| | Jody,
I would characterize Iraq as but one battle in the context of a broader war. I tend to agree with Stratfor's analysis that there were two primary reasons behind the Iraq invasion:
1. Credibility. There is sentiment rampant among Islamic militants that America is a "paper tiger", and if you hit her hard enough eventually she will back out foreign lands if the cost is too much to bear. They would point to Vietnam and Somalia as examples. In the wake of 9-11, a proactive strike by America -- not just a few surgical cruise missile lobs, but a full out invasion and regime change operation -- would seek to transform the psychology of the Arab world in their view of Americans as weak. It was demonstration of resolve and a message to other governments in the region that we're there to stay.
2. Strategic Location. Deposing Saddam would open up Iraq as a permanent American military base in the region, the proximity of which would give American more negotiating leverage and applied pressure to regimes like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others.
But the question still comes down to: what were we doing there to begin with? What strategic interests are in it for the United States to make us want to maintain control and influence in the region? What policies were being supported back during Gulf War I and why? If you don't think oil was an integral part of any this, then what has driven American policy in the region for the last 15 years? (and don't say "pragmatism" - I'm referring to ends not means). So while I believe that Iraq was a battle over strategic position and credibility, it was and is a part of a broader war to maintain control of Middle East oil flows.
As for Halliburton, I want to be on record that I don't believe this war to be a Halliburton conspiracy. Nevertheless,
there's at least one example I can think of where a no-bid contract may not have been the best use of taxpayer dollars. Here's an an excerpt from a CBS News report that detailed GSM Consulting of Amarillo, Texas, a firm that had fought oil well fires around the world, including in Kuwait after Gulf War I:
But not everyone thought {no bid contracts}were prudent. Bob Grace is president of GSM Consulting, a small company in Amarillo, Texas, that has fought oil well fires all over the world. Grace worked for the Kuwait government after the first Gulf War and was in charge of firefighting strategy for the huge Bergan Oil Field, which had more than 300 fires. Last September, when it looked like there might be another Gulf war and more oil well fires, he and a lot of his friends in the industry began contacting the Pentagon and their congressmen.
“All we were trying to find out was, who do we present our credentials to,” says Grace. “We just want to be able to go to somebody and say, ‘Hey, here's who we are, and here's what we've done, and here's what we do.’”
“They basically told us that there wasn't going to be any oil well fires.”
Grace showed 60 Minutes a letter from the Department of Defense saying: "The department is aware of a broad range of well firefighting capabilities and techniques available. However, we believe it is too early to speculate what might happen in the event that war breaks out in the region."
It was dated Dec. 30, 2002, more than a month after the Army Corps of Engineers began talking to Halliburton about putting out oil well fires in Iraq.
“You just feel like you're beating your head against the wall,” says Grace.
However, Andersen says the Pentagon had a very good reason for putting out that message.
“The mission at that time was classified, and what we were doing to assess the possible damage and to prepare for it was classified,” says Andersen. “Communications with the public had to be made with that in mind.”
“I can accept confidentiality in terms of war plans and all that. But to have secrecy about Saddam Hussein blowing up oil wells, to me, is stupid,” says Grace. “I mean the guy's blown up a thousand of them. So why would that be a revelation to anybody?”
But Grace says the whole point of competitive bidding is to save the taxpayers money. He believes they are getting a raw deal. “From what I’ve read in the papers, they're charging $50,000 a day for a five-man team. I know there are guys that are equally as well-qualified as the guys that are over there that'll do it for half that.”
Even if Halliburton was/is the best team for the job, it is still prudent to at least call into question the conflict of interest inherent with Dick Cheney, don't you think?
|
|
