|
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.
|
