Geode, in 1988, my BP Oil buddy and I were discussing the price of oil and geopolitics. We concluded that "a bullet through the middle east" would do nicely to increase the price of oil and BP/Shell/Exxon and other energy supplier profits. Removing competition is an age-old device, rather than do better than the competition, which is more difficult and less profitable.
Think of how to win a skating competition for example. Whack the other woman on the knee with a bat. It worked! Of course, in the long run, it had adverse effects, but it did the job on the day.
Most businesses look for a short cut to getting the business and controlling the market and controlling the prices and making more money with less effort. Outright theft is popular too. Our DNA is largely monkey DNA, so conquest, found wealth, dominance, confiscation, theft and trickery have been the method of survival for eons.
It is only recently that the Libertarian notion of voluntary free trade of created value has become somewhat normal. Though I notice very few Americans like the idea and vote for it. Governments nowhere operate on that basis.
Gradually, over centuries, the concept has gained ground. It is closely related to Christian ideas of universal equality and love, which are not just Christian. That's obviously the way to live better than the olde style Malthusian process of overpopulation, kingdom, tribal war, territory, conquest and confiscation.
Only 2 years after thinking of the "bullet through the middle east", hey presto, Saddam was conned into invading Kuwait and in no time, Iraq's oil was off the market and the 1990s sanctions were on and profits were fantastic. Check out Exxon's profits now, and BP's. And the oil and energy producers who did not get their supplies cut. Nuclear reactors are highly profitable too.
True, demand has also increased as China has burgeoned and the world's energy demands have increased. But if Iraq's oil had been supplied unfettered, prices would have been substantially lower. Iraq has a LOT of oil.
<I'm wondering where or who in this administration or in that of Britain's conceived of this as an actual goal. Is this just unintended consequences or is there somewhere in the Neocons or the Oldcons of the Whatevercons that actually wished for this outcome?>
I'm sure Bush was after revenge against Saddam for the alleged assassination attempt against his father and wife. Bush won't take any nonsense from anyone. He's a hanging President. It was a happy confluence of ideas - revenge, oil, profits, fun, military training, showing who is boss, democratic processes, freedom for Iraqis, military protection of vital interests, and Armageddon is just down the road and a fundamentalist Christian would like to be there for the Rapture, or even take part in it. Not to mention, with the greenhouse effect, which was a worry in the 1980s, having high oil prices reduces consumption and emissions of CO2.
Of course, when things go wrong and unintended unknown unknowns come out of the woodwork, and known knowns turn out to have been imagined fantasies, then ideas shift.
Saddam is pragmatic. He would no doubt be happy to be put back in charge to restore order and discipline. With USA support, he could do that in short order. I would not be surprised to see him in charge one day, though it's unlikely.
It's interesting that Saddam long ago, in 1989, was warning of terrorist nuclear car bombs in New York while the USA was still absurdly building anti ICBM rockets to defend against Gorby who had no intention whatsoever of doing anything stupid. The USA was stupidly supporting Osama's mujahideen in Chechnya/Afghanistan. The Taleban got $millions from the USA.
While the USA was goofing around hassling Gorby and supporting his Islamic Jihad opponents down south, which must seem insane to everyone now, Khan of Pakistan was getting Islamic nukes ready and supplies to others organized.
Mqurice |
