When conservative icon Russell Kirk called George Bush the First's war in Iraq "a war for an oilcan," neoconservatives and the Republican Party faithful all but wrote him out of the movement. Blasphemy! How dare he question the motives our our Washington Betters. Why that's, that's unAmerican!
Yeah, that's it. Our revolutionary Founders worshiped King George III too.
Blind obedience to the state in America is a rather new phenomena. Sure, there's always been a small minority clamoring for more state control over their lives, but the vast majority of Americans correctly believed they were nuts. When progressives started gaining power in the early 20th century, the original, unabashedly anti-state conservative movement formed to fight off Washington's growing Leviathan beast.
The original American conservatives were skeptical of power and did not trust politicians. Knowing all too well that war comes at the expense of liberty, they fought valiantly against Washington's warmongers. Yes, it was rightwing conservatives who made up the original antiwar movement, while leftwing progressives championed war.
Boy how times have changed. Today's "conservative" worships the state, particularly its military arm. There isn't a war a "conservative" won't support. The movement seems to think war makes the world go round. And if you dare say our Washington Overlords lied, or started a war for nefarious intentions, you're quickly labeled an "unAmerican" heathen.
Every war is "War for Righteousness!" Killing and maiming people across the globe is "for our own good." The president must have the power to make war any damn time he pleases. God loves those who drop the most bombs.
Well, surprise, surprise. Russell Kirk was right all along! The war in Iraq is "a war for an oilcan."
Iraq War For Oil
The British government held talks with oil tycoons prior to invading Iraq in 2003.
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.
The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.
The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."
The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.
Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.
Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.
"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."
I'm sure the state apologists will twist themselves into a pretzel trying to explain this evidence away. Why, our "leaders" are "patriotic" and stuff. Pure as the wind-driven snow. Well, at those "leaders" who support war. War is cool! War is "realistic." War is all-American!
Conservatives please, embrace your heritage. Accept the truth that war brings societal and moral decadence, destroys liberty, and that those "leaders" you so admire ... are mere power-hungry criminals who don't give a crap about patriotism.
You can bet your bottom dollar that like Iraq, Libya is a war for oil too.
Iraq War For Oil is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog