Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The U.S. military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.
Oil is now $124 a barrel and if anyone tells you that our occupations in the middle east has nothing to do with it, they're lying.
Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S. And according to the Defence Logistic Agency, as of November 2005 more than 2.1 billion gallons of fuel have been used in support of our invasion of Iraq. (It's likely to be more than two to three times that at our current engagement level.)
So the administration's addiction to oil is directly related to their addiction to war.
If we weren't in a state of perpetual war, the supply of oil on the market would increase exponentially. The price of gas would decrease. As would the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the environment.
Now the rise of China and India and other economies are leading to a strain on the world's finite supply of cheap oil.
That we can't change.
What we can change is how we view our role in the world. Those hell-bent on being a military superpower aren't helping.
We can't make a commitment to alternative energy unless we make a commitment to an alternative to war and aggression.
Comments (6)
2.1 billion gallons of fuel. I've mentioned this fact before and was poo-poo'd that the impact of the U.S. invasion of Iraq couldn't have had that much impact on demand and therefore price.
I happen to think the mobilization of the our military on this scale ALONE led to the increase in demand and therefore price. The weakening of the dollar at the same time seems to have had an equally large impact on price.
Good post and even better point, thank you.
I've said it before the U.S. military runs on diesel - and anywhere in the world that any contractor sets up shop where there is no supply of local electricity - diesel generators provide that electricity.
May 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Via Wikipedia:
* Iraq: 2018
* Kuwait: 2013
* Saudi Arabia: 2014
Invading Iraq suddenly seems like a no-brainer.
May 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this theory--you seem to find the sources and I can't sort through the zillions of articles and opinions, but: We invade Iraq expecting to accomplish oil privitization fairly quickly. Doesn't work out as easily as expected, but in the meantime the Republican congress is extremely pliable and regulators back off. Private equity sees tremendous value in the rise of oil prices while the administration is "unable" to get Iraq under control enough to measurably increase oil production. The adminstration's "strategic" plan will be completed by the end of July--the plan will include oil agreements; patient investors will finally see the fruits of their patience; UNLESS Iran convinces Iraq to trade their oil on the Iranian oil bourse, in which case we'll need to distract them with a bomb or two. Or something like that.
May 9, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry didn't see your comment earlier lucywho. Interesting theory.
Let's go through it:
"We invade Iraq expecting to accomplish oil privitization fairly quickly."
I think that's part of why we invaded Iraq. Saddam had plans to boost production of Iraq oil and trade it for euros, not dollars. Had we not invaded, the boosted production would have increased the supply of oil on the market, reducing the price. This wouldn't have been good news to Saudi Arabia, and moving to the euro would have been bad, potentially devastating for our own economy, in that it might have triggered other countries to drop the dollar for the euro. (I'm sure you know that Iran just did this and now they find themselves surrounded by more U.S. warships than ever.)
Back to the invasion of Iraq. The administration wasn't prepared for the chaos. They thought they could just build the largest U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and construct military installations near the oil fields--stabilizing energy security (for the U.S.).
But the worse the violence got in Iraq, the more attention it got.
Aside from the lack of security, it wouldn't have been good PR to have Exxon/Mobil or BP set up shop.
Lack of regulation over the speculative oil market, afforded by the Republican controlled congress, allowed the cost of oil to spring from $25 to $125. The best place for the oil in Iraq was to stay in the ground while the price of oil skyrocketed.
I honestly don't know enough to conclude that Iran could manage to sell Iraq oil on its exchange.
Regarding oil permits for the private companies--I don't know how well that's going to work out. I do think the current push to drill in ANWR is a safety--it's enormously expensive for the oil companies to get that project going. And for just 11 billion barrels? The fact that the administration is pursuing it anyway tells me that ANWR may provide international collateral for the historic U.S. international debt. It's also likely that the oil there isn't meant for our gas tanks, but rather the military's.
Iran and China and Russia are structuring what could be one of, if not the most influential oil partnerships in the next decade.
If you grew up in the Cheney era, you're mid 20th century "world domination" mindset might likely drive you to do everything in your power to attack Iran.
We'll see.
May 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you check back, it sounds like we're sort of thinking along the same lines. I'll go further though and make this prediction: Whatever SOFA and strategic framework comes out of the administration before the end of July will hinge in large part on Iraqi oil. I have a gut feeling that Cheney's last trip to Iraq had to do with those negotiations and the fact that the Bush/Cheney installed government wasn't playing ball in connection with Basra. Make deals with American companies or with the Iranians? Sadr forces have to be stopped because of his popularity and because he's a nationalist who will never support private deals. I've written before that I'm angry and sad that our kids are dying while back-door deals that may shame us forever are the reason they're still there. I hope I'm wrong.
May 12, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To make it clear--I'm not saying Sadr has to be stopped---the current government wants his movement to end and so does ours.
May 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment