Eager to Tap Iraq's Oil, Industry Execs Suggested Military Intervention

Eager to Tap Iraq's Oil, Industry Execs Suggested Military Intervention

Two years before the start of the Iraq war, the Bush administration was advised by oil industry executives and policy advisers that military action against Iraq may be a worthwhile solution to meet the United States’ increasing demand for Mideast oil.

A study prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney, concluded that as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma.”

“Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East,” said the April 2001 report, Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century. “Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.”

“The US could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq,” the report added, but if Saddam Hussein’s “access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to US allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened.”

Baker was formerly Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush and was counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign during the Florida recount in 2000.

The advisory committee who helped prepare the report included Luis Giusti, a Shell Corp. non-executive director, John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum, and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.

Those companies now stand to earn tens of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts in a U.S. brokered deal that was recently announced to drill Iraq’s untapped oil fields.

Ken Lay, the deceased chairman of Enron Corp. had also made recommendations that were included in the Baker report.

Details of the Bush administration’s involvement in choosing corporations to develop Iraqi oil fields has stoked criticism that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was largely based on oil as opposed to the administration’s claims that Iraq had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.

In the months leading up to the war, the suggestion that the U.S. would launch a war based on oil was treated as conspiracy theory and relegated to the far corners of the Internet.

But at least two reports published six months before 9/11 seem to back up claims that the Bush administration had considered military action against Iraq as a way to tap into the country’s oil reserves.

Furthermore, in his book Plan of Attack, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote that before 9/11 then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz proposed sending in ground forces to seize Iraq's southern oil fields. Before the invasion, Wolfowitz said the sale of Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

At the time the Baker report was prepared for Cheney, the vice president was also leading an energy task force made up of powerful industry executives who assisted Cheney in drafting a comprehensive National Energy Policy for President Bush.

In March 2001, a month before the Baker report was delivered to Cheney, the vice president’s energy task force had prepared a set of documents that contained a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.

Those documents were released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch.

A Commerce Department spokesman issued a brief statement when the documents were released stating that Cheney’s energy task force "evaluated regions of the world that are vital to global energy supply."

A series of emails between the State and Commerce Departments related to Iraq’s oil fields were also included in the batch of documents turned over to Judicial Watch; however, the emails had been redacted and were indecipherable.

Last weekend, The New York Times reported that State and commerce department officials were secretly working with Iraq’s oil ministry to in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and Western oil companies to develop Iraq’s oil fields.

But the State Department has acted in an advisory capacity to Iraq’s untapped oil fields long before the start of the war.

Oil and Gas International, an industry publication, reported in October 2002 that the State Department and the Pentagon had put together pre-war planning groups that focused heavily on protecting Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

In January 2003, the Wall Street Journal reported that oil industry executives met with Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

“Facing a possible war with Iraq, U.S. oil companies are starting to prepare for the day when they may get a chance to work in one of the world's most oil-rich countries,” the Journal reported on Jan. 16, 2003, two months before the U.S. invaded Iraq. “Executives of U.S. oil companies are conferring with officials from the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department to figure out how best to jump-start Iraq's oil industry following a war, industry officials say.

“The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say. They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented. Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place. Since then, industry officials say, the Bush administration has sought input, formally and informally, from executives and industry experts on how best to overhaul Iraq's oil sector. An industry expert said Tuesday that State Department officials met with as many as two major oil companies and an industry consultant as recently as last week.”

On April 5, 2003, Reuters reported that the State Department's Future of Iraq project headed by Thomas Warrick, special adviser to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, held its fourth meeting of the oil and energy-working group.

Documents obtained by Reuters showed that “a clear consensus among expert opinion favoring production-sharing agreements to attract the major oil companies.”

“That is likely to thrill oil companies harboring hopes of lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi oil reserves,” the news agency reported. “Short-term rehabilitation of southern Iraqi oil fields already is under way, with oil well fires being extinguished by U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Long-term contracts are expected to see U.S. companies ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips compete with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Britain's BP, TotalFinaElf of France, Russia's LUKOIL and Chinese state companies.”

In November 2002, a full four months before the start of the war, the Department of Defense recommended that The Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company Cheney once headed, to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires in addition to “assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations.”

“The fact that the Department was planning for the possibility that it would need to repair and provide for continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was classified until March 2003,” the agency said on its web site. “This prevented earlier acknowledgement or announcement of potential requirements to the business community.”

According to Ray Rodon, a former Halliburton executive, he was dispatched to Iraq in October 2002 to assess the country’s oil infrastructure and map out plans for operating Iraq’s oil industry.

“From behind the obsidian mirrors of his wraparound sunglasses, Ray Rodon surveys the vast desert landscape of southern Iraq's Rumailah oilfield. A project manager with Halliburton's engineering and construction division, Kellogg Brown & Root, Rodon has spent months preparing for the daunting task of repairing Iraq's oil industry,” says an April 14, 2003 story in Fortune magazine. “Working first at headquarters in Houston and then out of a hotel room in Kuwait City, he has studied the intricacies of the Iraqi national oil company, even reviewing the firm's organizational charts so that Halliburton and the Army can ascertain which Iraqis are reliable technocrats and which are Saddam loyalists.”

Energy Task Force Documents and Iraqi Oil

Cheney had successfully fended off legal challenges by environmental and watchdog groups to disclose documents about the identity of individuals in the corporate sector who advised his task force. There has long been speculation that the reasons Cheney fought so hard to keep those documents secret was the fact that it may have included information about the administration’s policy toward Iraq.

Jane Mayer, a reporter for The New Yorker, made a strong case that it was likely the latter scenario.

In a Feb. 16, 2004 report, Mayer wrote that she obtained a top-secret National Security Council document that directed “N.S.C. staff to cooperate fully with [Cheney's secretive] Energy Task Force as it considered the "melding" of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."

“A source who worked at the N.S.C. at the time doubted that there were links between Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the overthrow of Saddam,” Mayer reported. “But Mark Medish, who served as senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the N.S.C. during the Clinton Administration, told me that he regards the document as potentially “huge.”

He said, “People think Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been secretive about domestic issues,” referring to the fact that the Vice-President has been unwilling to reveal information about private task-force meetings that took place in 2001, when information was being gathered to help develop President Bush’s energy policy. “But if this little group was discussing geo-strategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.”

The report prepared by the Baker Institute certainly seems to make that suggestion.

“The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.”

Iraq is a “key swing producer turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest,” the report said, adding that there is a ''possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time'' in order to drive up prices.

“Under this scenario, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages,” the report said. “These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention.”

The report recommended Cheney move swiftly to integrate energy and national security policy as a means to stop ''manipulations of markets by any state” and suggested that his task force include “representation from the Department of Defense.”

“Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,'' the report says, ''US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.” The Public Record

 

This is interesting info. Many people had suspected this. And it turned out to be correct. The Iraq war was primarily about oil, under the disguise of fighting terrorism.

 

Well, if all of these reports are true, it would certainly seem that we really ended up shooting ourselves in the foot, didn't we?

 

what makes you think that? if the oil companies wanted the oil then it is natural that they wanted the oil to be expensive too.
we need an investigation of this admin for sure.

 

Here is the problem with investigating the administration. There are too many departments. Each department has its own form of red tape and all the evidence would be tainted and covered up because of "national security". Nothing would happen.

 

That is an outrageous report. It should be further investigated.

The allegations smell of criminality.

I give a lot of weight and respect to issues of defense of nation and basic interests. The run up on oil prices since the war and more dramatically in the last year speak to the "truism" of the importance of oil to our and all nations.

On the other hand the run up on oil prices has corresponded to the time period of the war. (and it corresponds to the enormous demand growth for oil from India and China). There are no direct relationships on the run ups to the war....but it still sits out there.

In any case the article points to a method of thinking by the administration that ties its perspective of "best interests" into a singular corporate group...with potentially huge power and persuasiveness within the administration that is clearly not reflective of the population as a whole.

That topic deserves the utmost investigation.

 

Don't get your panties in a twist Earl. Aren't you against impeachment of these criminals? It doesn't serve anyone?

The f**king Democrats are complicit by refusing to hold this administration accountable. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, they are all dirty co-conspirators.

And then when I say the government has been hijacked, and Rasmussen polls confirm that is the mass public sentiment, people say I have an extreme agenda.

THIS CRAP IS THE EXTREME AGENDA.

 

Ahh I see now. So when it starts to hurt you that's when you start bitchin huh? Weren't you the staunch defender of this miserable failure and his cronies for the longest time? Are you changing your tune now? Just for the record do you still support these scumbags?

Is Gquack still around these days? He must be looking for a new job or working 3 jobs to support his expensive habit of supporting Bush.

 

If the war is about sharing the bounty(oil) then why is oil prices so high?

 

I hear everyone saying the war is about oil and not terrorist but I don't see any economic benefit. We are being price gouged for oil in Iraq even.

 

Name the last government program that worked as promised, and came in on budget.

 

Are you so naive?
They didn't go to Iraq to get you cheaper oil! Are you saying that some people doesn't make A LOADS of cash with high oil prices?
Are you saying that a lot of companies doesn't make A LOADS of cash working for US military?
To make it as simple as possible... cash from your pocket (US tax payer) goes to companies who have contracts with US military (you know who they are).
You pay for expensive oil and again your cash is going to make someone rich.
If you CONTROL production of oil do you want it to be expensive or cheap?

 

I still don't see it about oil. Maybe I am naive. Why wouldwe not take over Canada? I just don't see it.

 

Because if the richest country on earth is willing to go to war for cheap oil, its a clear signal to the market that oil is extremely valuable and currently undervalued. Just an unintended consequence there, the more we spend chasing the oil (dollars and blood) the more its worth.

Also, they had projected that this whole Iraq war business would cost $200 billion and be done in a year. That part was just delusional planning. I think they thought it would be a cakewalk since Iraq is a fairly secular, militaristic nation compared to its neighbors, but they forgot to calculate the whole aspect of popular resistance. Foolish thinking, really.

As for anyone feigning outrage, get over it or get consistent. Governments don't enter into something as expensive as war unless they have a reasonable expectation of gain. Generally, things don't reach that point unless there's some shortage of a tangible resource or commodity (even land or labor)

 

Because they may bombard Baldwins!

 

Well that clears that up.

 

Please, please, please do not overlook that poll after poll shows, Iraqis want the coalition forces OUT. The "resistance" for the most part, are Iraqis fighting a foreign occupation of their country.

If we invade Iran, and China decides George Bush is Saddam Hussein, you can bet every able man, woman and child with a weapon will be doing the same sort of resistance.