BLOOD FOR OIL:
The Strange Business of Invading Iraq
Philip S. Wenz
January 2003
When ECOTECTURE launched its first issue three years ago, it was
our intention to stay out of politics and report only on design
issues—expressing our political views by implication, as it
were. That quickly proved impossible, as any system designed with
improving the planet in mind automatically becomes a political statement.
A solar house, an efficient car, a gray water system—all of
these are symbols as well as systems, statements that fly in the
face of the prevailing corporate/government ethos. A journal of
ecological design is automatically a journal of eco-politics. And
politics, so often, comes down to the politics of oil.
It is our position that the Bush Administration plans to invade
Iraq not to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s
oppression or to secure peace in the Middle East but to get Iraq’s
oil. It is also clear that the Administration’s adventurism
has the backing of, and direction from much of America’s corporate
elite, including the mainstream media. Although the media consistently
presents information in a disconnected fashion, that is, refuses
to relate one fact to another, I believe that the following facts,
when taken together, paint a very clear picture.
• Saddam Hussein and his "weapons of mass destruction," real
or imagined, surfaced as front page news just as the Enron scandal
was peaking and there were increasing calls for an investigation
of the relationship between Enron’s executives and President
Bush. But Hussein was always there, and, presumably had his weapons
all along. Suddenly, however, America’s front pages were filled
with "news" of the Iraqi menace.
• No amount of Iraqi compliance with the weapons inspection
regimen seems to satisfy the Bush Administration. In late December,
2002, the Iraqi government invited the CIA to join the U.N. Inspection
Team (why not?). I read that tidbit in a small article posted at
the back of the San Francisco Chronicle’s sports section! I
don’t know what, if any response the U.S. made to that invitation,
but it is clear that the administration is not crediting Iraq for
its cooperation and is looking for any opportunity to go to war
while keeping the Iraqi "weapons crisis" in the headlines for as
long as possible.
• Iraq has the largest established oil reserves on the planet.
• If there is a war, and Iraq’s infrastructure, especially
its oil production facilities are destroyed, the Bush administration
already has a "post-war" plan in place for rebuilding that infrastructure.
(It seems as though someone with a "post war plan" is planning a
war, not its avoidance.) The only problem is that the rebuilding
plan will cost the U.S. government money that, normally, would be
raised through taxation. Not to worry—the Bush Administration
plans to sell Iraq’s oil on the world market to pay for the
cost of the war and reconstruction.
• Vice President Dick Cheney’s oil development corporation,
Halliburton, Inc., floated proposals several months ago for rebuilding
Iraq’s oil infrastructure. My guess is that Halliburton will
be first in line for the lucrative reconstruction contracts, assuming
we successfully invade Iraq.
Stringing together this information as we have done does not "prove,"
that the Bush Administration intends to invade Iraq to secure a
stronghold on that country’s oil reserves. Such constructs
cannot be proven, but can only stand on a preponderance of evidence.
We believe the evidence is more than sufficient.
We are not alone in this opinion. It is shared by millions of Americans,
many more millions around the world, almost all of the Arab and
Muslim states (or at least the majority of their people) and the
governments and even the corporate establishments of much of the
rest of the world. In fact, the only people who seem to think, or
pretend to think that our proposed invasion is not motivated by
power geopolitics and oil grabbing are the heads of the U.S. Government
and our oil corporations and media (Tony Blair excepted—go
figure).
Invading Iraq is a bad and dangerous idea. Not only is the plan
to kill, potentially, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order
to gain control of their oil reserves morally reprehensible, starting
a war in the Middle East has real potential to destabilize the entire
region. The consequences could include open revolt by Muslim fundamentalists
against moderate, pro western governments in numerous Arab states,
the deployment of the same weapons of mass destruction we are ostensibly
trying to control, the deaths of thousands of American troops, renewed
attacks on Israel, and, potentially, the involvement of Russia which
has strong interests in the region. The tumbling of a geopolitical
house of cards that could lead to a wide spread nuclear war, including
"terrorist" nuclear attacks on the United States is certainly not
out of the question.
The sad fact—to relate these political opinions to our basic
message that ecological design could be a solution to the world’s
problems—is that the Administration’s oil politics are
not only not justified, they are entirely unnecessary. By making
even minor adjustments to our energy consumption patterns, we can
do away with the need for foreign oil in a few short years.
As Fritjof Capra points out in Part
One of his ECOTECTURE interview, an increase in fuel efficiency
of 2.7 miles per gallon for America’s light vehicles only would
entirely obviate the need for foreign oil imports. That reduction
could be easily achieved with existing technology.
A similar energy savings can be easily and cheaply accomplished
by insulating our existing buildings. America’s energy use
is equally divided, roughly, between transportation, manufacturing/agricultural
applications and the heating and cooling of buildings. One of my
former graduate students calculated that about 20% of the energy
used for buildings could be saved with better insulation. (20% of
33% equals about 6.5 percent of our overall energy consumption.)
So, the solutions exist, and they don’t require new technologies
or massive investments in infrastructure. While insulation and mileage
reduction are not the ultimate solutions to our energy problems,
they are certainly cheap, fast and easy to implement and can buy
us desperately needed time.
Why don’t we adopt these measures? Why do we stand apart from
the rest of the world as the only industrialized country that has
no national energy conservation plan?
Perhaps we can understand the mentality of those who continue to
promote such backward policy and planning by comparing them to a
man who runs a bakery in a small village. The man makes his living
selling bread, and is used to selling about the same amount every
day, with his overall sales slowly increasing as the population
of the village grows. Also, the man is secure because he has a monopoly
on the village’s flour market and owns its only oven. He is
free to charge whatever he feels like for his bread. The baker is
motivated to sell more bread, not less.
Then, someone moves into the village and starts telling people
that bread really isn’t that good for them, that they should
reduce the amount bread they consume and eat more vegetables. An
advantage, this person claims, of eating vegetables is that the
villagers can grow their own, and won’t have to be dependent
on the baker for all their needs. Also, vegetables are healthier
and, potentially, cheaper.
If you were the baker, wouldn’t you try to discredit the vegetable
promoter? You might even try to get the village police to invent
some pretext for arresting the newcomer.
< < BACK TO EDITORIALS
|
December
2002 
