September 22, 2004
'LET'S TALK OIL'
Circa 1971 I sat amongst my young fellow bankers in London discussing whether or not to go ahead with a novel proposal to lend $50 Million directly to the Government of Yugoslavia. As part of the credit analysis and due diligence procedure they had perused the constitutional documentation of Yugoslavia, specifically concentrating on the language as to how the country would be administered upon Tito's death. The consensus opinion, that has resonated with me ever since, for obvious reasons, can be best illustrated by this concluding statement. “You do know, that when Tito goes, these sons of bitches are going to slaughter each other.”
With utmost certainty, similar discussions were held in Washington outlining the 700-to-1,400-year-old antagonism between Shiite and Sunni, the problems of an autonomous Kurd population and the likelihood that destabilization of Sadaam could easily lead to an Iran-like religious dictatorship. Therefore, with knowledge approaching certainty, that changing the government of Iraq would result in chaos and as military minds emphasized repeatedly, that Sadaam was contained, i.e. no imminent threat, why commence a gigantic occupation?
A simple fear of what Sadaam might do in the future, given that he had invaded a neighbor and attempted to kill President Bush 41’, combined with the anger, fear and nationalism stemming from 911 constitute a strong reason. Perhaps fear and nationalism don’t need concrete reasons, a la the missing ’trio’, WMD’s, nuclear capabilities and terrorist connections. History is replete with warring countries commencing conflicts over fictitious or overblown incidents.
Why did this administration choose this course? If one postulates that coveting Iraq’s oil reserves was a large percentage of the equation, as do many non Americans, then a great number of controversies and oddities relating to the administration’s conduct of foreign policy and war logistics are functionally resolved.
To begin; to prevent Sadaam from destroying the oil fields the occupation had to proceed at the earliest possible moment and be performed with intense speed. I.e. adopt Rummy’s speed doctrine and jettison all thoughts of amassing the 250,000 troops necessary to achieve pacification. Remember, upon exiting Kuwait, Sadaam torched the oil equivalency of a thousand Texan' oil promoter's wildest dreams.
The overriding speed doctrine allows no time for multiple major nation involvement. United Nation’s time consuming voting is forgone.
This ‘at-all-speed’ plan also explains the no-bid procedure for Halliburton. Besides not having the requisite time for bids, Halliburton and Halliburton alone, among U.S. companies, has the combination of size and physical and scientific expertise to take what in this case would be called “command” control of Iraq’s oilfields, pipelines, etc.
At 110,000 employees and $13 Billion in sales (2002’ sales, now almost doubled) Halliburton's only single entity competitor is Schlumberger Ltd., French, pronounced Schlum- ber-zhey, at 77,000 employees and $13 Billion in sales (2002’ sales).
There were pre-war press reports that the administration clearly stated, “ If you pledge troops, you will get in on the reconstruction,” restated as, “No troops, no reconstruction goodies.” In “Imperial Capitalism”, this was the bidding process.
Secrecy. To invade a country for its oil, one needs an oil service brigade or division. The secrecy/confidentiality level, must be absolute, equal to battle plan’ knowledge in time of war. Given the clear and open lines of communication between the administration and Halliburton, seeking alternate resources could only be seen as dangerously counter productive.
Rationale. In a world of peace or in a world of Jihad and beheadings the U.S. needs six million barrels of imported oil per day. If one subscribes to the dictum that there must, absolutely must, be security that these barrels will be available to the U.S. and if the entire Mid East political outlook, considering 911, appears as the proverbial powder keg, then invading Iraq, as in toppling Sadaam, for its petroleum reserves is a Real-Politik no-brainer. Maintaining a ‘special’ friendship with the Saudis is likewise imperative. Upon successful control of the Iraqi petroleum infrastructure by the U.S. and the U.S. alone, such control of the oil’s disposition effectively inures to the U.S. up to 3MM barrels a day and gives the U.S. a ’de facto’ seat at the OPEC Table.
“Mission Accomplished” is totally valid. By going it alone, the U.S. attacked and secured the oil before Sadaam was seemingly even prepared to order the Iraq oil fields rendered inoperable. A ‘tight lipped’ oil’ oriented administration, no United Nations, no bids, no major (excepting U.K.) foreign partners, no amassing of troops needed for peace and stability, “speed is of the essence,” and the oilfields are taken intact.
The time is long past for the Congress and the U.S. electorate to have a say in the decision to commence a war espousing WMD’s, terror connections and a moral mandate to export democracy. However should one concur that the go-it-alone battle plan was created to secure and control Iraq’s oil, then a November vote can reflect agreement or disagreement with this economic self interest decision.
With utmost certainty, similar discussions were held in Washington outlining the 700-to-1,400-year-old antagonism between Shiite and Sunni, the problems of an autonomous Kurd population and the likelihood that destabilization of Sadaam could easily lead to an Iran-like religious dictatorship. Therefore, with knowledge approaching certainty, that changing the government of Iraq would result in chaos and as military minds emphasized repeatedly, that Sadaam was contained, i.e. no imminent threat, why commence a gigantic occupation?
A simple fear of what Sadaam might do in the future, given that he had invaded a neighbor and attempted to kill President Bush 41’, combined with the anger, fear and nationalism stemming from 911 constitute a strong reason. Perhaps fear and nationalism don’t need concrete reasons, a la the missing ’trio’, WMD’s, nuclear capabilities and terrorist connections. History is replete with warring countries commencing conflicts over fictitious or overblown incidents.
Why did this administration choose this course? If one postulates that coveting Iraq’s oil reserves was a large percentage of the equation, as do many non Americans, then a great number of controversies and oddities relating to the administration’s conduct of foreign policy and war logistics are functionally resolved.
To begin; to prevent Sadaam from destroying the oil fields the occupation had to proceed at the earliest possible moment and be performed with intense speed. I.e. adopt Rummy’s speed doctrine and jettison all thoughts of amassing the 250,000 troops necessary to achieve pacification. Remember, upon exiting Kuwait, Sadaam torched the oil equivalency of a thousand Texan' oil promoter's wildest dreams.
The overriding speed doctrine allows no time for multiple major nation involvement. United Nation’s time consuming voting is forgone.
This ‘at-all-speed’ plan also explains the no-bid procedure for Halliburton. Besides not having the requisite time for bids, Halliburton and Halliburton alone, among U.S. companies, has the combination of size and physical and scientific expertise to take what in this case would be called “command” control of Iraq’s oilfields, pipelines, etc.
At 110,000 employees and $13 Billion in sales (2002’ sales, now almost doubled) Halliburton's only single entity competitor is Schlumberger Ltd., French, pronounced Schlum- ber-zhey, at 77,000 employees and $13 Billion in sales (2002’ sales).
There were pre-war press reports that the administration clearly stated, “ If you pledge troops, you will get in on the reconstruction,” restated as, “No troops, no reconstruction goodies.” In “Imperial Capitalism”, this was the bidding process.
Secrecy. To invade a country for its oil, one needs an oil service brigade or division. The secrecy/confidentiality level, must be absolute, equal to battle plan’ knowledge in time of war. Given the clear and open lines of communication between the administration and Halliburton, seeking alternate resources could only be seen as dangerously counter productive.
Rationale. In a world of peace or in a world of Jihad and beheadings the U.S. needs six million barrels of imported oil per day. If one subscribes to the dictum that there must, absolutely must, be security that these barrels will be available to the U.S. and if the entire Mid East political outlook, considering 911, appears as the proverbial powder keg, then invading Iraq, as in toppling Sadaam, for its petroleum reserves is a Real-Politik no-brainer. Maintaining a ‘special’ friendship with the Saudis is likewise imperative. Upon successful control of the Iraqi petroleum infrastructure by the U.S. and the U.S. alone, such control of the oil’s disposition effectively inures to the U.S. up to 3MM barrels a day and gives the U.S. a ’de facto’ seat at the OPEC Table.
“Mission Accomplished” is totally valid. By going it alone, the U.S. attacked and secured the oil before Sadaam was seemingly even prepared to order the Iraq oil fields rendered inoperable. A ‘tight lipped’ oil’ oriented administration, no United Nations, no bids, no major (excepting U.K.) foreign partners, no amassing of troops needed for peace and stability, “speed is of the essence,” and the oilfields are taken intact.
The time is long past for the Congress and the U.S. electorate to have a say in the decision to commence a war espousing WMD’s, terror connections and a moral mandate to export democracy. However should one concur that the go-it-alone battle plan was created to secure and control Iraq’s oil, then a November vote can reflect agreement or disagreement with this economic self interest decision.
September 18, 2004
RE: "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S SPIN"
.
The laconic Vermonter.
The laid back Californian.
The sarcastic, clipped speech New Yorker.
The Southwest/West Texas oil promoter.
Robert J. Ringer wrote a book about doing business in the Southwest, entitled "Winning Through Intimidation". I don't believe that the book, “All The Presidents Spin,“ is ten per cent as illuminating as his.
After inking a Billion Dollars' plus of oil business deals for a NYC Bank I went into deal making as a Houston boutique. I was soon conned, to no great loss, and was perplexed and flummoxed. I was referred to the above book.
Thereafter, and I mean this literally, when I met "folks" who announced that they were 'honest' I picked up my pens, pencils, and papers, closed my briefcase and with a summary excuse, left their presence. If the potential client said, " I'm Texas-honest " or the big bald one, " I'm so honest we don't even need a contract," I hurried !
George Bush, as a 'cud' carrying member of the oil promoter class and specifically of the worst sub-set, the "I'm so honest" group, is trained to sell by misrepresentation, hyperbole and 'spin.' For oil deals, the promoter plays on the gullible target's greed. To sell wars the promoter invokes one's sense of fear.
It is very, very often stated that G.W. and his band do everything short of outright lying. This is not true. When he or they say that they are 'honest', that is the lie.
Read this letter; read Ringer's book, then imagine, knowing what we know now, having a West Texas, "I'm honest" promoter asking Congress for an open contract to take the U.S. to war.
""Trust me !""
Yipee Yiy, Yipee Yay.
(see poem Tokyo & Texas archive july 7/20/04)
The laconic Vermonter.
The laid back Californian.
The sarcastic, clipped speech New Yorker.
The Southwest/West Texas oil promoter.
Robert J. Ringer wrote a book about doing business in the Southwest, entitled "Winning Through Intimidation". I don't believe that the book, “All The Presidents Spin,“ is ten per cent as illuminating as his.
After inking a Billion Dollars' plus of oil business deals for a NYC Bank I went into deal making as a Houston boutique. I was soon conned, to no great loss, and was perplexed and flummoxed. I was referred to the above book.
Thereafter, and I mean this literally, when I met "folks" who announced that they were 'honest' I picked up my pens, pencils, and papers, closed my briefcase and with a summary excuse, left their presence. If the potential client said, " I'm Texas-honest " or the big bald one, " I'm so honest we don't even need a contract," I hurried !
George Bush, as a 'cud' carrying member of the oil promoter class and specifically of the worst sub-set, the "I'm so honest" group, is trained to sell by misrepresentation, hyperbole and 'spin.' For oil deals, the promoter plays on the gullible target's greed. To sell wars the promoter invokes one's sense of fear.
It is very, very often stated that G.W. and his band do everything short of outright lying. This is not true. When he or they say that they are 'honest', that is the lie.
Read this letter; read Ringer's book, then imagine, knowing what we know now, having a West Texas, "I'm honest" promoter asking Congress for an open contract to take the U.S. to war.
""Trust me !""
Yipee Yiy, Yipee Yay.
(see poem Tokyo & Texas archive july 7/20/04)
Labels: Bush Admin, Creative Writing, Published Letters
September 15, 2004
WMD'S AND SUV'S
Published Cape Cod Times September 30, 04'
"Peace in Iraq
isn’t in U.S. interest"
It is now wholly obvious we will never pacify, integrate and/or achieve anything remotely near peaceful democracy in Iraq.
If history is kind, future writings will say the democracy goal was sincere, not just a cover to set up a puppet government to control Iraq's plus or minus 3 million barrels a day.
If the Iraq Mission drags out forever, we will control Iraq's enormous oil reserves, forever. An unqualified success in Iraq would cost the United States it's control over the only available oil resources with which to guarantee U.S. self sufficiency. Winning integrated peace in Iraq is not in our best interest.
The Sunni's and Shiite's are not going to set aside 700 years of differences and dance with flowers in their hair. The Kurds don't make the final cut. Men and boys, native and foreign, will blow us up as occupiers a la Northern Ireland, Palestine and Revolutionary America ad infinitum and not remotely because they hate freedom, which is patently absurd.
Our men from Texas have brought home the big one, the multi-billion barrel reserve.
We're going to have inflamed terrorists talking about our “mission" till the stars dim in some distant millennia, but rightly or wrongly, for good or for evil, right now, "We got oil."
"Peace in Iraq
isn’t in U.S. interest"
It is now wholly obvious we will never pacify, integrate and/or achieve anything remotely near peaceful democracy in Iraq.
If history is kind, future writings will say the democracy goal was sincere, not just a cover to set up a puppet government to control Iraq's plus or minus 3 million barrels a day.
If the Iraq Mission drags out forever, we will control Iraq's enormous oil reserves, forever. An unqualified success in Iraq would cost the United States it's control over the only available oil resources with which to guarantee U.S. self sufficiency. Winning integrated peace in Iraq is not in our best interest.
The Sunni's and Shiite's are not going to set aside 700 years of differences and dance with flowers in their hair. The Kurds don't make the final cut. Men and boys, native and foreign, will blow us up as occupiers a la Northern Ireland, Palestine and Revolutionary America ad infinitum and not remotely because they hate freedom, which is patently absurd.
Our men from Texas have brought home the big one, the multi-billion barrel reserve.
We're going to have inflamed terrorists talking about our “mission" till the stars dim in some distant millennia, but rightly or wrongly, for good or for evil, right now, "We got oil."
Labels: Iraq/ foreign policy, Published Letters
