The Daily Grasshopper

Yesterday I asked people to check out the op-ed in the Irish Echo entitled "Imperial impulse incompatible with republican institutions." If you couldn't find it, I just want to let you know that it's now online, and you can link to it here:

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=12709

I also wrote that "This war is about who controls the world's second largest known petroleum reserves. It is a war of empire. I don't know how many people I've managed to convince, but I will gladly sit down with anyone to debate the facts."

And, lo and behold, less than twenty-four hours later (as if he'd been reading "The Daily Grasshopper" all along), Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR - http://www.cfr.org/), has an op-ed in the New York Times entitled "A War for Oil? Not This Time." Just like that, the battle has been joined! Let's get started, shall we? First of all, you might want to read the op-ed (or not, I'm pretty much going to take it apart line-by-line):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/opinion/13BOOT.html

For those of you unfamiliar with the CFR, it is a non-governmental body whose membership includes just about every high-ranking government official since the Great Depression. According to David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World" (1995, Kumarian Press):

"A meeting ground for powerful members of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishments, the Council on Foreign Relations styles itself as a forum for the airing of opposing views - an incubator of leaders and ideas. Its activities are organized around dinner meetings and study programs for its members - often involving influential world figures or foreign policy thinkers - in settings that are conducive to candid off-the-record discussion."

So, that's where Mr. Boot is coming from. Not that it should have any bearing on how you perceive the validity of his arguments. At least not until we've exposed them to proper scrutiny. To which we proceed...

We can dispense with the first two paragraphs of the piece, which basically set the scene (i.e., "solid majorities in key European countries think that greed is our motive for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein" and "only 22 percent of [Americans] subscribe to the cynical view that it's just about oil").

Here's the third paragraph, in its entirety:

"What accounts for this trans-Atlantic disconnect? To answer that question, start by considering the accusation on the merits: Is America going into Iraq in search of "black gold"?"

In the next paragraph, Boot concedes that the "oil war" hypothesis has a "surface plausibility," acknowledging that "Iraq does have the second-largest known reserves in the world." So far, no objections. He then states, however, that "we certainly don't need to send 250,000 soldiers to get at it. Saddam Hussein would gladly sell us all the oil we wanted." And, folks, here is where the wheels start to come off Mr. Boot's argument.

Recall who we're talking about here: Hussein, the same guy we attacked 12 years ago. He'll "gladly" sell us his oil? When he's already got contracts with the French, the Russians, the Chinese, etc.? This is false. The Iraqi regime, were the sanctions to be lifted, would be cutting the U.S. companies out of the action - with a quite understandable vengeance. Unlike the regime we plan to install, made up of members of the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader is already on record stating that "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." Boot disingenuously sets the "big oil companies" and Washington at odds, claiming that the "United States-enforced sanctions" are "preventing unlimited sales." Yeah, Max - sales to big, FOREIGN-OWNED oil companies. He kind of leaves that part out - it makes his argument sound better. The big U.S. companies are fired up about a war (ExxonMobil signed a deal in December to provide fuel to the U.S. government for the upcoming war) because they're going to get in on the ground floor, and all the old contracts are going to get ripped up. Washington will install a friendly government, and guess who'll be in the driver's seat?

For those keeping track at home, the score is The Daily Grasshopper: 1, Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations: 0.

His next argument is even more ridiculous. He states that "overthrowing Saddam Hussein would lead to the lifting of sanctions and a possible increase in oil exports. But it would take a lot of time and money to rebuild Iraq's dilapidated oil industry, even if the regime didn't torch everything on the way out." I have no objection to that statement. It's true - and it makes my point. The war will not only provide some of the cheapest, most easily transportable oil on earth to U.S. companies, it will also provide incredibly lucrative construction contracts to companies like Kellogg, Brown & Root (a unit of Halliburton, the world's #1 oil services company - http://www.halliburton.com/) and Schlumberger (http://www.slb.com/oilfield/). For more, read http://www.progressive.org/dec02/sca1202.html.

Hmm... Halliburton, Halliburton... where have I heard that name before? Oh, right. That's the company that former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney joined after the Bush I administration and the one he left to join Bush II as his second in command. He was the CEO from 1995 until 2000, a period during which government contracts increased by 91 percent, to $2.3 billion. I'm sure they're not lobbying for a war on Iraq, though.

Boot then has the nerve to cite a study by the "James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University," (Baker was Bush I's Secretary of State) which claims that "it would take three years and $5 billion to restore Iraqi production just to its pre-1990 level of 3.5 million barrels." Is Boot trying to argue that Bush is too principled to spend a ton of taxpayer money to provide lavish construction deals to people with extremely close ties to his administration? Is this guy living on the moon? Oh, the burden of having to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure... poor, poor pitiful us. And time? Well, if the estimate from Baker is good, by then Cheney will probably have stepped aside due to "health reasons" (enter Colin Powell, our first black VP) and gone back to his old job. Just in time to cash in.

Score - Grasshopper: 2, Boot: 0.

I'm not sure how the next two paragraphs advance Boot's argument. He begins by claiming that "some optimists think a postwar Iraq would stiff OPEC and slash prices radically." He theorizes that "a liberated Iraq would likely remain an enthusiastic member of OPEC because it would need to establish its nationalist credentials and maintain amicable relations with its oil-cartel members." He notes at the end of the previous paragraph that the 3.5 million barrels of additional Iraqi oil "would increase total world production by only 1.3 percent, and might not reduce prices at all if other countries cut output or banded together to keep prices stable." He also points out that "Kuwait hasn't exactly been offering to fill up American sport utility vehicles free out of gratitude for being liberated. It hasn't even carried out its pledge to allow direct foreign investment in state-owned oil fields."

Those cheeky Kuwaitis! Not showing proper gratitude to the liberators by letting ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil come in and take over their nationalized oil industry. Of all the nerve! Boot seems to think that for a war to be about oil, there has to be evidence that world prices will come down in its aftermath. If they remain stable, the war was about something else. His argument seems to hinge on the fact that oil prices didn't come down after Gulf War I (the line about Kuwait filling our S.U.V.s "free"). The argument goes like this: we "liberated" Kuwait, and "the long-term impact has been nil." Ergo, after we liberate Iraq, they will fall into line, prices will stay stable, and all will be well. And the war will have been about liberation, not oil. This sort of sophistry is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Score - Grasshopper: 3, Boot: 0

Boot then goes on to argue in paragraph 8 that even if prices came down, that would represent a bad outcome for Washington (I know, I know, he just said prices weren't going to come down, but he has to fill up space). Here's the whole paragraph:

"For that matter, would our government really want a steep drop in prices? The domestic oil patch - including President Bush's home state, Texas - was devastated in the 1980's when prices fell as low as $10 a barrel. Washington is generally happy with a range of $18 to $25 a barrel, about where oil was before the strikes in Venezuela and jitters about Iraq helped push prices over $34 a barrel. If we were really concerned about cheap oil above all, we'd be sending troops to Caracas, not Baghdad."

Again, Boot's argument is based on the mistaken belief that the "Oil War" hypothesis assumes that the U.S. government is "really concerned about cheap oil above all." That's not the case. The opponents of the war know that our government - and their corporate sponsors - are worried about WHO CONTROLS the oil. It's not about cost. If oil is cheap, but the Europeans and Russians can cut off our supply at any time, that's bad. If oil is expensive, but our oil companies control it, that's good. Mr. Boot fails to comprehend the fundamental premise of the "Oil War" argument. Of course, an inability to perceive reality has never stopped anyone from attaining the loftiest heights of establishment decision making. One might argue that it's a prerequisite.

Score - Grasshopper: 4, Boot: 0

And as for "sending troops to Caracas," I'm sure Mr. Boot is aware of the Bush administration's enthusiasm for last April's coup against President Chavez, and the fact that we just sent $100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to safeguard an Occidental Oil pipeline in neighboring Colombia. Mark my words - we'll be fighting to "liberate" the South American people in due time, don't you worry.

Based on the next paragraph, it appears that Mr. Boot might be cribbing from an article written by the American Enterprise Institute's David Frum (a former Wall St. Journal editor), which can be found here: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.14397,filter./news_detail.asp.

Boot writes that:

"The other possible economic advantage in Iraq would be for American companies to win contracts to put out fires, repair refineries and help operate the oil industry, as they did in Kuwait. What's the total value of such work? It's impossible to say, but last year Iraq signed a deal with Russian companies (since canceled by Saddam Hussein) to rebuild oil and other industries, valued at $40 billion over five years.

Yet the White House estimates the military operation alone would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. (Others suggest the figure would be far higher.) And rebuilding of the country's cities, roads and public facilities would cost $20 billion to $100 billion more, with much of that money in the initial years coming from the "international community" (read: Uncle Sam).

Thus, if a capitalist cabal were running the war, it would have to conclude it wasn't a paying proposition."

I'll let Milan Rai, from whom I've borrowed a talking point or two, rebut Boot/Frum:

"Throughout history, imperial powers have expended more in wars of conquest and subjugation than could be earned from the colonies acquired or subdued. The US wars in Indochina are a staggering example of how disproportionate economic costs can be relative to perceived material benefits. The costs of empire are borne by society as a whole, while the benefits of empire are enjoyed by the influential few. Therefore, in general, for those who make policy - who share interests and viewpoints with those who hold domestic power - it is entirely rational to use the resources of society to secure the interests of the wealthy and powerful, even if expenditure far exceeds projected returns. Costs are socialised, benefits are privatised. That is the reality of our 'free market' economy."

You can read the whole article, which is where I first heard of Frum's argument, here (needless to say, I highly recommend it):

"Oil and War"
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2935

So, the upcoming war certainly will be "a paying proposition," Mr. Boot (or may I start calling you Mr. Loot?). It just depends on who you are - an American taxpayer or an oil company executive. An American soldier or someone who makes a living selling bombs. An Iraqi mother or a former vice president of Halliburton. The war is going to be a nicely paying proposition for some - including its apologists. War has ever been thus.

Score - Grasshopper: 5, Boot: 0

The last three paragraphs start to fill up with gauzy paeans to the "strain of idealism" that is found at the core of our foreign policy. Boot notes that "nobody would claim that America's global intentions have always been entirely pure," and I'll agree with him there. But he goes on to hypocritically accuse the French and Russians of impure intent (their "Iraq policies seem driven at least in part by oil companies that were granted lucrative concessions by Saddam Hussein") and concludes by saying that "[Europeans] just can't seem to accept that we might be acting for, say, the general safety and security of the world. After more than 200 years, Europe still hasn't figured out what makes America tick."

Well, Mr. Boot, close to a quarter of the American people, according to a poll you yourself cite, haven't figured out what "makes America tick," either. But they're starting to think it's oil. And maybe that figure would be higher if, instead of publishing thinly-veiled apologias for empire like yours, the New York Times actually bothered to explore the realities behind our drive to war.

Final score: "It's About Oil. This Time. And Next Time."

To read more, including an explanation about why the Bush administration finds Venezuelan president so objectionable, visit:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0228tbwt.htm