French babyface has already made the point but once again.
The US will discover that opening the bidding for what oilmen call the "Iraqi Klondike" as wide as possible will not only maximise revenues but also defuse the charge that the US is just land-grabbing. This does not mean that US oil companies will lack a role. If the political situation stabilises quickly (that is a very big if), Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco will join the bidding, and even smaller firms, such as Conoco, may participate by joining consortia to spread the risk. ....
But the only sector in which the Americans are actually likely to dominate is in services subcontracts, where US firms such as Halliburton (which Cheney used to run) and Schlumberger already enjoy global pre-eminence for economic reasons. US firms will not monopolise Iraqi oil; it will be surprising if they eventually control more than half of the production.
Oil appears in Washington??s calculations about Iraq as a strategic rather than an economic resource: the war against Saddam is about guaranteeing American hegemony rather than about increasing the profits of Exxon.
I don't doubt the author of this piece is correct when asserting that the war was not intended to simply be a grabbing of oil fields. Such bold colonialism would have met a violent response from all the civilized world. The ambition was just as expressed. To broaden U.S. control over this vital piece of the world. But why? Why does the U.S. feel a strong need to control this particular region? Obviously the oil has to be a primarly reason. That plus some religious hopes pertaining to Israel seem the only reasons to have spent billlions and killed so many. The fact that U.S. corporations will benefit immensly from this is probably why he had such broad support when Congress voted. The question is a simple one, was it absolutely necessary. Because only when all other options have been exhausted should war be considered. Since nothing changed in Iraq in the years or months immediately prior to war, the answer must be, no. The only thing that changed was the American readiness to retaliate against anyone labeled a terrorist, and an administration that fostered that spirit.
