"If we went to war for oil, we did it as clumsily as anyone could do. And we spent more on the war than we could ever conceivably have gotten out of Iraq's oil fields even if we had particular control over them," says Anthony Cordesman, an expert on U.S. strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who rejects the idea that the war was designed on behalf of oil companies.
Please note two things about this quote. First, its source, Anthony Cordesman, and his views on the role of our search for control of oil in invading Iraq. Second, please note the structure of the quote; "we did it as clumsily as we could" could either be a dismissal of the claim by pointing out the way our reconstruction efforts have failed, or it could be a general observation on the way the Bush Administration does anything, which is to say badly.
Yet, when one considers some startling statistics Mufson offers just prior to this quote, it might give one pause to reconsider Cordesman's alleged expertise.
The profits of the five biggest Western oil companies have jumped from $40 billion to $121 billion [since the 2003 invasion].
Now, if the goal was to get more oil for US consumers, then obviously that failed along with everything else. On the other hand, if the goal was to line the pockets of the oil industry, it has been a rousing success by the most important metric there is - revenue.
Mufson puts much of the blame for the current high price of oil on lack of production in Iraq. Yet, just last month, OPEC met, and Bush went on bended knee, pleading with OPEC ministers to open the valves and let the oil flow. For all intents and purposes, the current price of oil is not a function of the lack of Iraqi oil, but of production caps stringently upheld by the oil cartel. While further weakened by our slowing economy, OPEC knows it does not have to rely on the United States as its chief source of oil revenue; as is constantly crowed, both India and China, the two most populous nations on the planet, are undergoing economic and social expansion that require huge amounts of oil. While still the largest consumer of petroleum-based products, we are no longer alone as the chief source of money, and high demand does create high prices. We cannot dictate terms to OPEC anymore.
While I do not believe oil is the sole, or even among the top five, reasons for invading Iraq, no one can deny its importance. Nor can anyone deny the success it has been for the petroleum industry in the United States. Even as prices soar at the pump, we continue to consume at an alarming rate, handing over more and more of our diminishing income to a handful of mega-corporations who make ever more money, even as they poor-mouth and complain about the high price of a barrel of oil. My question is this - if the price of a gallon of gas were lowered by even $.50, how much revenue would the oil companies make? At what point do we realize we are being taken for a ride, paying for a date with the richest folks on Earth?
