling the whole thing you'll never get the whole story

[jbaggs1]

People are responsible for educating themselves. Unfortunately there is not a bullshit sign next to what is in print, or a flashing symbol on the television, or a tone on the radio the signals when bullshit is passed off as intelligent conversation. Definitions of truth are meaningless, not just in politics but in everything. If a person believes something is truth then it's truth.
Plans for the takeover of all regions of the world are contemplated by the war mongers of the pentagon. Is this true or is it bullshit? I've never worked in the section of the pentagon that does the planning. Should I believe this crap because it came from a reliable source. What source and what agenda does this source have? The Bush administation made plans for Irag's oil before 9/11. So What? It didn't change what happened on 9/11. Of course there was conflicting plans. If there wasn't it wouldn't make good print but at the moment that is of no concern. In this article it quotes what "insurgents" say. This is total bullshit. How did the writer of this article get this supposedly true info. Did they ask everyone who is classified as an insurgent (who does the classification?) what thier opinion was. How do we know that this Aljibury is a truthful person or if he is a real person what is his agenda? We all know that if it's printed of broadcast on Tv or the radio it must be the truth. Of course this should have a bullshit marker next to it because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!!! And that's the truth.

Originally Posted by jbaggs1

Of course this should have a bullshit marker next to it because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about!!! And that's the truth.

LoL, you're not alone.