Mass Murder Has Cost Us More Than They Promised
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
I enjoy fresh,
ripe peaches, nectarines, navel oranges, spinach, tomatoes, avocados,
red onions, and many other fruits and vegetables. I am always pleased
when I can get savory, succulent produce without paying an arm and
a leg for it.
Many of my
fellow Americans feel the same way about mass murder. They enjoy
it – not so much actually committing it as cheering for others who
do the deed on their behalf – but they prefer to get it on the
cheap, if they can.
Politicians
were not born yesterday. They know their constituents' likes and
dislikes. So when the politicos geared up to slaughter thousands
of Iraqis, back in 2002 and early 2003, they knew that their imminent
killing spree would garner more popular support if they promised
to carry it out for next to nothing. So that is precisely what they
promised.
Their idea
was that because Iraq has so much oil lying beneath its godforsaken
surface, the U.S. government would be able to waltz into the country,
take control of the legendary oil reserves, and use the proceeds
from selling the oil to pay for the so-called reconstruction of
what the invaders had just finished smashing. (To be honest, it
wasn't going to be a waltz; the Americans knew the moves only for
the old shock-and-awe Two Step: first step, bomb; second step, shoot;
repeat rhythmically until the girl you took to the dance drops dead.)
Perhaps the
most noteworthy funcionario to express this solemn promise was Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading architect of the war,
who told a congressional committee on March 27, 2003: "There's a
lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer
money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people . . . and
on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could
bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two
or three years . . . . We're dealing with a country that can really
finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Serving as
the background singers for this hit song, other performers who made
a similar promise included Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. It's so pleasant to hear the whole gang singing in such
close harmony.
I thought about
this silly little matter – I say "silly little" because one
more lie is hardly noticeable when placed atop a mountain of other
lies – as I was looking at an analysis by Kenneth P. Green,
"Bringing Down Gas and Oil Prices," which was sent to me by the
American Enterprise Institute. In two striking graphs, this article
displays the real price of gasoline and the real price of imported
oil acquired by refiners from January 1980 to January 2006.
Gazing at those
graphs, one cannot help being struck by the great advance in prices
since the U.S. military embarked on its unfriendly merger with the
Iraqi oil industry. Despite some short-term fluctuations in prices,
both trends have been sharply upward: gasoline (in 2005 dollars)
rising from roughly $1.50 to roughly $2.70 per gallon; and oil (in
2005 dollars) from less than $30 to nearly $60 per barrel. Both
prices now stand at real levels not reached since the early 1980s.
Of course, the correspondence between the U.S. invasion and occupation
of Iraq and the sharp run-up in the prices of petroleum and its
products might be a mere coincidence – I don't think it is,
but other factors probably played a role as well.
What
we know for sure is that the Iraqis have not successfully tapped
their forecasted-to-be-fabulous oil revenues to compensate the U.S.
forces for bringing the blessings of democratization to Mesopotamia.
Iraqi oil production has generally remained below the amount produced
before the invasion (farther still below the amount produced before
the U.S. attack in 1991), and the industry's prospects are not good.
Rick Jervis reported in USA Today on November 10, 2005: "'There's
a lot of pessimism about oil production in Iraq,' says Michelle
Billig, a political risk analyst in the oil sector for PIRA Energy
Group. 'They're producing less this year than last year. And the
outlook for the next year doesn't look so great.' . . . Production
continues to slide despite a massive U.S.-funded effort to stabilize
and boost output, repair critical parts of Iraq's oil infrastructure
and develop a long-term plan for the Iraqi oil industry. The U.S.
has spent $420 million fixing the oil network and allocated $1.7
billion to the sector."
Where do you
suppose the U.S. government got all that money it's pumping into
the ground in Iraq?
Okay,
boys and girls, here's where we stand. We got our mass murder, and
each day we get some more of it. So far, so good. But we sure as
hell didn't get it cheaply. It seems that after the invasion, U.S.
authorities changed the plan, having decided that the Iraqis should
pay in blood, instead of oil. The price of gasoline is now nearly
twice what it was before the war; the Iraqi oil industry, already
a shambles, continues to serve as an attractive target for saboteurs
and looters, and the future does not look bright for bringing the
industry up to snuff faster than the insurgents blow it apart.
Well, win some,
lose some, children. At least, the American invaders and, vicariously,
all their aficionados on the home front have had the pleasure of
killing and maiming tens of thousands of wholly innocent men, women,
and children. That's something.
June
12, 2006
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. His most recent book is Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. He is also
the author of Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Robert
Higgs Archives
|