Democratic Underground  

It's Not About Oil, It's About Fuel
March 14, 2003
By Scaramouche

Bush needs to secure the oil fields in Iraq to feed his war machine. Sure a lot of his cronies that tag along are going benefit enormously, one might be even tempted to say handsomely. If only the whole ruse were not so ugly.

A few weeks ago ABC Nightline had a piece on the cost of the war. There was a segment that broke down the cost: 11 cents per bullet fired, $6,000 for each tank round shot, $1 cool million per cruise missile launched, and $1,200 an hour to keep a fighter jet in the air

However the cost of munitions were minimal compare to the costs of the fuel for machines that measure miles by gallons and the overall expense in getting manpower and material to the military zone. Over 60% of the estimated $100 billion cost of the war in Iraq will go to pay for the petrochemicals that power the delivery and operations of the machines of war. It's like the postage exponentially exceeds the worth of the package.

Caesar and Napoleon both knew that an army marches on its stomach. The Romans engineered marvels and built roads to ensure their supply lines. The French revolutionary forces benefited from the recent discovery of canning food. Both those military machines enjoyed successes that were outstanding for their times, however by the 20th century technology demanded more than aqueducts and canned peas.

During World War II, Hitler set out to secure the oilfields in Romania as one of his first military objectives. He set Rommel loose in North Africa to gain control of the Suez Canal and then gain control of the oil fields in Persia, (read: the region that includes Iraq). On the Russian front the goal was to seize the wells in the Caucasus region near Stalingrad. Later during the Battle of the Bulge the Germans attempted to capture the fuel supplies of the Allies for their use, but Eisenhower ordered them set aflame, once again denying the German war machine its tank full of gas. In the end Hitler's Romanian oilfields were not enough to sustain his war effort.

We are very fortunate that these objectives were denied to Hitler. The lessons learned from that conflagration is your soldiers maybe starving and dying but with out oil they will lose.

Thus in Bushes vision of empire, in an effort to make Americans feel safe, to guarantee his re-election, and to combat terrorism he must first gain control over the means to fight an extensive and prolonged war.

Therefore we must invade Iraq at all costs. Alone even. Once America has its dominance over its own fueling depot then we can clean house in Korea, clock Columbia up side the head, sick our military might on the 60 or so countries known to support terrorists. All this without making Americans sacrifice for the war on mother terra. Probably the early White House planning session went like this, "Hey, how about starting with a country we get to disarm just before we invade? Once we show our true might there will be peace throughout the region; on top of that gas prices will go down and then stabilize. Consider the re-election possibilities!"

Now some would even call that plan bold! Maybe so, if you believe in fantasy....Unfortunately, the soon to be liberated Iraqis will see their country's resources vanishing to pay for war reparations. They will most likely be Enroned in the same manner as California was and left without the ability to rebuild their devastated country.

It is ironic that we are depleting the worlds most non-renewable resource at an accelerated rate over the control of the selfsame resource. Just remember that all war machines have a huge belly and a voracious appetite that must be filled. And this time is no different.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage