RE: [A-List] Full Spectrum Entropy: Wheels off...

["Mark Jones" <markjones011@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: a-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:a-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Chris Brady
> Sent: 30 October 2002 06:21
> To: a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Full Spectrum Entropy: Wheels off...
>
>
> I recall reading the Pentagon planners determined that
> the optimum window for an Iraq attack would be Jan/Feb.
> The massive inertia of the forces directed toward that
> time and place does not seem to have abated, although
> the recent rhetoric has.
>

The assumption here seems to be that the Bushies are totally out of control,
have no Plan B, and are bent on executing Plan A (Total World Military
Domination) come what may. This seems to be Mac's idea too. Hard to
understand what they've spent so much time wrangling with France, Russia etc
in the Security Council in that case (all that wrangling doesn't anyway
quite fit in with the macho Bush stance of 'when I want your opinion I'll
beat it out of you'). The weapons inspectors wanted to go back weeks ago, it
was Bush who went into 'thwart mode' because he wanted them to go back on a
hair-trigger, preferable surrounded by marines. It's November (almost).
There is still no Security Council Resolution. It takes (according to a
report in the Guardian) 6-8 weeks to get the inspection teams up and running
in Baghdad. At this rate, if Bush's plan to attack in Jan/Feb is
'irrevocable' then it'll be the inspectors themselves who get bombed.

But what do I know? But I can't help feeling that little straws in the wind
like the theatrical spat between Blair and French president Chirac at the EU
summit--the argument was about agricultural subsidies, not world war 3--
when Chirac almost burst into tears and said no-one had been so rude to him
in his life the way Tony was rude to him-- this is not the demeanour of men
expecting the world to walk off the Middle East tightrope any second.

Let's be clear that the bottom line with Iraq is not oil (although it's
great that so many people have grasped the idea that yes, oil has something
to do with it), the bottom line is about money, power, and the survival of
hegemony. The 'regime change' Bush wanted was to change a pro-French and
pro-Russian regime in Baghdad into a pro-US regime. This is because the time
has come for Iraq to reappear in the world oil market as a major
swing-producer because, as we all know, the Hubbert Peak is approaching and
although we didn't need Iraq oil 10 years ago, we soon will. In order to get
Iraqi oil onto the market there is no need to bomb Iraq, it is merely
necessary for Britain and the US to abandon the sanctions regime which has
stifled Iraq oil production since 1991. All Opec nations supported this
because by keeping Iraqi oil off the market, their prices were kept up. But
no-one supports it now because the alternative to Iraqi oil is world
economic meltdown, which will drag Opec states down with the rest. They
(Opec states) need orderly markets and stable, moderately high prices for
their product. They don't need price volatility and catastrophic war.
Everyone on all sides has colluded with Iraqi sanctions, even Saddam himself
because it helped keep him in power. Without sanctions it might be much
harder for Saddam to avoid the historical logic which has tended to make
Iraq a potentially more powerful (therefore more dangerous to the West)
state than Saudi Arabia (although the population boom there means that that
country too is now a political and potentially military threat to the west).
Iraq was always the heart of Arab Nationalism.

Now that oil elsewhere is running out and global demand is skyrocketing
(China building 33 000 km of motorways etc), it is time to lift Iraqi crude
and huge amounts; oil supply must increase, according to US IEA estimates,
by up to 50% in the next decade to meet predicted demand growth. But a new
strategic framework is required in order to ensure that the new centrality
thus acquired in world energy supply by the middle east, does not result in
the resurgence of Arab Nationalism backing high-powered and well-equipped
militaries. Of course I have no way of knowing what secret deal has now been
done between Russia, China, Britain, Germany, France and the US to get all
these ducks in a row, but I'm betting that such a deal has now been struck
and that both Saddam and Saudi Arabia are parties to it, and that means
there won't be the war we have been told to expect. As Bush himself said,
regime change can also mean, changes in how the regime works. If Saddam
agrees to disarm and to allow BP-Amoco, Texaco and Chevron in and does not
try to exclude the Anglo-Americans from the oilfields in favour of French
and Russian firms, then why should there be a war? We shall breathe a big
sigh of relief and go back to sleep. What Bush WILL have achieved is the
creation of a vast new system of US bases throughout the region, which no
doubt will soon extend (and with Saddam's agreement) into Iraq itself. This
will be enough to guarantee (they must be calculating) the long term
security of the region for western capital to operate in and as a source of
energy supply. If Bush walks away with the consolidation into a new
permanent imperial system of his huge new ring of 'temporary' bases running
in an arc from Tien Shan (the Chinese border with former Soviet Central
Asia) Afghanistan, to Kazakhstan, Georgia, the Caucasus, and throughout the
Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula, then I think it's safe to say that a
grateful nation will appreciate his efforts; he will have avoided war,
further entrenched US hegemony, made the world 'safe for democracy', and
reaffirmed the traditional posture of US imperialism vis a vis its allies,
namely that of being 'first among equals', and of proceeding in concert and
by consensus rather thru coercion.

Mark