Re: Iraqi oil insufficient for rebuilding (AP) (fwd)

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Elson Boles wrote:
> 
> > A key point I see in the article, which relates to the 
> false arguments 
> > about oil not being a key element of this war, including 
> Wallerstein's 
> > argument in a recent commentary, is this:
> >
> > >In wealthy Saudi Arabia, for example,
> > >earnings from oil haven't kept pace with the nation's
> > >birth rate, and real incomes have fallen for the past
> > >20 years, said Colin Rowat, an Iraq sanctions
> > >specialist at England's University of Birmingham.
> >
> > The wealth of oil isn't simply oil corporations access to 
> the crude; 
> > it is more in the multitude of corporations that will feed like 
> > leeches off of its steady export (at a price not to high 
> and not too 
> > low).  Among the beneficiaries of the oil racket, including that in 
> > Saudi Arabia, are the defense contractors, the trade and financial 
> > corporations, the IMF and WB, agribusiness exporters, etc.  We can 
> > expect that the IMF and WB will impose strict Structural Adjustment 
> > Policies on Iraq after the war, imposing an export-oriented "free" 
> > trade regime that will allow the multinationals to swoop in on the 
> > markets, putting many petty locals out of business and SAP 
> much of the 
> > wealth out of the state, except for the ruling classes and certain 
> > local bourgeoisie, as with Saudi Arabia, which will get their cut.  
> > This is principally why there won't be enough oil to rebuild Iraq.
> 
> But what are the chances of such a policy in occupied Iraq 
> succeeding, and furthering the entrenchment of the US 
> imperium?  The disparate factions left in Iraq after the fall 
> of Saddam Hussein will be unlikely to remain reined in for 
> very long by such a predatory regime.  The rest of the middle 
> east will become even more chaotic than it already is.  Given 
> the present alignment of forces, the US will unlikely be able 
> to rely on the UN to help keep Iraq stable, and it will 
> become even more isolated diplomatically, and, what's more 
> important, economically.  The economic aspects of this policy 
> don't seem to be thought out at all; war is simply being 
> proposed as a solution to all problems, foreign and domestic.
> 
> -- 
> Boris Stremlin
> bstremli@binghamton.edu

I very much agree that chances are not good at all (that the US hawks'
will succeed for the reasons you note, and for other reasons as well).
But wise (imperialist) assessments and choices are not a necessary
qualification of expansionist regimes, espeically those on crusades.

Elson