Donald Trump’s attempt to present himself as an anti-war candidate is based on his perfect 20/20 hindsight of the disastrous consequences of regime change in Iraq and Libya — military campaigns he publicly supported when they were popular, and only turned against after they went wrong.
To better understand that Trump really is, as he insisted during the Republican primary campaign, “much more militaristic” than even George W. Bush, it helps to look at how often he has presented his bizarre plan to use the United States military as the muscle in a global protection racket, aimed at extorting oil from countries we destroy.
Trump began to make this case at a crucial moment, in early 2011, when he was flirting with a run for the presidency and the Obama administration was trying to decide how to use American power in Libya and Iraq.
That February, when President Obama was considering the intervention in Libya that his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, strongly advocated, Trump demanded immediate action to topple Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in a statement posted on his YouTube channel.
“I can’t believe what our country is doing,” Trump said on February 28, 2011, two weeks before the Obama administration got Security Council authorization “to protect civilians” in Libya. “Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage.”
“After it’s all done, we go to the protesters, who end up running the country,” Trump added, “and we should then say, ‘By the way, from all of your oil, we want reimbursement.’”
A month later, as Bill O’Reilly quizzed him on how he would handle foreign policy as president, Trump revealed that he had an entirely new plan for Iraq: American troops should be withdrawn, but only from those parts of the country without oil fields.
TRUMP: I’ve never said this before. This is a first, on your show. Good luck with it, run with it. In the old days, when you had wars, you win, right? You win. To the victor belong the spoils. So when we go to Iraq, we spend $1.4 trillion so far and thousands of lives are lost, right? And not to mention all the poor guys and gals with one arm and no arm and all the problems, right?
O’REILLY: Absolutely. Right.
TRUMP: And we’re going to leave and as sure as you’re sitting there, Iran is going to come over, take over not only Iraq but perhaps more importantly to them, take over the second biggest oil fields in the world, right? And I like the old system better: You won a war, you stay there, and you keep the oil. And you know, then those people will not have died in vain. Forget the money we spent, they will not have died in vain. Now, they’re not going to come as long as we’re there, but 15 minutes after we leave, Iran is going to go into Iraq. …
You stay and protect the oil, and you take the oil and you take whatever is necessary for them and you take what’s necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more. We take care of Britain, we take care of other countries that helped us, and we don’t be so stupid. You know, we’re the only country and if you look at wars over the years and I study wars, OK? My whole life is a war. You look at wars over the years. A country goes in, they conquer and they stay. We go in, we conquer, and then we leave. And we hand it to people that we don’t even know. … So, in a nutshell, we go in, we take over the second largest oil fields, and we stay.
Sensing that Trump might not have considered the implications of his proposal to essentially colonize Iraq by looting its natural resources, an incredulous O’Reilly stifled a laugh as he said, “So you’re going to take over the Iraqi oil fields?”
“Don’t smile!” an offended Trump replied.
“I’m just saying,” O’Reilly said, “if you’re going to go into the Iraq oil fields and take them over, there’s gonna be a lot of blowback.”
Five months later, after the U.S.-led air campaign had forced Qaddafi from power in Libya — and Trump had decided not to challenge Obama for the presidency — the star of “The Apprentice” posted another YouTube clip, complaining that the administration should have waited longer to aid the Libyan rebels, to force them to agree to surrender half of the country’s oil reserves.
“What we should’ve done is we should’ve asked the rebels when they came to us — and they came to us, they were being routed by Qaddafi, they were being decimated — we should’ve said, ‘We’ll help you, but we want 50 percent of your oil,’” Trump said. “They would’ve said, ‘How about 75 percent?’”
Speaking to Matt Lauer last week about his qualifications to be commander-in-chief, Trump argued that the rise of the Islamic State could have been prevented if only his plan to keep Iraq’s oil fields under American military control had been put into place. He was not asked to imagine how those anti-Western militants, or Iraq’s elected government, might have been expected to react to an open-ended military occupation by a foreign power intent on the illegal confiscation of their country’s natural resources.
Top photo: “No Blood for Oil” signs held by protesters against the invasion of Iraq at a demonstration in Washington on Dec. 4, 2002.
@Amazed to a commenter:
Whatever you are ideologically, you are also a dangerous fool. Simply extorting vast amounts of the oil in various Middle Eastern countries we’ve attacked is guaranteed to lead to endless war, possibly WWIII. Further, and as Mackey’s article documents, Donald Trump is no more anti-war than Hillary Clinton is, and may be even more bellicose; he’s certainly less stable.
But we are already “extorting vast amounts of oil in various Middle Eastern countries we’ve attacked,” aren’t we? That’s how Exxon got those Iraqi oilfield contracts it is currently profiting off.
The Big Lie here, though, is that this is somehow done to keep gasoline prices low in the United States. In reality, the whole global oil system isn’t about supplying Americans with needed energy; its about controlling the cash flows.
The global slave trade between 1807 (when the U.S. banned import of slaves from Africa) to 1862 (when the U.S. stopped participating in the international slave trade) is a good analogy. New England was building slave ships during that period; those ships carried raw materials (plantation cotton and tobacco, for example) to Europe, picked up manufactured goods, sailed to Africa, traded the goods for African slaves, who were transported to Brazil and Cuba. The money from this trade went into U.S. hands.
Similarly, even if the U.S. became entirely energy-independent (due to expansion of renewable energy) and no fossil fuels were imported, Exxon and Chevron would still be involved in moving out of places like Chad, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, selling them to China, India, Europe, etc., and banking the proceeds in Wall Street – with the dividends trickling down to many wealthy Americans and pension funds, very similar to the slave trade.
Not only that, the U.S. is now exporting oil, under Obama; that’s what the whole Dakota Access Pipeline (that the Intercept is so curiously silent on) is really about.
So, protecting that trade, those investments – that’s what the global military apparatus of the U.S. government is mostly about; the U.S. Navy protects the sea lanes for oil tankers, AFRICOM and CENTCOM provide military protection for oil-rich client states like Saudi Arabia, etc.
The fact that Trump can make some statement like this – which is really more like something a state-owned oil company, the Chinese or Russian or Indian versions of Exxon, would be involved in, and that a media outlet like the Intercept would repeat it verbatim with no real analysis, just shows the level of popular ignorance about how the global oil system really works.
What I mean is, for Trump’s vision to come to pass, the U.S. would need a state-owned oil company; it would have to secure concessions that gave it total control of that oil – I mean, Trump is talking about 1920s British-Persian type deals. This is of course ludicrous; but the media coverage that ignores the fact that we’ve basically already done what Trump proposes, via military invasion and contracts and leases and so on, is just as nonsensical.
Well the US recently became the world’s largest oil producer. Not sure if that is still true, but with the declining use of oil in the US, new technologies and falling prices, maybe it’s time to retire that old narrative. It’s getting kind or tired.
It is worth remembering that the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 because the Iranian government nationalized the oil industry and tore up existing contracts the country’s British installed dictatorship had signed with British oil companies. Fast forward to US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – the US insisted that the new Iraqi government respect existing contracts, right? Nope – the invading power ripped up existing contracts (before democratic elections were held to allow the Iraqi people any say) and effectively nationalized the oil industry.
The only difference between Trump and other US presidential candidates is Trump is honest in his avarice.
Very true; Hillary Clinton’s regime change agendas in Libya and Syria (in coordination with Obama) had a major focus on how the oil control would shake out, as her emails demonstrate. A search for [Libya OR Libyan Oil] on Wikileaks turns up 226 results, for example. Here a sample, from Hillary Clinton to Sidney Blumenthal (Clinton Foundation employee), part of a back-and-forth exchange on Libyan oil and who will end up with it:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12092
None of it is really explained in the U.S. media; when Trump says “we” what is he talking about, Exxon and Chevron and Conoco getting control of the oil? But they are international companies, with a global reach, many foreign employees – at best, you could say that Wall Street is their top investor and earns all the dividends?
A bigger question is, why should the U.S. be reliant on foreign oil at all anymore? Renewable energy is dropping in cost and could replace 100% of demand for foreign oil imports into the United States. This would mean a huge hit for Wall Street oil investors, however, as well as for the finances of U.S. client states like Saudi Arabia.
Indeed. Between increased US oil production, reduced US oil consumption (Some of which can be credited to “Cash for Clunkers”- anyone remember that?) and the ability to get oil from within the hemisphere (Canada, Mexico, and, as long as we mind our own business, Venezuela), we should leave the Saudis to twist in the wind.
We still will need petroleum products for chemical production, and some internal combustion applications, but improved technology can reduce our need for and use of them. Besides, petroleum is a nonrenewable resource. Why should we be burning like there’s no tomorrow something that took millions of years of heat and pressure (or, alternatively, a global flood totally rearranging things) to form, and is not likely to be replicated in a natural form anytime soon?
You got the sequence wrong. Our first war will be on the dishonest media. We will withdraw press accreditation to New York Times, CNN and Washington Post and even if we allow them in for some briefings we will not allow them to ask questions.
I’m sorry. . . didn’t that already happen, kind of-sort of? I’m a bit mystified here, really.
1) In March 2001 the Cheney Energy Task Force had maps of Iraqi oilfields and lists of foreign suitors. Notably, Britain and the United States were excluded from those lists. Here you go:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/maps-and-charts-of-iraqi-oil-fields/
2) Post-invasion, aka Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.), the U.S. established the CPA in late 2003, the Colonial Provisional Authority (minor edit there) under the authority of Paul Bremer, whose infamous 100 Orders infuriated the Iraqi populace and created the anti-occupation insurgency. In particular, Bremer pushed for production sharing agreements, a kind of contract for an oilfield in which the leasee has near-total control over production; the only places they are used are in war-torn countries like Chad in Africa. This IS going in and taking the oil. That outraged Iraqis.
3) After several years of bloodshed, the PSA agenda was dropped, in favor of an Iraqi government oil council which was structured like this, c.2007
4) This was knocked back somewhat too, but rather than go through tedious details that would bore readers, let’s just jump up to 2015:
Guess Who’s Reaping Hundreds of Billions From Iraq’s Oil? Dec 2015, Truthout
While the neocon wet dream of permanent military bases in Iraq to launch a war on Syria and Iran didn’t materialize (there was a war on Syria, but it was a covert backdoor affair, no American boots on the ground pushing into Damascus), the US and British oil majors who had been blacklisted by Saddam are back in Iraq, making huge profits off cheap-to-produce Iraqi oil!
The U.S. media propaganda system is dead silent on this, but that’s how it all went down; for all practical purposes, what Donald Trump is proposing already happened, to some extent. Exxon, Shell and BP don’t have total control of all Iraqi oil, China also has a huge stake, perhaps the biggest, in Iraqi oil – but the lockout by Saddam of the US/British oil majors was broken, utterly broken.
But Trump is ridiculous, what’s he gonna do, invade Iraq again and throw China out so we get all the oil?
Still, I’m very disappointed in the American media for not covering this aspect of the whole history of Iraqi oil, from March 2001 to the present. Not that I’m surprised, but come on, can’t the Intercept do better? They just did that great historical analysis of the Star Spangled Banner, can’t the Intercept do the same with the entire Iraqi oil story? And the Dakota Access Pipeline, too, if you’re gonna talk about oil, that’s the top story today.
Hopefully Donald is gonna demand the profits of these companies to re-imburse us unless, unless he is upside down financially and needs a “refill”.
Then again, Hotel Trump Bagdad might be the ticket.
I tell you what he is going to do for real – HE IS GOING TO SELL…. PROTECTION. Corpos are going to need it and the U.S. is going to get paid.
dollars to donuts on that one – french cruellers and a baker’s dozen.
fyi, i have the idea that you are an oil stocks picker.
reworded-
you know too much and are too resourceful not to be a pro at picking oil stocks, imo
Are you sure Trump is not talking about creating a state-run oil company in the United States, like Brazil’s Petrobras? That’s the only way “we” could get Iraq’s oil. ExxonMobil is not “us”, ExxonMobil, like the other oil majors, views itself as an independent state with global reach. This is clearly detailed in Steve Coll’s “The Private Empire of Exxon Mobil.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvPobwco-AE
Second, ‘stock picking’ isn’t how the oil world works; it’s mostly about divident payments to large shareholders. Take Exxon and it’s top three investors, as an example:
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)$25.7 billion
State Street Corporation $17.3 billion
BlackRock Institutional $10.3 billion
So the dividend payments for these top three funds are: $884 million, $595 million, $358 million, because XOM (Exxon) has a dividend yield of 3.44%
So that’s how people make money by investing in oil; but this oil business is responsible for all kinds of bloody global warfare (the $1 trillion oil war in Iraq was, in part, so Exxon could get more access to oil), and as well, fossil fuel use is driving long-term catastrophic global warming and climate change.
Furthermore, we can entirely replace all oil imports to the U.S. with renewable energy and electric vehicles; this would be good for the U.S. economy but bad for the international oil industry (and for the Saudi Royals, who have invested close to $1 trillion in Wall Street).
So this is why we have all these wars for oil; this is why Wall Street won’t invest in renewable energy, and no, there’s no way in hell I’d have anything to do with this dirty sleazy business, it’s the equivalent of investing in the global slave trade in 1820, as far as I’m concerned.
I like the cherry pick and misrepresentation of the militaristic quote. Rewind the video back 4mins, folks, and you can see Trump says that he’s much more militaristic but that he isn’t going to go willy nilly into places where we have no business being, we have no potential positive in fighting in and how Trump’s vision in the past with Atlantic City should show how Trump will pick his battles wisely and fight hard and get what he wants.
On the oil bit: Trump said that if the US never gave up the Iranian oil fields, Iraq wouldn’t have been taken over by Iran, who was using the oil fields to fund the war, which would have kept Iraq stable and ISIS would’ve never had time to form and to sell the excess oil that Iran does not own.
On the Qaddafi: Trump was fed the same lie about a Holocaust-like event happening in Libya. This lie was created by the Obama administration and the only people who would’ve known the truth would’ve been Hillary and Obama and their minions. Using a strong reaction that was predicated on the lie that Obama’s administration peddled is a weak tactic meant to shame him for not being an insider.
Mackey, a one trick scribe.
Pound on the Trumpster, yet avoid saying anything bad about Hellary.
Bahgdad Bob, reincarnated.
Mr. Trump has the right instincts, but unfortunately he’s only a two bit grifter. I can imagine him asking the bank manager, “all these people coming in here with cash, why don’t you mug them and take it? You’re missing out on a great opportunity”. The bank manger just smiles and replies, “if we did that, they’d stop coming here. We don’t need to take their cash, they give it to us. Banking is complicated; don’t try and understand, just take my word for it”.
If Mr. Trump becomes president, the CIA will give him a similar lecture.
Trump to cia boss: Who are you talking to, me? You know who i am? I’m the president. Of the United States. Of America. And if you keep up with the wise talk, i’m gonna fire you. You know why? Because i can. You know why? Because i am the President… you know united states, america, bla bla bla. You know what? You’re fired.
So not only will Mr. Trump be president of the United States of America, he will also be the new head of the NEW CIA :^)
CIA official to Secret Service agent: “Tom, POTUS is acting up again; give him another tranquilizer. When he wakes up, have him sign the Executive Order putting the Secretary of Defense in charge. It’s going to cause a fuss though. Things would have been so much easier if that Democratic Dame had been elected”.
Foreigners bringing cash to the US and, “why don’t we just take it”? That is exactly what the critics of Obama are saying about his returning of the hundreds of millions to Iran. They brought it to the states to invest back in the seventies; we froze their assets in the banks and let the banks keep the funds until recently when obama authorized returning less than 1/2 the amount we seized.
So, Obama is being called a traitor for sending back their own money to Iran while the right wing argues we should have just formally stolen it and refused to return it. BTW, the US government didn’t hold the money, the banks themselves were our ‘fences’ used to hold the stolen money-but no one likes to say it that way. We use ‘patriotic’ words to deceive our real motives and scream about Obama ‘giving millions to Iran’.
It pains me to say it, but the right wing is not too bright. It would be better to have charged a reasonable holding fee, say 10% per annum. By now, Iran would owe several times the original amount withheld. Before stealing anything, always consult with a banker to see if you can do better.
Trump never promised US a rose garden.:)
Hey,what happened to all the MSM HB sickness stories?
Searching for a new meme.Finding meemo?
I don’t know how shes gonna spin stabbing her fellow Americans in NC in the back,the pos.
I am voting for the lesser of two evils. Sorry, I weep for the people of the Middle East, but I will never vote for a Clinton. Trump is no Mother Teresa, I know this, he is likely a egomaniac, on par with many of America’s useless Presidents. But Trump is no Clinton, and for that he gets my vote, not because I know he is going to do a good job, who knows, but I know what Clinton will do, divide and conquer. Trump is giving a voice to Americans again, not just those who come here illegally, or who place Israel’s needs above mine. I want someone to put me first for a change.
May I suggest getting a dog?
Nate! That’s your best post, ever!
historically, rape rob and plunder was the way of the world. Mercenaries were always rewarded with the spoils of war. But then the US decided that war should be different – it should be a fair and balanced WIN-LOSE. That being WIN the war and LOSE everything. The Donald is proposing that IF the US is going to war, someone has to pay for that war other than the winners because WINNING IS NOT LOSING and LOSING IS NOT WINNING.
simple math.
take the oil so that the Islamic Terrorists can’t steal it and benefit from selling it.
As well as to help pay for the U.S. costs in the fight against the Islamic Terrorists.
What’s wrong with this?
The difference between the Clinton supporters and the Trump supporters, is that the Clinton supporters want to rape and pillage the rest of the world while telling everyone that they are doing them a favor. These US military contractors were allowed to buy child sex slaves in Bosnia when Bill was in power:
http://www.salon.com/2002/06/26/bosnia_4/
No one with even the most basic understanding of modern history and US policy could possibly doubt that America’s misadventures in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia have everything to do with control of the oil resource — its production, transport, distribution, etc.
Trump is different from other politicians (to the extent that he can be describes as such) mostly in having so little impulse control that he is given to blurting the truth.
America, Oil and War in the Middle East
Yes, but Trump doesn’t seem to understand that the costs of occupation accrue to one “we” (taxpayers) while oil revenues accrue to another (Big Oil).
I don’t know whether he understands it or not. All the promoters of war for oil who have formed and directed our policy in the relevant parts of the world certainly understand it.
But they ain’t talkin’.
even alan greenspan admits the wars were for oil to begin with. trump made the mistake of being open about it and not distracting the naive and/or stupid with claims of WMD or whatever. you probably think afghanistan and libya and syria were noblesse oblige on the part of wise democrats and centrist republicans who would NEVER use foreign policy as a tool of capital. jesus christ.
every american president (and most members of congress) have had an insatiable thirst for natural resources from oil to gas to lithium. FDR was BFF with the GCC. american citizens have been kicked out of their homes for pipelines that benefit foreign oil companies. do a piece on them and save the yuppie sanctimony for your friends at the artisan coffee house.
So I take it Mackey was hired to write anti-Trump articles and only anti-Trump articles. He seems a rather odd fit for TI, a site that I don’t perceive as conventionally partisan when it comes to the two major parties.
Had same notion. Maybe Mackey is a “counter point” to Greenwald? But if that is the point, sort of strange. Greenwald has not been shy about his disdain for Trump. Glenn afflicts those who have power and influence and has become a pariah to the status quo establishment. Nothing Mackey writes as far as I have seen would be out of place on the pages of establishment WAPO or NYTimes. (I think this Lee Fang guy is generating the same levels of establishment hatred from what I can tell.)
If Mr. Mackey is under some misimpression that our “wars” and use of our military in the Middle East is not about “control” (to the extent possible) of and/or entry into “markets” for certain natural resources, then I’d suggest he is both naïve and should dig a little deeper as a journalist into America’s history in the region. It has been official American policy since at least Carter (if not Eisenhower) that the “oil” in the region is a “vital national interest” of the United States government.
If you honestly believe that America is making war all over the Middle East going on decades to “liberate” anyone, to “spread democracy” (so long as the democratic process yields a puppet regime suitable to US and West generally), or to otherwise “save” others for humanitarian reasons–I’d say pull your head out of your ass. Because anyone with a rudimentary understanding of US history over the last 65 years, and its stated foreign policy, should know that is not what is going on or why. It is the “pretext” and/or “propaganda” disseminated to the American people to justify what is clearly unjustifiable morally. Whether it is “economically” necessary and/or in America’s “vital national interest” is highly debatable.
Pull your head out of your ass Andrew Bacevich, you “propagandist”!!
Excerpt From: Andrew J. Bacevich. “America’s War for the Greater Middle East.”
Hey Nate:
If you could read that portion of the paragraph for comprehension you’d understand Prof. Becevich is proving my point(s) you clown, those “neoliberal standards” are first and foremost “economic standards” with the purported “human rights” portions serving as “pretext”. Moreover, the fact the US sought to “prove the efficacy of ‘preventative’ war” is both illogical and absurd on its face (i.e. how does one “prevent war” by engaging in “war”), and the fact that the evidence has demonstrated there is no “efficacy” to be found in waging such wars, but only death, destruction, and the consequential division of the “spoils” after said war. Human rights are in fact worse in every land where we have “preventatively” waged war notwithstanding such a concept of “preventative war” is against international law and the Geneva Conventions. Again, proving my point.
And if you want to talk the “prerogative” of removing any “regime” the US doesn’t like, you better hope China, Russia and Iran never decide to join forces to start removing “regimes” they don’t like, starting with the US regime du jour.
Here comes the backtracking. Bacevich’s part on “neoliberal standards” clearly does not support your statement.
rrheard: If you honestly believe that America is making war all over the Middle East going on decades to … “spread democracy” (so long as the democratic process yields a puppet regime suitable to US and West generally) … I’d say pull your head out of your ass.
Bacevich: In reality, the Bush administration invaded Iraq in order to validate…[reverse of] the practice of exempting the Islamic world from neoliberal standards, demonstrating that what Condoleezza Rice called “the paradigm of progress”— democracy , limited government, market economics, and respect for human (and especially women’s) rights – was as applicable to the Greater Middle East as to the rest of the world.
You proceed to say that the “fact” the U.S. sought to validate preventive war is both illogical and absurd. That is either a further disagreement with Bacevich, poorly written, or a semantic nitpick.
As for understanding preventive war, may I suggest Google?
Not Geneva. U.N. Charter, Article 51.
Not “backtracking” in any way. And re: your last “nit” picked, I will concede my in haste error.
But not the general premise of “preventative war” being against “international law” only that I mis-cited Geneva Conventions rather than derivatively Hague Conventions (III) and UN Charter, Article 51 (and lack of “imminence” to legitimately justify or trigger right to self-defense), and customary international law.
You act like making an error is some huge deal. It’s not.
Interesting quote. I have not read the book but have admired Bacevich’s articles and essays. Given the quote, the US invasions and destruction of Middle East countries does in fact, begin with oil. Without oil, Saddam and Gaddafi would not have the influence and power and reach they did–and thus the threat to imperial control. To “control” them is to control the ownership and distribution of that oil. I remember when the Bush regime gave moral arguments to why Iraq should be invaded (other that lies about WMDs), many people noted if that moral arguments were the most compelling there were plenty of non-oil-rich countries that were deserving of intervention. The ideological basis of the invasions could just have easily been proven out with non-oil-rich countries.
There is not doubt neocon imperial ideologies played a part, but oil was equally as important.
It’s a good read and one that challenged my views. I disagreed with several of his points and found him sometimes too abrasive and cynical (Bacevich seems to suggest that every military leader in the past 40 years have been a buffoon) but found other parts such on the Carter years (I was unfamiliar with most of this), the justification for the 2003 invasion, criticism of COIN, and the Surge to be very good synopses and their points convincing. For example, the Surge is often looked back upon as a success and depending on how you view it, it could be seen as such. But Bacevich dives into other events at the time examines the surge’s long-term impact based on its stated objectives. It isn’t pretty.
Bacevich makes this point in his book; i.e., that oil was the impetus starting with Carter and continuing through the first gulf conflict in the early 90’s (which he calls the “Second Gulf War,” with the Iraq-Iran war being the first because of U.S. involvement). As he says in the above quote, at the time of the 2003 invasion, motivation to take the oil remained a factor, but along with the other reasons understates the key ambitions. I found it convincing, especially in conjunction with all of the other scholarship in the area.
Yes, rrheard — spot on.
The “if” is superfluous.
[three dings]
Now I see your confusion. Mackey is not a journalist, he is a joke.
Overall, though, you have a good point — the implication is that other politicians went to the ME for some reason other than oil, and you are being too polite to call someone who makes such an implication simply “naïve.” Such a person is an embarrassment to reason.
Hard to refute when two of TI’s own historians – rrheard and Macroman – have reached the same inarguable and absolute conclusion.
Hell, we might as well just delete all the narrative from the Wikipedia entry “Rationale for the Iraq War” except for the parts about oil as the only impetus, and then source it to this very webpage!
It’s the first time I’ve seen them agree on anything, so I wouldn’t simply dismiss it.
So your argument is to call me an “historian.” OK…
Your earlier quote is whimsically entertaining. My response to that is to quote Dave Chappel in his skit “Black Bush”: “Oil?!?! Who said anything about oil? Bitch, you cooking?”
Now, most people laugh at that. Not Nate. Nate might say, “Black Bush is completely correct.” The point, Nate, is that your position was already (literally) a joke by 2004. Just saying. But if you belittle people with comments sans arguments, you might turn the tide of public opinion and rescue W’s reputation as a humanitarian. Good luck, my friend.
P.S. Look up HW’s stated (repeatedly) rationale for the first gulf war. He even includes estimated reserve numbers for Iraq and Kuwait (yes, really).
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/14/donald-trumps-not-anti-war-just-wants-u-s-military-focus-stealing-oil/?comments=1#comment-281900
Last graf
This strategy certainly is no secret. Estd. 1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Robert: you should have supplemented your article with a focus on Trump’s 2011 book “Time to Get Tough” which gives countless examples of Trump’s regrets that we left Iraq and Libya without oil, as follows:
* “ All I’m asking is that [Iraq] give us, temporarily, a few flows of oil – enough to help pay us back and help take care of the tens of thousands of families and children whose brave loved ones died or were injured while securing Iraqi freedom. But does Iraq do that? No. In fact, they’ve made it clear they have no intention of doing so. Ever. – Time to Get Tough, p. 10
* “ We should take the oil. And here’s why: because the Iraqis won’t be able to keep it themselves…[and] the minute we leave, Iran will take over Iraq and its great oil reserves…[and] all of our brave men and women will have died in vain and $1.5 trillion will have been squandered. Time to Get Tough, p. 12
* “Call me old school, but I believe in the old warrior’s credo that “to the victor go the spoils”… We win a war, take the oil to repay the financial costs we’ve incurred, and in so doing, treat Iraq and everybody else fairly.” – Time to Get Tough, p. 12
^^ I especially get a kick out of this one since during the recent Lauer-led CiC forum, Trump said a very similar thing with a slight change: “Just we would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. They have — people don’t know this about Iraq, but they have among the largest oil reserves in the world, in the entire world…You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil.” So in 2011 we had won Iraq, but in 2016 there was no victor.
http://time.com/4483355/commander-chief-forum-clinton-trump-intrepid/
* “We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, and now Libya, and gotten nothing in return but disrespect and ingratitude. That must end. Now. I say we take the oil. No more free military support. Either you pay us to defend you or we take the oil. It’s fair and smart, which is probably why the politicians in Washington haven’t implemented it.” – Time to Get Tough, p. 154
* “We don’t owe the Middle East any apologies. America is not what’s wrong with the world. We’re an example of freedom to the world. No one can match America. We have big hearts – and the courage to do what’s right. But we’re not the world’s policemen. And if we have to take on that role, we need to send a clear message that protection comes at a price.” Time to Get Tough, p. 14
* “And if any country in the Middle East won’t sell us their oil at a fair market price… we have every right to take it.” Time to Get Tough, p. 10
* Regarding Libya: “When the so-called “rebels” came to NATO (which is really the U.S.) and asked for help to defeat Qaddafi, we should have said “sure we don’t like this guy either, we will help you take out Qaddafi. But in exchange you give us 50 percent of your oil for the next 25 years to pay for our military support and thank you for the U.S. for doing what you couldn’t do on your own ….[But] no. Our leaders are too brainless to negotiate a deal like that.”
* “ I’m only interested in Libya if we keep the oil. If we don’t keep the oil, I’m not interested. We don’t know who the rebels are. They make the rebels like it’s some romantic, beautiful novel – the rebels. I hear the rebels are Al Qaeda, I hear they’re Iran-backed and Iran-influenced. Where are they getting those weapons before we came along? From Iran. Gaddafi’s going to go around saying he won the war against this country. When you ask me what I’d do — I’m only interested in Libya if we get the oil.
And this is bad why? Great idea, frankly. One more plus on his side.
Well, the reason why Bush’s puppetmasters didn’t like this idea is that then the oil would be some kind of national property, which is no use at all. They wanted an elaborate ruse with an interim government signing provisional contracts and then making them binding on the successor because the idea is that the oil ends up in THEIR pockets, not the public pockets. It’s the usual game whenever the government is involved, oh, the contracts will be handed out … somehow … oh, my buddy got it, what a coincidence! … oh, he found a way to make me rich, what hard work I did for him to deserve it! They don’t want the stuff marked down on the sheet as a public asset, and Trump will be no different. He’ll talk this game when it suits him, but in the end it’ll be a typical money laundering scheme.
There is also the fact that the Bush interventions RAISED oil prices, thus ensuring a tidy profit for buddies in the oil industry even if the oil is sold to someone else.
Other than the fact that it completely justifies terrorist attacks against the USA, I don’t see a downside.
Wait, I thought his “rhetoric” was responsible for that? Or was it cartoons some people drew? Or wait, enforcing immigration law? Nah, I think you’ve gone to the well once too often with this one.
When everything justifies terror, nothing does. I’ll take my chances.
True, if someone relentlessly bombed the USA and stole millions of dollars worth of it’s property & resources, then who’s to say what issue would be the cause of retaliation?
It’s so much easier to laugh about the victims of genocide and pretend superiority against an “unimaginable evil”
“Evil? What’s that? As liberals have taught the world for nearly a century now, one person’s evil is another’s freedom fight.
Which is why it’s laughable for any left-wing, SJW-type journalist to try and preach to us about why something is wrong and why we should be outraged.
Outrage died with religion. Right and wrong are relative. So to this hyperventilating journalist I would say: “Go away and leave us all alone now, hear?”
Yeah, if only everyone could have core convictions and unflappable principles like rightwingers!
2001: “They hate us for our freedoms!”
2003: “We’re righteously attacking Iraq for WMD’s and any Lib’Rul who says Iraq is about oil and control of the region is LYING!!!”
2016: “Of course, it was 100% about the oil not WMD’s or rape rooms, silly Li b’ruls!! Wake up!!”
“Lib’Ruls have offered SO MANY reasons for Middle Eastern terrorism against the West. You’ve gone to the well too often with excuses unlike rightwingers who have been completely consistent! Who are Lib’Ruls to talk about EVIL!! We’ve got this!!”
Who says I’m a right winger? Thanks for all the labels and bigotry though. Very enlightened.
Trump is just stating an obvious;We wouldn’t be in Iraq,and had it under control of one of our thugs for 30 years for the sand.
But it’s much easier,and cheaper in the long run,to just buy it from whomever is in charge,and we if stay out of their internal business,why would they refuse?
I think that is part of his approach.
Why stop there?
Maybe Trump should consider colonizing Iraq and creating a casino-based economy.
Now you’re talking. Agreed.
Yay, it’s nice to find common ground!
I bet Adelson beats him to it.
In fact,that is the biggest error of the zionists,precluding the hundreds of millions of Christian and Muslim neighbors as economic targets.
Think of it,by their regular business practices,they’d own the majority of the ME by deed.They’d hold all the mortgages.
Morons.
WTF are you talking about dahoit, you silly goose!?
Yes, this is a horrible idea. First, this policy completely discards all notions of just war and instead substitutes a protection scheme. Donald sure learned from his mafia pals. Also, this policy would place large amounts of American service members directly in harms way. And for what? To extort payment from a population who did not invite us to produce such terror in their country in the first place. The Iraqis did not ask US to spend such treasure to throw their country in to a perpetual sectarian\civil war. If placed in the position of the muscled enforcer of US corporate interest then American service members will certainly face even more insurgent attacks. Frankly, I cannot see an upside.
If true???? I actually like this idea of Trump’s. I want some of the wasted “foreign aide” money back. The many fools who have made these bad ‘investments’ have cost me $$$!
==============> VOTE TRUMP 2016 <===============