Wednesday, March 19, 2008

American Confused Conservative

Useful but fundamentally flawed article from the American Conservative by Robert Bryce on the amount of oil being used by the American military in killing the innocent civilians of Iraq, and the fact that almost none of it is coming from Iraq. We all remember how the neocons insisted that all that Iraqi oil was going to pay for the war and the occupation and the rebuilding (for the real world, see here and, taking into account the unreliable source, here). There is a slow dawning that it is the cost of the fuel used by the Americans in Iraq - both the sheer quantity of it and the fact that the military has to source it at ultra-premium prices - that has led to an increase in the price of oil. Of course, the main reason for the price increase has been the fact that oil has been denominated in increasingly worthless American dollars. American Dollars are increasingly worthless due to the fact that the U. S. government had to finance the war by borrowing money it didn't have on a massive scale, thus permanently destroying the complicated mechanism by which the American economy soared on the basis of borrowed money, and leading directly to the current sub-prime crisis (aka, New Great Depression) and the plummeting American Dollar (aka, American Peso). The system of financing American consumerism was so finely calibrated that it simply couldn't take the competition for new borrowed money required by the American Treasury to pay for the Iraq war, and the house of cards came tumbling down.

The article is flawed for two reasons:
  1. it refuses to abandon the idea that the war was fought for oil, even when everything in the article conclusively proves that it could not possibly have been fought for oil; and
  2. it falls back on a no less silly argument - which is largely that of the American isolationist Right - that you can no longer control resources by fighting wars, based on the conservative view of the supremacy of international trade and markets.
The two issues are connected, and the connection shows how the American isolationist Right is no better than the neocons. We all know that the war wasn't directly about oil: it was a War For The Jews. We are also seeing a great danger that the next American Presidential election will be fought between two candidates for the More Wars For The Jews Party, a direct result of the failure to acknowledge the real reason for the attack on Iraq by the American chattering classes.

Falling back on market explanations won't help. The market doesn't explain years of Saudi cooperation, and the decision in the last few years that Saudi cooperation will become much more selective. It doesn't explain why every major oil company in the world that isn't associated with the Anglo-American Empire is getting hugely lucrative deals in Iran (and elsewhere in the Middle East). The rest of the world is completely fed up with Americans squandering their wealth on Wars For The Jews, partly because of the extreme immorality of these wars, and partly because of their extreme stupidity. People who have cooperated with the inevitability of American strength for decades have decided that they no longer can do business with people who are so stupid they can't even grasp their own basic self-interest. Oil development contracts are being awarded on the basis of ideology. Markets have very little to do with it.

The article is a classic example of what happens when you try to deal with a subject while avoiding the only issue that matters.