Is the Iraq War "for oil"? If so, how?

Question

I see the charge made - but what is the basis of the accusation?

Thanks.

Answer 1

Four major US, British and French oil companies are getting their hands on the petroleum reserves of Iraq for the first time in 36 years, based on no-bid contracts, the New York Times reported Thursday.

These deals reached with the US-backed regime in Baghdad have placed the five-year-old US war of aggression in the clearest possible perspective.

For the thousands of American families who have seen their sons and daughters killed in the Iraq war or return maimed or psychologically damaged, the knowledge that their sacrifices have opened up potentially huge new profit streams for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum and Total will provide cold comfort.

For the over one million Iraqis killed and the millions more turned into refugees or made homeless in their own land, an overriding justification for their suffering has now been laid bare. It was to further enrich the already obscenely wealthy corporate executives and major shareholders of Big Oil.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.”

No-bid deals in the oil sector are not only “unusual,” under conditions in which oil demand is at an all-time high crude is selling for nearly $140 a barrel and energy-producing countries around the world—Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Bolivia and others—are exerting a tighter national grip over their reserves. Such contracts cannot be explained outside of their being negotiated at the point of a gun.

Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in Washington for the talks on the SOFA, held discussions this week with both McCain and Obama on future US policy in the country.

The Washington Post quoted Zebari Wednesday as saying that Obama had assured him that a Democratic administration would “not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or actions.” Obama explained, he said, that he “wants redeployment,” but that he “is not interested to pull all troops out. He wants a residual force” in Iraq to carry out anti-terrorist operations, protect US facilities and train Iraqi security forces.

According to the Post the Iraqi foreign minister concluded that “there was ‘not too much difference’ between Obama’s position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee...”

In other words, both candidates are determined to continue shedding blood—Iraqi and US alike—to advance the cause of securing Iraq’s oil reserves for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy corporations and to create a base of operations for new and even bloodier wars of aggression in the region, including against Iran.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun200...

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 (2005 article) - 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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/ne...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

Answer 2

No, but we buy oil from Iraq now. Almost 700,000 barrels per day.

Answer 3

Back in the 70's Iraq effectively nationlised all their oil kicking out the big 4 oil companies.

Iraq sits on billions of barrels of oil, and in addition has vast amounts of unexplored sites that many believe harbours more rich pickings.

Whatever the real reason behind the war the regime change surely isn't a bad thing.  The regret as with any war is that so many have lost their lives, though under Saddam that was happening to the Kurds anyway, and in greater numbers.  Perhaps we were just oblivious to it all before because it wasn't "our own".

Answer 4

Iraq was about corporate profits.  Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater, etc. have all made outrageous profits off Bush's no-bid contracts.

Now the Oils companies are negotiating with Bush for no-bid contracts to get back in Iraq after being locked out for 30+ years.

It's about sucking the Iraqis and the US taxpayer dry.

Answer 5

Because keeping Saddam in power was a threat to the middle east.   He wanted control of OPEC to drive the oil up to 300 a barrel.  Iran also wants this.

Answer 6

I dont know whether oil was the main reason, as i beleive this is actually a religious war and GW Bush went in because he misinterpreted the bible the dumb *** fool.

But -

the oil argument is because many of the soldiers immediately went to guard the oil pipes when they invaded.  Many US companies also signed contracts that were dependant with the supply of that oil.  Big business contracts.  Oil is fast running out and Bush had to kill a lot of people to get at it.

Answer 7

Probably the biggest reason is that Saddam Hussein was beginning to accept Euros for oil, while everywhere else in the world it has to be bought with Petrodollars.  This is what has been supporting the value of the American dollar far longer than it's real value warrants.  It wasn't so much for the oil itself as for control of how it was purchased.  But the reasons for Iraq are a lot more complex than that, a combination of Bush trying to prove he's bigger than his father, to get back at Hussein for attempting to assassinate his father, for Cheney and Rumsfeld to be able to complete the domination they were denied in the first Gulf War, etc.