some musings on oil, war, and empire

Roz Bologh and I have been writing, off-line, trying to get a better understanding of the dynamics behind the current situation between Iraq and the U.S. The following is something I recently sent back to her. I'm not sending it to WSN because I believe it is the final word that will answer all questions. Exactly the opposite, I'm sending it to WSN (slightly revised) in hopes of provoking more analysis and perhaps bringing forward more data that some might have to help improve our understanding of this complex, changing situation

 

------Alan Spector  (comments follow)

 

#######################################################################

 

 

I think some of the motives might be the profits they would get by being the "middleman" in sales to France, Germany, Russia, etc. Rather than having to go through the filter of a local nationalist-capitalist ruling class. The price of oil is a tricky thing--if it is too low, or if it is too high----both scenarios seem to hurt the major international oil companies. On the other hand, local US oil companies like high prices because it then becomes more profitable for their (higher-to-produce) oil resources in the US. For example, Colorado oil isn't that profitable if the pump price is $1 per gallon, but is more profitable if the price is $2 per gallon. It may be related to one of the reasons why the Rockefeller (Chase-Exxon) family, for many years, funded environmental groups that opposed opening up lots of new land for domestic oil drilling in Alaska -- the companies that mainly stood to profit the most from that arrangement would have been Exxon's competitors (even tho Exxon also has SOME investments in Alaska.) This is further complicated by the fact that companies are bought and sold and that the factions within a capitalist class are not static. Therefore, political positions change. (The old "Standard Oil" name is now split, with part of it being Rockefeller Exxon and part of it being tied to British Petroleum.)  

 

I don't know if these musings are helpful or make it more confusing.  But I do believe that, for now, the main segment of the capitalist class (Rockefeller-Morgan-Chase-Exxon-Mobil) would like

 

(1) to have governments in place that would guarantee political (and therefore profit) stability by being allied with the U.S. military, (as in the "good old days of U.S. imperialism with the Shah of Iran and Israel being anchor points for the U.S. empire) and

 

(2) also, would give favorable contracts to their U.S. companies instead of directly to the French, Germans, and Russians, etc..  How to do that without creating a force of a billion angry Muslims who hate the U.S. (and furthermore, possibly, some of whom might someday ally against the U.S. with such possible allies as China or Russia or parts of Western Europe) is the tactical debate that is being waged.  Some major U.S. oil bosses might support the Bush aggressiveness IF they thought it would work, but do not know the answer and are therefore vacillating, along with various Democratic Party politicians. Historically, ruling classes, for all their money and research and spies have not always been accurate in predicting which way the political mood of the masses of people might swing.....

 

I wish I were a "fly on the wall" and could hear what the biggest oil executives and bankers in New York, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Moscow say about these things.

 

Alan Spector

 

#####################################################################

==================================================================================