The Crude Truth about the War in Iraq?

to sci.econ:

I found this on soc.culture.turkish and thought you might be interested.

Mason C

quote:

The Crude Truth about the War in Iraq
Posted: Tuesday, October 4, 2005

by Ahmed Amr, thousandreasons.org

Every day, without fail, containers arrive at American ports bearing
the fruits of the world. Among other things, they deliver Japanese
electronics, European cars, Chinese and Indian textiles and Arab and
Venezuelan oil. Over land, manufactured products and raw materials
flood across the border from Mexico and Canada - including four
million barrels of crude. By the end of each and every day, five
billion dollars of goods and services will have landed on American
soil. The value of these imported products is further enhanced by the
fact that much of it is produced by the blood, sweat and tears of
third world workers who earn no more than a few dollars a day.

In consideration of this mountain of imported treasures, the United
States sends back containers loaded with weapons, civilian aircraft,
high tech and agricultural products and overpriced pharmaceuticals. In
terms of their dollar value, America's daily exports amount to three
billion dollars of goods and services. When you import more than you
export, you end up with a trade deficit. So far this year, we are
running a trade deficit that averages two billion dollars a day.

Contrary to popular myth, the United States is one of the least
competitive producers in the world. Since 1976, Americans have run
consecutive and exponentially rising trade deficits. By its very
definition, a trade deficit measures the inability of a country to
manufacture products that can compete in global market. So, for going
on three decades, our manufactured goods have been judged by our
trading partners to be either too expensive or of low quality or both.
Keep in mind that if we excluded American exports of arms and
ammunition - an industry in which we excel - our annual trade deficits
would balloon by an additional 180 billion dollars.

You might ask yourself why the rest of the world would stomach such a
huge trade imbalance from the largest economy on the planet. The
answer is rather simple - America manufactures a unique currency - the
dollar. And every day we export two billion newly minted dollar bills
to make up for our daily trade deficit. In effect, the United States
treasury manufactures forty percent of our total exports. Now, why
would the rest of humanity take our paper money when they have no
intention of using the proceeds to buy American goods? Again, the
answer is simple - to buy corporate securities, to buy our treasury
bonds and to buy oil. That last item might seem baffling. Why would
the rest of the world need dollars to buy oil from a country that
imports twelve million barrels of oil each and every day? Because oil
is priced and sold in dollars, countries with a heavy dependence on
oil imports - like China, Japan and Western Europe - are obliged to
horde dollars to purchase oil from the petro-kingdoms in the Gulf. A
derivative benefit is that these oil dependent economies tend to horde
their dollars in instruments like short term US treasuries - in effect
financing our budget deficit and providing easy credit that fuels the
housing bubble.

Eventually, a substantial portion of the petro-dollars that pour into
the coffers of the rulers of the oil plantations get re-cycled into
American stocks, real estate and long term securities. British and
American military contractors - like Halliburton - also manage to
secure lucrative multi-billion dollar supply contracts with the Gulf
monarchies.

The looting of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil revenues by these hereditary
dictatorships involves money laundering on an epic scale - aided and
abetted by investment firms like the Carlyle Group - a firm where
former Secretary of State James Baker toils as a full partner. The
senior George Bush and ex- Prime Minister John Major also work for
this outfit.

It's fair to speculate on whether Tony Blair's resume is already being
reviewed by Carlyle's management. The Prime Minister continues to
babble incoherently about Britain's tradition of standing 'shoulder to
shoulder' with America. Well, our British cousins conveniently
abandoned that 'tradition' during the Vietnam War. They were not at
our side when we invaded Panama and they were critical of our
intervention in Central America. But they seem to be more than
enthusiastic to accept invitations to our war parties in the Middle
East, even though Great Britain is an oil exporting country. Why would
that be? Could it have something to do with the $50 billion dollar of
British arm sales to Saudi Arabia? Or is Blair more interested in the
attracting Saudi and Kuwaiti petro-dollar investments. I say Tony is
looking out for Tony and hoping to become as wealthy as John Major.
The Saudis have always understood the value of rewarding ex-Prime
Ministers and ex-Presidents after they leave office.

If you digest that last couple of paragraphs, you will be well on your
way to understanding the major reason the United States and Britain
are so adamant about exercising hegemony over the Gulf region. 'No
Blood for Oil' has long been the battle cry of those who oppose direct
American military intervention in the Middle East. It is a slogan that
doesn't ring true because American oil companies pay the going price
for Arab crude. Those who market the war as an 'altruistic' mission
can readily point out that the United States depends on Gulf oil for
only 12% of daily oil consumption and less than 5% of total energy
needs. They might add that we get 40% of our daily oil fix from Texas,
Alaska and Louisiana and that most of our import requirements are
satisfied by crude originating in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. As for
Downing Street policy makers, they can easily rubbish the 'no blood
for oil' argument by issuing exact figures on British oil exports.

For a rational discussion of our Middle Eastern imperial obsessions,
Americans need to understand that our military adventures in the
region are not driven by mere 'crude' considerations. More precisely,
our soldiers and marines are killing and dying in Iraq to coerce an
oil starved world to horde American dollars for future purchases of
Saudi and Kuwaiti crude. Now, that might seem like a distinction
without a difference and it does make for a piss poor anti-war slogan.
However, it is a distinction that allows for an iron clad rebuttal
against those who still buy into the silly notion that we are in the
region to promote democracy and export 'our values.' In reality, we
place military garrisons in the region to maintain the status of the
dollar as an international means of exchange and convince the world of
accepting our trade deficits as an American entitlement program. It's
our way of making the world an offer they can't refuse.

When it comes to our imperial project in the Gulf, Americans can be
credited with inventing a very new kind of imperial racket -currency
exporting on a massive scale. The dollar figures involved in this scam
are staggering. This year alone, our annual trade deficit is projected
to exceed seven hundred billion dollars. Without our cozy dollar
pricing arrangements with the absolute monarchs in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait and our current control of Iraqi oil - it is unlikely that the
world would continue to passively absorb our astronomical currency
exports in exchange for their manufactured goods. Our military
engagements in the Gulf are not about protecting 'our way of life' -
but rather our standard of living.

One should never discount the right wing amoral minority that would
accept our currency exporting racket as a sweet deal that justifies
the cost in blood and treasure of invading Iraq. In previous published
research, I have used facts and figures to argue that given the
increasing economic cost of our military aggression - our little
dollar racket no longer makes dollars or sense. If our 'national
interests' in the region were soberly re-examined - we wouldn't have a
single soldier deployed in the Gulf region. We shouldn't just get out
of Iraq - we should get out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

When the big boys in high places rant about our 'national interest' in
the Middle East, they are talking about the dollar. The currency
exporting imperative is the crucial component of the undeclared
American agenda in the region. But, like any other imperial business -
the benefits need to be critically weighed against the increasingly
ruinous cost. First of all, if we were not over there, the terrorists
would not be over here. You don't see them attacking Sweden or Canada.
Every dollar spent on homeland security needs to be tallied as part of
the cost of our currency exporting racket. Add to that, the cost of
the war in Iraq.

Second, because we have the world captive to our number one product -
the petro-dollar - we don't produce much of anything else. Only 11% of
the American work force is now engaged in manufacturing. Currency
exporting is such a lucrative business. Why should America go to the
trouble of doing real work? America is de-industrializing its economy
at a rapid pace and the wreckage is on display in rust belt cities
across the nation. What seems like a great deal for the American
consumer - is a catastrophe for American labor.

Third, the dollars we export don't evaporate into thin air. The
foreigners who take them - be they Chinese, Japanese, Europeans or
Arabs - end up investing them in American financial assets - including
government securities. It's nice of them to finance our national
debt - but they will also be nice enough to collect interest from our
children for decades to come.

It used to be argued that we could depend on the Saudis and Kuwaitis
to keep oil prices reasonable by fending off the more militant members
of OPEC. Now, with the increasing international demand for oil by
emerging economic giants like India and China, the world will need
another Saudi Arabia every decade to keep up with demand. Welcome to
'Peak Oil.' Even with the entire planet pumping oil at full capacity -
every marginal barrel is fetching over sixty dollars in a very
competitive market. OPEC no longer qualifies as a cartel. All they do
these days is issue comforting press releases and post price guidance.

In terms of naked American economic interests, the empire is costing
us more than its worth. The peace movement needs to start challenging
the naïve members of the war party who think that the war in Iraq is
good for business. We need to convince these people that - aside from
being amoral vultures - they are also very bad students of economics.
Let's see how they react when they realize that our invasion of Iraq
is a money losing proposition that inflates our national debt without
saving them a dime at the gas pump.

Naturally, there are people in high places that will have none of this
talk about a permanent and swift withdrawal - regardless of the
economic price to the nation. We need to be aware that our deranged
policies in the Middle East are heavily influenced by the Israeli
lobby. In polite circles, these lobbyists are now referred to as
neo-cons. As far as they're concerned, when America loses a dollar and
Israel gains a dime - it still makes for a profitable transaction.

As every politician in Washington knows, the neo-cons are a force to
be reckoned with - if only because of their massive leverage in the
mass media and their high caliber arsenal of think tanks. This tiny
domestic constituency can never hope to market their alien agenda
based on the merits of the bloody repression of the Palestinian
people. America benefits nothing from Israel's military occupation of
the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza or the Golan Heights. But the Israeli
lobby can and does punish any politician who dares to stand up to
their ludicrous demands for massive foreign aid to finance Israel's
appetite for stealing other people's real estate. The neo-con stake in
the invasion of Iraq was to destabilize the region and redraw the map
of the Middle East to afford Ariel Sharon more elbow room to
consolidate his grasp of the occupied territories and to deflect
attention from Israel's vicious repression of the native people of
Palestine. The neo-cons like to call their destabilization policies
"creative destruction." It's an apt description of a policy that
destroys Palestinian homes to create exclusive Jewish settlements.
These arsonists are always standing around the inferno in the Gulf
chanting "Burn Baby Burn".

American foreign policy in the region is hostage to two lobbies - the
Saudi advocates who promote the virtues of 'currency exporting' and
the Israeli lobby which is guided by the agenda of the Likudniks in
Tel Aviv. The unholy alliance between Israel's Amen corner and the
Saudi clan might seem far fetched. True enough, they don't share the
same goals. But without the blessings of the Israeli lobby, the mass
media might not be so enthusiastically silent about America's
lucrative currency exporting racket.

It has always been my belief that most Americans can become experts in
the Middle East with a little bit of reading and a two or three day
seminar from academics who have no allegiance to either the Israeli or
Saudi lobby. One of the greatest achievements in the annals of
propaganda campaigns has been the ability of our media lords to make
us dependant on neo-con and Likudnik experts to rationalize America's
adventurous foreign policy in the region. The same think tank neo-con
brigades that convinced us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
ties to Al Qaeda are still paraded as credible authorities on the
region. The neo-con gurus and oracles who forecasted 'cake walks' and
'flower showers' are now pedaling 'liberation theology' in the
'Greater Middle East' - knowing full well that the last thing that
Bush wants is democracy in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Judith Miller who
collaborated with her friends in high places to plan and execute a
spectacular 'intelligence failure' is hailed as a hero of the free
press - while Cindy Sheehan is accused of treason and self-promotion
for demanding a few rational answers from Miller's accomplices in the
White House.

It is easy enough to get tangled in the latest farcical Anglo-American
response to the latest surprise Iraqi development. Let's face it - the
architects of this war didn't even expect an insurgency. Just this
week, the Bush administration let it be known that the Pentagon's
strategy was working just fine. A few days later, they declared that
American forces were changing their tactics. Go figure.

Moving in step with the administration, the Judith Miller clones in
the mass media impertinently ignored the hundreds of thousands of
peace demonstrators who descended on Washington to protest this insane
and unprofitable war. Does it come as any surprise that the same
Likudnik media operatives who marketed the invasion are intent on
silencing the majority of Americans who want to end this bloody
useless conflict?

Any honest observer needs to conclude that the war in Iraq was a major
blunder and that both Bush and Blair are tangled in the unintended
consequences of an immoral and illegal war motivated by crude economic
calculations that turned out to be a formula for generating massive
red ink and pools of innocent Iraqi blood. It is certain that the
administration vastly underestimated American casualties - nearly two
thousand fatalities and fifteen thousand wounded. In terms of costs,
the expedition is already 300% over budget and the economic tab is
piling up at the rate of five billion dollars a month. Most experts
agree that the war has increased the threat of terror, radicalized a
new generation of militants and ignited a civil war.

Bush needs to put aside this 'noble cause' charade and try to
explain - even to his credulous right wing partisans - exactly what
the United States gets out of this rotten deal. Let's challenge him to
prove that America still derives any economic advantage that justifies
the loss in Iraqi and American lives. If he can make a case that this
bloody venture is such a sweet deal, the soldiers deployed in Iraq
should be paid like the 20,000 foreign mercenaries we have hired to
back us up against the insurgents. It would be an unfortunate
precedent to have Americans doing the same dirty work for less pay. If
we, as a nation, are willing to send our young to kill and die for
their country's currency - they are certainly entitled to their fair
share of the war booty. They are also entitled to know the exact
nature of their 'dollar protection' mission. Because some of them
might decide that their lives are worth more in Canadian dollars or in
the private sector.

This war will end when Americans, especially those who support it,
come to terms with the crude truth about the war in Iraq. It isn't
about oil or spreading the blessings of democracy. It's about the
trade deficit and the dollar. And even that excuse is a money losing
proposition. At some point, we reached a consensus to end the war in
Vietnam - based on rational considerations of our national interest.
We gave up the Panama Canal and shut our bases in the Philippines and
accepted an armistice in Korea based on an analysis of what was good
for us - not them. The Cold War ended when both the Soviets and
Americans sat down and re-evaluated the costs and benefits of
prolonging the conflict. Military intervention in the Gulf is just bad
business and we should withdraw immediately - because the cost will
only increase and there is precious little reward in continuing this
bloody affair.

--
Alistair Sim

end quote
.