Iraq War and Blood for Oil

Do blood and oil mix together in a way that is acceptable to the American public?

With the new “surge plan”, and the strategy being put into place by the new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, it looks like we Americans are about to find out.

General Petraeus is one of the leading experts in the US military on counter insurgency tactics . He recently headed up an expert “dream team” of military planners who authored the US Army’s new manual on how to fight insurgences.

At the heart of General Petraeus plan is the establishment of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of outposts of US military personnel who would be scattered across Iraqi neighborhoods all across Iraq. Counter insurgency experts say that this is the correct way to go about fighting a well developed insurgency.

While that may be entirely correct it is important to understand that this type of plan is far different than the “super base” plan put into place by General Casey, who preceded Petraeus. There are serious challenges to overcome within the “mini fort” plan.

One is that it is designed to grind down the insurgences over a long period of time. This means that in spite of the rumblings in Washington and throughout America about getting out of Iraq now the real plan is to stay in Iraq for the long haul.

Another challenge for the plan is that it will take more American troops, not less. At a time when Britain and other coalition partners are scaling back on their Iraq commitments ( due largely to political pressures within their own nations) the US will increasingly have to somehow supply the additional troops on it’s own.

The greatest challenge to General Petraeus’s plan is that it will spill more American blood, perhaps a lot more. America troops will be more exposed to violence when garrisoned within “mini forts” than when stationed at super bases. They will have frequent up close contact with the Iraq population which means that they will also be prime targets within the Iraqi neighborhoods that they patrol.

Military counter insurgence experts admit that it takes an average of ten years to defeat a well established insurgency. Does anyone really believe that the American public, given the present reasons as stated by President Bush for fighting in Iraq, has the stomach for ten more years of carnage in Iraq? Especially when one thing that the military experts don’t tell you is that it is terribly difficult to win against a raging insurgency even after ten years of effort and bloodshed. Ask the Russians and French about that.

All of this begs the question why does the Bush administration really want to continue the war in Iraq in the face of increasingly bitter opposition? At first it was to take out the weapons of mass destruction. Then it was all about regime change. Then we heard about spreading American democracy in Iraq and from there throughout the Mid-East. Making the world a safer place and all of that.

Now the stated reason seems to be about stabilizing Iraq enough so that the Iraqi government has more time to get it’s act together, can function as a stable democracy, and reestablish the governmental infrastructure that the Americans took out in the early stages of the war.

Does any of this really make sense when measured against the price that America and the unfortunate peaceful majority of the Iraqi population are paying?

Why are Bush and the Neo-cons so determined to “win” in Iraq at such a large and increasing price in terms of money, loss of American prestige in the world, and the loss of American and Iraqi lives?

The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that the Bush administration is terribly worried about the future of America in the age of “peak oil”. After all, if it’s one thing our President from Texas and the Bush family do know a lot about it’s the oil business. Especially Mid-East oil business.

The war must really be about the Bush administration’s concern about Americans being able to maintain the “American way of life” in a world where oil supplies will be increasingly difficult to source. Especially when it comes to preserving the lifestyle enjoyed by their elite families and close friends.

In the end, the Bush administration may have it right. Without taking bold moves to secure large supplies of oil for at least another 20 to 30 years the American way of life may well be in danger. Securing the oil fields in Iraq and perhaps soon enough Iran may well be the true driving force behind the war adventure.

The question that Americans may have to soon face is how much American blood are we willing to spill to secure ample oil supplies? With a new plan for Iraq, authored by Petraeus and his team, but surely approved by President Bush, designed for the very long haul I wouldn’t count on any withdrawal from Iraq during this administration’s term in office.

It is sadly ironic that politicians in Washington are debating our involvement and time for withdrawal in Iraq at a time when it appears that the Administration is actively putting a long haul policy for fighting the Iraq War into place.

Will the mood of the politicians and of the public change if they are made to understand how important to the American economy the securing of long term oil supplies truly are for maintaining Americans standard of living? How much blood for how much oil?

It’s an unpleasant trade off that Americans may soon have to face. Are there any politicians willing to confront this issue and bring it to the table for discussion?

I think we do know the answer to that question.

Tweet This Post